The Final Countdown: Biden's Last Push Before Glasgow

to map a path forward. Now the tide that binds well, there's a lot of clean energy and climate related legislation in the US Infrastructure Bill. Whether and what passes this week and will impact a position from which the U s can approach the global climate negotiations as a leader or well not. From BENEF We've got Ethan Zindler, head of America's and Vicky Comming, head of Global Policy, on the show to tell us about what's going on, what to watch for, and their predictions of what they think

will happen. This episode is based on our ongoing coverage of US and global policy being if. Users can find this content on BENEF dot com, BENEF Mobile and of course on the terminal and for everyone listening, will also be doing a public blog these next two weeks that will follow along with the eatings and provide commentary. You can find that at bloomberg dot com Forward Slash Professional, Forward Slash Blog. As always be desprovide investment or strategy

device and you guessed it. The full disclaimer at the end of the show him Mark Taylor here with Dana Perkins, and you're listening to switch on the BENF podcast. Ethan, Vicky, welcome, Thank you. Okay, so we're gonna kind of do this in two parts today talk about the US infrastructure bills, what's going on there, and then tie that into what's going on in COP twenty six. But let's start off really basic, as we always do, and just talk about

the infrastructure bills. So, Ethan, you and I were talking before and I said, generally, you know the Infratructure bill, and you said, actually, it's a bit more complex than just that. I think out in the in the wide world, we call it that, but I think there's a bit more to it. Can you explain kind of the differences you're mentioning a bit ago. Yeah, So there are two major pieces of legislation before Congress right now, neither of

which have gotten final passage. One is the Infrastructure bill that passed the Senate that has not passed the House. The other is a so called reconciliation bill, and that

one has not passed either chamber so far. And basically, if you put the two together, you're talking about several trillion dollars potentially worth of support for US infrastructure in the most literal sense, roads and bridges and clean energy, but also a lot of social programs that are potentially in both bills, which one has the things that benf would write most about. Actually both both have a lot.

The infrastructure bill that passed the Senate has some real support for electric vehicles and charging, but the Reconciliation bill, the larger and arguably good deal more controversial. One has long term extensions for tax credits for wind and solar included. It has tax credits for electric via goals included. It also has a potential something akin to a national clean Energy standard included in it. But all of that was what was in the original legislation a couple of months

ago written by the House. It is being whittled down as we speak, and a slimmer version of that bill is ultimately what we'll get past if it gets past. Oh, okay, slimmer version, if it gets past, before we get into the mechanics of, you know, whether or not it will pass all that stuff. Can you just describe to us just maybe a couple of the programs that you're excited about or interested in in either of the one of these.

The legislation contains a lot of things, but most importantly, I would argue for the wind and solar sector, it contains long term tenuere extensions of tax credits, and those tax credits have historically really been the most important subsidy in the United States to support growth of clean energy. So that's probably number one on the list. Number two on the list is a National Clean Energy Program that is aimed at essentially being a national renewable energy standard.

That part of the bill almost certainly looks like it's not going to make the final cut at this point. The bill also has support for carbon capture and storage technology in the form of tax credits, for electric vehicles in the form of tax credits. It's got a lot of different goodies for a lot of different subsectors within the clean energy world. You mentioned that it's now slimmer, and I think my question before you get into any

more specifics on that, is slimmer a bad thing? Because when I hear slimmer, I hear the opposite of throwing in irrelevant things, you know, which sometimes do get thrown into bills, which maybe are just kind of making their way along as a part of the bartering process in order to get something past. But something that slimmer in theory could be a starting point, maybe not the final endgame,

but a starting point for a bigger conversation. Is that the case or is a slimmer version something that really kills any hope for anything that is wider and maybe, as we've discussed COP twenty six more internationally relevant. When I say slimmer, primarily what I'm talking about is reducing some of the social program benefits that were in the original bill. But also, most importantly, as far as the clean energy sector is concerned, grapping this potential national clean

