Bridging Finance, Policy, and Technology: Catalyzing Climate Action to Overcome the Green Premium
So good afternoon. My name is Kevin. I'm a member of the Green Business Club at Columbia Business School. I'm honored to invite our keynote speakers for the next panel.
Ken Caldeira, senior scientist at Gates Ventures, and Professor Garnaut Wagner to the stage to, lead a discussion on bridging finance, policy and technology, catalyzing climate action to overcome the green premium. And I will now pass it on to you, folks, make sure you submit questions through the QR code throughout the session, and then we'll have a bit of time at the end for Q&A. All right.
So without further ado, let's give them a hand. thanks, Kevin. great to be here. and, I can tell you this is a continuation of a two day long conversation we've been having on lots and lots of different topics.
here we will zero in on the money, the capital, and, of course, senior advisor. Gates whisperer. to, to sort of the whole slew of.
Right, Bill gates climate focused efforts, I guess. Can you, can you tell us a bit of the history? Can we start with threats? So can you climate scientists stellar career as an academic, first at Carnegie Science and now still as a scientist, but basically within breakthrough energy, right. Pointing to what works, stamping out the nonsense, trying to guide somebody who we all know or I've heard of, who plays an enormous role in this climate energy world into the right direction. How did you end up with this job? In 2007, I got a phone call from the guy who led the development of Excel spreadsheets, Blumenthal. And he said, oh, that they want to start a series of learning sessions for Bill gates on climate science. And, so he asked me and David Keith, and then there was another Microsoft early employee that helped organize these. And,
and my sense was that Bill, up to that time had been focused on global health issues, vaccines development issues, and hadn't really addressed climate change as a, as a problem. And so he wanted to get informed about it. And so for the first year or so, we did a bunch of like four hour, compressed sort of graduates course. It compressed into four hours, kind of sessions.
And I think the first year we did four of those on climate change and then maybe to or early the next year. And then he was kind of like, okay, I get it. This is a real thing. And and he very quickly shifted his attention to solutions.
And, you know, how do we address this problem? And he very quickly came to the idea, well, that energy technologies are going to be key. And so then, that was out of the domain where I knew anything. And so, you know, he'd want to learn about batteries or he'd want to learn about cement, or you want to learn about hydrogen.
And so we'd say, well, who are the best three people in the world on cement? And then let's see if we can get them. And most people say, yes. And by the way, the only people who said no are economists.
Tom Schelling said no. And Nordhaus said no. But everybody else showed up.
But anyway, they, the, I don't know what they both do hold the Nobel Prize and. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, there's some standards there. So, so anyway, Bill, come to us if you want to. I think they might have done well. Have you come to me?
I had some office hours. Right? Right. Okay. Yeah. So. So, so anyway, but all economists. So. Yeah, quite that. All right, guys, so, so but anyway, that's it gives you an indication of the quality of people we were trying to bring in to meet with Bill. But so then I went through a parallel education because let's say we have three people on making hydrogen.
And so we'd have to develop a reading list and a syllabus. And Bill would typically read a few hundred pages of papers at a scientific technical stuff before, one of these sessions. And then in the session, my role was generally to be the kind of idiot. And so that because the expert would say something with all kinds. So the court jester. Yeah, yeah, that.
But the expert would say something with lots of jargon and I would sort of, kind of repeat it. Like what I understood was this. And I would say it again using ordinary English. And I said, did I get that right? And I think by me being the idiot, it saved Bill from being having to be an idiot, that the bill would be an idiot. But, but but, and then, you know, I guess after in 2000, they offered me a position to say, hey, why don't you come up here and do this? and so my role is to try to bring 2020, 2020. Yeah. So my role is to bring in good scientific information into the organization.
And, you know, you call me advisor, and I really don't give any advice because my assumption is that these are smart people. And Bill's especially smart and with good judgment. And if he's provided with good information, he can decide what to do. And, so you don't tell him what to think, you give him the fact.
Yeah, every once in a while, I would say, well, if it were me, I might consider doing this, but but I don't ever say you should do this. I would be afraid to do that. Okay. So what is what what what is Gate Ventures Gates Ventures doing? So Gates Ventures is Bill's personal office, and it acts like the umbrella organization that then then, you know, some money that goes to breakthrough energy or goes to the foundation flows out of Gates Ventures. So it's the umbrella sort of parent organization to a whole constellation of different companies and organizations that some are for profit, some are philanthropic. Yeah. And there's a whole yeah, there's a whole network.
And, you know, and even breakthrough energy itself is a few separate things. Things are complicated up there. So there's a for profit piece of it, Breakthrough Energy Ventures and then nonprofit Breakthrough Energy. And then there's also an advanced technology skunkworks called Orchid Sciences. And then he's got his nuclear power company and this and that. So there's a whole and I just try to support all of these okay.
So okay, so you have, you know, $40 billion spread over all these lots of different ventures. how do you think about allocating priorities? Yeah, that's sort of the, the obvious, right. There's, you know, nuclear fission. That's one. Right.
And, you know, skunkworks sort of orca that's the far off stuff. But I guess especially philanthropy on the one hand versus, you know, patient capital for profit. Yeah. Now, if you talk to your average economist, they'll tell you there's a market to be the stand in here, that there's a marginal return on investment in each, domain. And you, you, you want to invest across the entire portfolio such that you get the same return on the marginal dollar and all of that. The problem is, if you're doing clean energy R&D, you have no idea.
If I fund this research project, you know, what's the probability distribution of what level of success? and so doing some kind of formal portfolio analysis ends up being really tough. Wouldn't stop an economist to still open a spreadsheet. I don't know why, but so that's not what's happening. So I think there's a couple of things. One is, to there are some things that are super obviously underfunded.
For example. well, you know, I mean, you could people you can disagree. And, you know, I'm not going to necessarily defend the specific portfolio. But what Bill did is look at like, what kinds of things where was Arpa funding? and kind of said, well, I'm not going to fund that. And, you know, so then some of the things that weren't being funded are things like direct air capture or, you know, some of the hydrogen things aviation fuels, you know, that now have some more funding.
But but sort of the Inflation Reduction Act, there was very little it. Right. And so, and the other. Yeah. So, so I think the first thing was just what's obviously underfunded and put money into that. And then you can look at, you know, what's the scale of funding needed to make some real difference in that area.
The other thing is that there is some, just some decisions of scope that that, that, you know, the bill's picked out like five areas that we're going to work in. And, and even if something's good, if it's out of scope, it's just out of scope. And I think that's, you know, you can have the you, you know, because, I mean, it's especially Bill, you know, there's other issues, like you could fund vaccines or you could fund clean energy development.
And you know, the there malaria program, they estimate they don't. They work in quality adjusted life years in that life. So but they estimated, you know, that for every $800 invested they saved somebody's life.
And so you have to think, okay, well I'm doing clean energy investment. That's a tough metric, you know, to make sure that your $800 going into clean energy gives you that level of return. And and so Bill is super focused on return on investment. I think when you're not limited regarding scale, you know, the question is, you know, what is the return as a function of scale.
And then at what at what scale do I maximize return on investment? and can you give us some examples? and by the way, so don't be distracted by the camera behind me. just no pressure for the questions later. But whether or not this documentary wins an Emmy or not may or may not depend on the quality of questions asked. So, but, back to a set of examples. Right.
is there is that like a specific company that you would say that's the most exciting thing out there in that particular category? So, two things. One is I'm not involved in not to evaluation. And maybe now it's a good time to talk about what the structure of this home breakthrough energy is and how these kind of decisions get made, because I'm on the scientific input side of things, and I'll be evaluating whether the concepts that a company is proposing makes basic thermodynamic and chemical sense. But I'm not going to be evaluating the business model for the company or anything against other people. So, so breakthrough energy has different programs, and I should say that, you know, that, you know, the key thing that happens outside of breakthrough energy, that's idea generation, you know, and that can happen either within, you know, just individuals or within universities. But often they are, you know, some professor with their graduate students or graduate students has an idea for a company.
And, you know, so maybe they incorporate and there's some discussion making an earlier stage thing. But right now the earliest thing works more or less with the. So the canonical thing is a professor and the two graduate students form a company, but they don't know how to raise capital, they don't know how to, run businesses, really. They know how to study some chemistry or physics or something.
And so there's a program called the Fellows Program, and they'll, you know, typically for a year, maybe two years, give, you know, something like $1 million, $2 million just as grant money. So just philanthropic and and they pair the technical expert, you know, the person with the idea generation with with a business what they call a business fellow. So there'll be, you know, sort of the chief technical officer and the CEO kind of and, and, and they do a pretty good job on vetting. And so originally this was a two year program, but what was happening was that the VC community looked at the vetting of the fellows as a pretty good indicator of whether they're worth investing in. And so most of them were getting investment in the first year and didn't need the second year.
So and so that's a that's just the out of a five and one C3 breakthrough energy. So the next step is Breakthrough Energy Ventures. And that's a for profit. And and Eric Tune who was in leadership at RPI is leading that in terms of making investment decisions. And they're you know, they're getting pension funds and other things, you know, you know, VCs, but not trust folks to invest in these early stage companies. And the idea of this is to kind of take, you know, something that kind of left the fellows program and scale it up to something that can be commercially successful.