Energy standard program. There's been plenty of debate, I would say, within the US clean energy policy community about whether that's a big deal. My personal view is it's not as big a deal as people are making it out to be given that the tax credits have always historically done what have boosted build of renewables, So you know, that's probably what the slimming means as far as clean energy is concerned. So it sounds like the slimming is kind

of keeping the carrot getting rid of the stick. But they also sound like really familiar kind of old tunes. We've heard of the tax credit before for the wind and solar. We've heard of the carbon capture and stories tax credit as well. What is that forty Q right? We've heard of tax and centers for buying electric vehicles. Guess my interest is is there anything for say, EV

charging electric vehicle charging? I saw an announcement this morning from what was it Hurts that said they're going to buy a hundred thousand testla's Like it sounds to me like an e V charging infrastructure could help things like that and others. Is there any new programs in there? Yes, there is, Actually there's a tax credit potentially for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. I actually believe that's in the Infrastructure bill, the one that passed the Senate already. There is a

so called manufacturers tax credit. It would give you basically a thirty capex discount on building a new manufacturing facility. And this is explicitly and specifically aimed at trying to grow the US supply chain for strategic things like batteries and battery materials and other things like that. Sounds timely, Yeah, up and down the up and down the value chain down to consumers, but also up to manufacturing and production.

There's a lot of important stuff in the bill. One other note I would just say about, you know, as you're here, I'm hearing you and me saying tax credit tax ra tax credit. Tax credits have become essentially by default, the system by which we support all kinds of things in the US, all kinds of social programs, everything, and tax credits, I mean to be clear, as a policy mechanism are terrible. They are inexact, They can be complicated

to take advantage of. You don't really know how much you're going to get out of them unless you put some kind of cap on them. And the only one that's ever been capped has been around electric vehicles, at least within the clean energy sector. So they're very inexact, and it's very hard to know when they're not exactly needed, and this is why policy people really like things like clean energy standards, and they really like carbon prices and

carbon markets. The reality of it is, tax credits politically have worked in the US in the past. They look like politically they might work again this time, and so that's probably what we're gonna end up with. It's gonna say tax credits sound very American, Well, yeah, I was gonna say that. I think it's one of the few places in the world where tax credits have played a big role in the clean energy deployment, and the rest of the world it's been historically more of a story

of feeding tariffs and auctions, at least for renewables. Lastly, i'll say tax credits is they actually they suck as a policy mechan maybe one. They are only used in the US. They're really they're just dumb. But they are are dumb thing, and they are what we're used to over here. They have the potential, let's be clear, to potentially over subsidize things because they're not calibrated in any

kind of way. But they work and they are a lot simpler, frankly than a national clean energy program, which is what's being proposed you know, to come along with this, and if you had to pick one or the other, I think most people in the industry would say, we will take a long term extension of the tax credits over a new bureaucracy that mandates certain amounts of clean energy consumption. Yeah, I mean, Vicky, what's your opinion on

the flip side of that. So Ethan is not a big fan of tax credits, is it working that much better in the rest of the world, Well, ensure, I would say yes, Okay, I would certainly say that renewables auctions have proved particularly successful at deploying large volumes of would say wind and solar at costs that kind of more accurately reflect the underlying technology costs. So we've seen auction tariffs have tended to go down with but they

don't always. For example, if there's like an delay on permitting or some kind of really heavy a local content requirements, then they might not necessarily go down, but certainly they do help the government also kind of keeper a tighter rein on their outlay in terms of expenditure as well,

certainly compared with beaming tariffs. I was just going to say that the text credits are an ugly beast, but they are our beast, and they're the beasts that everybody knows, and that's why ultimately they seem to be politically possible.

And the last thing, without getting too much into the politics, is that the reason why I think, and we'll see how this plays out, but I think that they'll get through is because the most important person in all these discussion, Senator Joe Mansion, who represents the state of West Virginia, seems to be open to policies that support renewable energy that's tax credits, but opposed to policies that presumably would you know, explicitly limit the role that coal and fossil

fuels play, never mind the sort of inconsistent thinking around that logic. But policies that appear to be, you know, specifically hurting fossils he doesn't like. But policies that go to support renewable specifically he's been open to. And I think that's why this will probably make it through. Can you explain to everybody listening, who is not a U S policy buff, why Joe Mansion is significant and what

he represents in this discussion. So people have jokingly referred to him as Prime Minister Mansion or co President Mansion. The issue is that the Democrats have fifty elected members of the United States Senate and the only reason effectively they have a so called majority is because they can cast the fifty first vote with the sitting Vice President Kamala Harris. That means that every single Democrat must vote for any piece of legislation to get through the Senate.

And Joe Manchin is pretty much the most conservative member of the Democratic Caucus, along with one other Senator, Kirsten Cinema from Arizona, but he's probably a slightly more hope high profile. But the bottom line is you actually need to get all fifty senators on board. It's just that he's been the most challenging because a big chunk of the rest of the caucus is considerably to the left

of him. Can I ask this might be a dumb question, but apart from not wanting any democratic legislation through, what do Republicans oppose in these bills? Is there anything policy oriented that they actual the opposed or is it strictly political Because you have Joe Manson, you have Cinema, but you have fifty other people that could vote for this.

It's a great question. I mean, the first thing to note is in fairness to Republicans, the infrastructure bill, which is the first bill passed I think with six votes through the Senate, like a lot of Republicans got on board to support that, it had bipartisan support. That bill is pretty narrowly focused on Rhodes bridges. It has some e V support, but it's kind of a pretty conventional

infrastructure bill. Republicans make the argument that the other bill goes way beyond the bounds of what the definition of infrastructure should be to focus on social policy. They also seem to have found religion on the question of caring

about the deficit and debt. And again, uh yeah, I say that ironically or sarcastically, because it does seem like whichever party controls the reins is usually typically willing to spend a lot of money and and deficits have run up a big time under Republican presidents and Republican congresses in the past. So I think, you know, now suddenly they're finding a certain amount trying to find some fiscal discipline, and that's the argument that's being made to oppose this

bill as well. Can you discuss the longevity of these bills, because I think as we get into this conversation around copy and we're looking ahead, not just to that magical year that we're all kind of very much looking forward to when we're making policy decisions. A lot of discussion around the US over the last few years has been around executive orders and how easy they are to rip out. So now we're at a place where there are things going through the Senate, going through the House. How long

will these bills in theory be applicable. That's a really good question. So there's the term of the bills, you know, in terms of the length of the legislation that have different programs. Many of the key programs are looking at a tenure horizon in terms of how long they would be on the books. So that's what the legislation says. But as you rightly point out, there's the politics here.

So the reality of it is that if the Democrats lose one or both chambers of Congress in two bye, a Republican Congress could try to undo this through other legislative action. The good news, I guess for those who support this bill is that Biden will still be president through the end of four into the very start, So basically you would not be able to undo anything that this Congress passes any earlier then, and even in that circumstance, you would have to have basically a Republican president and

probably Republican control of the House and the Senate. But all this speaks to why Democrats are so anxious to get getting something done now, because this really may be the last chance to try and pass something like this.

The elections next year do not look good for Democrats at the moment, You've got a full moon now, basically a Democratic president, two chambers of Congress controlled by Democrats, and they feel like this is the moment that they've got to move And I would agree with that because I think you don't know what's going to happen in the future, and especially as we think about climate there really is no time to waste when it comes to dealing with these issues. Okay, so let's let's talk about

what we think is going to happen. Here. There's a deadline on all this, right, it's it's coming up. Yeah, the end of the month October thirty one has been said as the informal deadline by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she says that she will bring both bills up for a vote on the floor of the House. That also, not coincidentally, happens to be really the eve of when the cop climate talks kick off in Glasgow. I maybe off by a day, I think

you can correct me, but that's basically exactly that moment. Yeah, the official opening ceremony, Yes, the thirty first of October. I mean, with the time difference, it might even be pretty like you're within minutes. So it's not coincidental. And you know, the administration, I think that by an administration is keenly aware of that. Privately last week, Biden said to a bunch of members of Congress basically said, look, if you don't pass this bill, I'm showing up to Glasgow,

you know, pretty empty handed. That's what he said privately. Then publicly the White House was like, no, no, no, no, We've actually all got all this other great stuff that we've done. We've written these regulations or whatever. But like that is uh. As I've said to Vicky in the past, that's like put lipstick on a pig. They've done some great stuff. There's no question about that. And writing regulations.