And, you know, there's been some, you know, initially I think there was some idea we just want to invest in crazy things. And, and spoke with Vinod Khosla once and he was complaining, you know, that that fund snapping and adventurous enough. And he says, if I want to make money, I can invest it in my own fund. I put money into breakthrough energy because I want to lose it. It's kind of what he said. But.
But the leadership of Breakthrough Energy says, no, that's not right, because we want to attract capital into clean energy development and commercialization. And so the way you attract capital is by showing that you can make money. And so, so, so Breakthrough Energy Ventures is a just a pure for profit, clean energy investment fund. Then on the other side of that, there's something called the Catalyst Program.
And that's again, a nonprofit. And this one like one example is Rondo Energy. They just handed them $75 million, a grant to a for profit commercial company. And the idea is, and we did a paper on this some years ago that, you know, if you think that things go down, learning curves or experience curves, there's some technology where if they go down their experience curve, they'll be able to compete in the marketplace. But today they're too expensive. And there's something called a learning subsidy that you need to subsidize the production of this thing until it can be cost competitive on its own.
And so Bill's been basically granting big chunks of money to for profit companies not taking any equity. I mean, one of these companies, he has some equity position and also but it's still he could have demanded stock for it but doesn't and just gives it as a gift. And and anyway so that's the third piece there. Okay. So actually that's sort of an interesting point. Right.
So the standard view is in many ways there are these far out technologies. That's what a research that are comes in sometimes study in R&D development. Very different from deployment. Very different from right R D and D. And there's a bunch of more these diffusion demonstrations are on.
but let's stick with the first couple. So research development deployment research and development are sort of the you know, new tech, green hydrogen fusion, far off technologies. Deployment is the stuff we know, the stuff that's actually possibly already cheap enough and ought to compete. But there's still some barriers here, and it takes a lot of money, presumably for the CapEx, for the initial investment.
And then you get out of the way. what you just described is all on the research and development side. Well, commercial, I think they would say we're on the commercialization side of things that, in fact, I would say that, that, you know, in some ways, breakthrough energy is a misnomer because the breakthrough usually comes before it has happened. Before that, and because they're about taking a company that just formed and helping scale it up and be commercially successful. And so there really isn't, it's I mean, there's there's no, like, research funding and there's no, you know, it's all about commercialization.
Yeah. So it's scale and speed. Yeah. To paraphrase the book title of a VC who gave the money to the wrong university, but, so okay.
But actually that's actually, that's, that's the point, right? So okay. John Dorr Kleiner Perkins, is the sort of VC firm that clearly would never give a grant, as far as I know. Right. To any, you know, entity, commercial or otherwise, Bill gates does, which does make this venture somewhat unique.
Right? So, yes, the breakthrough has happened, but the breakthrough might have happened in the lab. And now you give that prof and the grad students money to go out into the real world. that's a very early stage. Yeah.
By the way, John Doar kind of Perkins. They did a they were involved in energy, clean energy, funding, I don't know, about 15 years ago or something like this, sort of the first site. And, and they lost a lot of money, at it. And I had the privilege of sitting in a meeting with Bill Gates and John Doe really talking about lessons learned. And George was kind of saying, like, I'm never going to invest in this stuff again, kind of, and, and, you know, one of the things that they were saying or door was saying is that when they invest in something like Google, you know, you have a team of bright young people who are motivated to do all kinds of things.
And if they fail at what they're doing, they, you know, this bright young team can pivot and figure out some other idea. And so Google, they didn't know how they were going to monetize this in the beginning, but they had an idea for a search engine. And then we'll figure out how to make money later. And that was obviously super successful. But if you have to build a steel plant or a cement plant or something like this, this is huge infrastructure.
And, you know, a group of programmers who can give $1 million to. But if you want to build some pilot plant for something, you know, you might be talking 100 million or more, and then you have this piece of hardware that you can't pivot to do something else. And so and the other thing is that in the software industry, you know, once you make Microsoft Excel, you know, making another unit of Microsoft Excel costs almost nothing and you get all this revenue. but, you know, if you're trying to sell electrons and, on a wire where people already get it cheaply from natural gas, now you're you're trying you have a high capital cost.
You're competing into a mature market with low margins. you know, in this high marginal cost of each unit of production. And so it's just it's there's a big difference.
Technology growing into a void basically. Right. Versus, oh, there is steel out there. it's produced using coal.