But you cannot show up a cop and honestly say that the US has on its books any kind of long term commitment to really address these issues unless Congress passes something. So the pressure is really there. Now. Will they do something by the end of this week? I think so, But gosh, it's really really hard to predict. Over the weekend. Nancy Pelosi said basically, oh yeah, well, we've almost got a deal, and then this morning it

doesn't look so great to me. The person that I think is that is most perplexing and worrisome to everybody is Senator Christian Cinema from Arizona, who, while Mansion has been out there and I think we kind of know what it is he wants and doesn't like, she's totally

enigma to most people at this point. She seems to like clean energy tax credits, that's what the reporting has been, but she also really seems to like to be a gadfly, and I have this fear that she's going to blow the whole thing up at the end of the day. But all things being even, I think they will get something done by the end of this weekend. One last factor, which people don't talk about is Halloween is on October thirty one, and I'm telling you that is like a

sacred holiday here in the United States. That's when every kid goes out and goes trick or treating. Washington Bureau of Bloomberg by like three thirty PM is usually pretty quiet. All the parents have run home to like get the kids set up. No parent in Congress is gonna want to be fiddling with this on October thirty one. I think that that is the sort of that's the sleeper pressure here to get this done. That it's also Sunday

ethan y, so even more you know incentive. So full moon, Halloween, Yeah, coming call, coming together, cop, It's all coming together. Wait, so hang on. The infrastructure bill has already passed the Senate and the House, right, and it has not passed the House. Okay, so so we're likely to get at least one of two. Is that right? No? I mean, that's the issue here is that basically the votes are there to pass the infrastructure bill basically more or less

on its own. But liberals in the House are saying, hey, wait a second, We're not voting for this bill unless we get to also vote on this reconciliation bill and we also get to actually pass it. They're saying we're not We're not in on your infrastructure bill unless you're in on this reconciliation bill. And they make the argument that if you don't do both at once, that you'll never come back on the issues that are raised in

the reconciliation bill. And I think they raise a fair point because I think Joe Manchin doesn't necessarily really want to come back on any of that stuff. He's pushing to just pass the infrastructure bill on its own and be done with it. But Liberals are saying, we're not coming along unless you give us something in return, which is the reckon Cliation Bill. Ethan a quick walk down

memory lane before we segue over to cop. One of my earliest memories in any f when when we were a startup, before we were part of Bloomberg, was sitting in our office where Ethan nat Buller and I shared shared in office and we shared a YouTube video in two thousand nine of Joe Manson shooting the Cap and Trade bill with a gun signifying his u his stance

on the whole issue. Remember that I do remember he ran for re election by making an advertisement in which he took the waxman marquee Bill, pinned it to a tree and shot it with a rifle. Yeah, and it worked. He got re elected. Mansion knows his constituency. I mean, it's a conservative part of the country, and the history and heritage of West Virginia is coal mining, and it's one of the poorer states in the country. And coal mining has been hit badly in the US. But you know,

I still don't think that necessarily justifies his position. But let's remember these members of Congress represent individual parts of the United States, and this is why he is who he is in terms of his position sometimes. Okay, So this weekend, it all, it all kind of comes down to it. We're gonna take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to talk about the impacts of the US giving the A or NAY and what it means for the climate talks in Glasgow. Stay with us, Okay,

welcome back. We're going to change gears just a little bit and talk about the global stage upcoming starting on oct one and running to what November is the COP twenty six negotiations in Glasgow, Scotland. So for the uninitiated. I'm sure you've heard about it on the news, but Vicky, can you start us off and just tell us what this is? What are these negotiations? COPPS sounds for Conference of the Party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

So all of the governments that signed up to the U n F Triple C will come to Glasgow to discuss how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. And it's usually an annual phone but this is actually we had a gap because of COVID nineteen last year, so it's actually been two years since the last one and this year it's hosted by the UK. And there seems to be a lot of pressure on this one. Is it that because of the two year

hiatus or is there something special about this one? Certainly kind of it's been heightened the expectations, I think because we've had this two year break. But it's also important because it's the first occasion where the first official occasion when countries can discuss their climate plans out to twenty thirties, so those are called nationally determined contributions or n d c s, and it marks the start of this process whereby first of all, governments say what they're willing to

do and how they plan to adapt climate change. Then in three years time we have what's called the global stock take. So it's essentially an assessment where you take all of those plans together and see what impact would be in terms of mitigating climate change. Within the view is that the next step is the governments don't go away and revise their plans and in theory increase the

ambition of their targets and pledge. I mean, I think it's safe to say that among these cup meetings which now we're on the one, certain ones really stand out. So this is a continuation of Paris, And if you rewind the clock really far, Kyoto is another one that really stands out as a meeting where there was a reasonable amount of crystallization, let's say, of thought. There are others that Alsko us to know for other reasons, is

not doing that. So Copenhagen, I think, is the one that many of us think of already say well, that meeting maybe didn't quite do what we set out to do. Now making one of the things you've done is a preparation for this meeting is to have a think as to whether or not you think this will be one of those meetings where we continue to say Glasgow for years to come in a positive light or maybe sortly lackluster light. So there are some probabilities that you associated

with this outcome. Now, should we lead with the headline, Should we lead with what you think the overall probability is, or do you want to break down the different areas that perhaps you looked at when trying to decide if this is going to be a success or relative failure. Well, maybe we'll take the pyramid principle and start with so the flagship like our overall expectation, and then we'll explain what we actually I mean by that is that there's

a saycent chance that will be a success. And by success in this case, because there's lots of different definitions, that means that it makes meaningful progress towards actually achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. So I'm sure you're called the Paris Agreement agreed to limit global warming to two degrees and to try to make that limit to

one point five degrees. And the way that we've came to this fourth empersent is that we broke it down into Okay, so where do we actually expect countries to make progress? What are the sort of fifty metrics? For example, do we expect all of these NDC targets, of these twenty thirty emission targets to collectively put the planet on the path to the one point five degrees? Do we expect parties to make some kind of pledge about coal power? Do we expect developed countries to meet the target pledge

a hundred billion dollars per year in climate finance? And we looked at what we thought the probabilities for each of those fifty metrics and then totted them all up, and that's how we came to our overall estimate. I got a definitional question for you. And as we get into the discussion around what they're actually going to discuss at the event, there's a lot of conversation around carbon emissions, and then also discussions around methane, which I think hasn't

gotten quite the same amount of play. But let's start on the carbon emissions side of things. Can you explain what net zero means? Because it's important to differentiate that net zero is different than absolute zero, and as countries are creating commitments or at least talking about potentially maybe Sunday making commitments towards net zero. Can you give us a definition there? So, and maybe first of all, just

to explain where that net zero number comes from. So that inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change produced a special report in looked at where emissions need to be in order to achieve these one point five or two degrees targets, and they said that in order to get to ensure that global warming doesn't exceed one point five degrees by the end of the century, by the middle of the century, then the world needs to be at net zero emissions. And that means that for greenhouse gas emissions, so not

just carbon, not just media. And it means it takes into account it doesn't mean that all countries that need to have no emissions. It takes into account what we call carbon sinks. So these are things like forests or land that are able to absorb or sequester and then store carbon or emissions. Does that explain Yes, I think it does. So there's a emissions out versus emissions that are able to be absorbed, at least on the carbon side of things. And just to talk a little bit

about that, I p those IPCC scenarios. Of the five scenarios they've come up with, only one of them actually results with US meeting at one point five degree scenario. All of the other four are above, So this is definitely something that we need to be critically thinking about regarding tipping points. Now, does this apply regarding this concept of net zero to this applied a methane or is

there a different dialogue around methane emissions. Methane emissions are the topic of that has really kind of suddenly emerged,

i'd say, in the last few months. Where previously everybody was focusing on greenhouse gas emissions on carbon they then have been looking at what they can do to tackle methane emissions, and most recently there's the European Union and the US and various other countries have made this what they've called a Global Methane Pledge, which is to cut global methane emissions by at least thirty from levels by twenty and at the moment, by our analysis, about a

quarter of the world's methane emissions are covered by that pledge. So if they really want to achieve that target, they will need a big methane emitter like China and Russia and India to really sign on. Well. I mean, I think the main thing I'm nothing to point doubt or methane as the case maybe, is that it stays in the atmosphere for only ten years, whereas CEO two stays in years. But it's eighty times more potent. So that's

why it's become a bigger conversation recent intern years. It's also become a bigger conversation because the US has chosen it as a topic and it's one where they can make progress, so it makes them look better. I would also argue it's one where progress can probably be achieved more easily than on CEO two. I mean, you can plug wells does financially make more sense for companies not to be flaring and wasting extra gas up into the atmosphere. This is a problem that is arguably much more solvable

than the CEO two problem. But it's also much smaller problem. True, But as you know, this is all going to be about making some headlines, right, So nothing or mething however you want to say. It feels like it's one that I suspect we'll we'll probably see some positive news out of a fair amount of sort of victory lapping on out of COP. But you know better than I do. Speaking of headlines, though, let le's pivot slightly towards what

to watch for. So VI you mentioned Dame, you mentioned the probabilities of success in each of the key areas. But if I'm you know, listening on the radio, I mean I even heard the cup mentioned on the BBC this morning. If I'm listening on the radio and they mentioned something coming out of Glasgow or not, what should I be listening for. Is a pledge on methane good enough? Or is there something else that I should listen for

to know if this thing has been a success. I think in some respects it's the very fact that they're having a COP is important to note. So one of the main benefits of this process is that it brings governments together, whether virtually or in person, where they can kind of eye each other up to see what what have you committed to and what have you actually achieved. So the Paris Agreement it doesn't impose binding a mission

targets or any targets on the signatories. It's really this kind of system of pay a pressure of who wants to be the climate leader and who wants to keep up with their peers, and that's that's really important. I think we would be looking for concrete commitments in terms of finance. So I mentioned earlier the hundred billion dollars a year target. It's very very small fry in terms of the actual amounts of finance, but it was committed to by developed countries to provide this financing by twenty

for developing countries. So it's really important to the kind of political process, the diplomatic process, and building trust between the developed and developing countries, and to persuade developing countries to take on much more ambitious and climate targets, which is will be necessary if we want to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. I would just add that

a hundred billion in the grand scheme of things. The other way to look at it is it's a really small price to pay to get developing countries to feel that there is a fall through taking place. And to be clear, some number of their pledges are directly contingent on getting support from wealthier countries. They literally say we're not following through unless we get this help. So symbolically it's really important. But literally it's really important, and it's

in the grand scheme of things. As Vicki points out, it's really not that much money given the size of the of the amount of money that needs to go into the sector to solve the problems. Are their countries not showing up that are part of these contingencies? It depends if we if we mean they're physically showing up. There's certainly been headlines recently about the China g and Russia's putin are reportedly not coming. But I don't think they should be taken those kind of an unsms. Should

we take where the pinch the saw. Really it's not immediately linked between whether the political leader is present in Glasgow. We've how much the country is willing to commit to. So actually she hasn't left China since the start of the COVID nineteen pandemic. They take a really conservative approach to travel, and yet we've still seen since then that absolutely China's committed to combon neutrality and is making progress

on some of the more concrete policies. Even though it's true it's like headline emissions target is really not that ambitious. I would just completely editorializes here and say that it does seem like she likes to upstage Biden whenever he gets the chance. And also I suspect they'll be a quote quote surprise out of China. Who knows what will be. Maybe it's that he shows up. Maybe they make some announcement on domestic coal, which to my mind is one

of the biggest outstanding issues. China has a huge call fleet. They made a pledge to stop financing overseas coal and that was very well received, I think generally, but it did not address the fact that they have this massive call fleet and they, by the way, have another couple hundred gigawats of coal fired power plants that they have under development there over the next you know, five ten years.

So some announcement around that I think would make headlines and justifiably so if and if they did it, Yeah, that would be absolutely enormous because China accounts for a huge chunk of actually what's planned for COPRA, and it would also put pressure on India and in Indonesia and other countries in the region to follow suit. It would effectively spell the very end of any further coal project

development in the world. If they did that. We're almost there outside of China and India basically because nobody's funding coal other places, including China, but inside their borders is a different story right now. So this all sounds to me like we're going to need to do a post game. How about we have you guys back to get into what happened in the US and in COP in a couple of weeks and we'll take into some of the

details as well. We didn't get to a lot of things, whether there's going to be a global carbon price, what the chances are there we can talk about what happened, So free to come back in a couple of weeks. Yeah, but hey, can I before we go, can I plug some some other cool stuff? First of all, Vicki's note is fantastic, which were just about it's Monday, this will be app which will be out by the time this podcast,

so so definitely be enough clients check that out. And then the second thing is that we're going to attempt to blog through the entire cop and write something hopefully every day but probably at least every other day, and please keep an eye out for that because Vicky's got a lot of great more stuff to say, and we'll get input from our colleagues in the Asia Pacific region where so much of the important potential commitments could come from out of cop So where should people go to

find this blog? Blo dot com. Okay, Ethan Vicky, thanks for coming. Thank you. Today's episode of Switched On was edited by Rex Warner with Gray Stoak Media. Bloomberghinia is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed, as investment advice, investment recommendations, or a recommendation as to

an investment or other strategy. Bloomberguinia should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any liability as a result of this recording is expressly disclised.