It's causing more CO2 emissions than the 2 or 2 plus tons of CO2 for each ton of steel. but frankly, the consumer doesn't know the difference between the steel versus the green steel. And 20 years ago, you know, people thought, oh, maybe cap and trade was on the horizon or a carbon tax. And so there was a lot of interest in the fossil fuel companies and carbon capture and storage, because there was an expectation that these price drivers would be coming down the road, whereas now there's less confidence that there will ever be a disincentive or anytime soon be major, just incentives on CO2 emission. And so, you know, so that makes things tougher. One thing, what you really want to do, you know, so Bill has this concept of green premium and the green premium as he describes it, is the difference in cost between, technology that emits greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide and something that provides the same services without emitting the greenhouse gas, and so that that typically costs more, although not always.
And that additional cost is the green premium. And so if you don't have a price driver, you really want that green green premium to be zero or preferably even negative, so that the clean technology is cheaper than. So for solar PV, it's negative, right? Solar is cheaper than any other form of electricity generation. Yes. When you have there was a study, I think in 2015 by the, National Renewable Energy Lab, and there's been other studies since then that showed that if you just built a lot of wind and solar and, but still had our existing fossil fuel infrastructure in the background, that you could substitute the wind and solar energy for all of this natural gas and coal and spend less money and reduce emissions by 80%.
Win win win. Right. And so when, when solar and wind are used to replace or substitute for fossil fuels, then there's cost savings. And so we're already, you know, have a negative green premium there. And and so the challenge is now are the last 20% of the electricity sector when you can't rely on fossil fuels to provide reliability.
And then the other hard to decarbonize sectors like steel and cement and heavy duty transportation and, you know, air travel and shipping and agriculture and. Okay, so and Bill is invested, on the one hand in, well, actually in every one of these elements, right? Yeah. So last 20% of the electricity sector is nuclear potentially is batteries.
what else can possibly do this? Well, I mean, one is, you know, fossil fuels with carbon carbon capture and storage and direct air capture of the residual CO2 that comes out would be another one. And so it's that on the one hand. Right. And then, climeworks. on the other, direct air capture company. So Bill gates famously offsets his own emissions, spending about $1,200 per ton of CO2. Some crazy amount, some crazy number.
Okay, but but you know that, people were selling forest offsets for, like, $15, and he was spending 1200. Yeah, because he wanted something that was real. Yeah. and he can afford it, turns out. yeah.
But also, it turns out, and there's a 767 idling in his driveway, right? No, but it turns out that if you if you're in air line and your your plane is in the air 95% of the time, then fuel cost is dominant and it's a dominant, it's a major piece of the overall cost picture. If you're happened to be a billionaire, where you have a plane that sits on the tarmac and over 95% of the time that it turns out that fuel cost is like 10% of the overall cost. And so that doing it better than he is, that's better. Having a private jet is better. No, no.
What he's saying, well, I think what Bill wants, I shouldn't quote, but I think he thinks he thinks that everyone with the private plane should be offsetting. There should be fully offsetting the emissions because it's not it would add like 10% to the cost of their flying fare. Okay.
so, we have lots of questions, sort of on the policy, on the specifics and so on that we can get into. But actually, let me just see that I do like how many questions do we have from the audience, anything Emmy Award winning to ask. We can start. so yeah, why don't we do that? And I can always turn back to Kevin.
Go ahead. Ken, are there any areas or projects that you're particularly excited about? that Gates Ventures is looking at? and kind of related any opinion on nature based solutions as a general area? okay. That's a trigger word for me. The,
Yeah. the, yeah. Let me just say something about nature based, you know, to me. Look, this is. Yeah, to me, you know, physics and chemistry. Aluminum is nature.
You know, the, you know that to me. yeah. that, I mean, I think everything that works is nature based because it's based on physics and chemistry and thermodynamics, and that's what nature is. So that so let me help you out there. Like $15 and a forest carbon offset. Yes. No.
I prefer permanence myself, but, the. So better than nothing or worse than this. Nothing. Yeah. So, you know, I would say when.
Right? Yeah. To me, one of the reasons, you know, to me, one of the reasons to avoid climate change is to protect ecosystems. And so I think where ecosystem protection provides co-benefits in terms of climate and so on, that's all great. If you want to chop down a forest to to create some pine monoculture to feed some biomass plan, then I'm probably not so thrilled about it.
You're saying offsets lead us in this direction? Potentially, unless there is some safeguards? Yeah. I mean, this is there's a whole issue of this, ecosystem services idea and that you know, and where the ecosystem services say to preserve the ecosystem and it's fine. But you could also come up with the result that you should liquidate the ecosystem because you could get more wood value than the services. And and so I put a higher value, I mean, just value natural ecosystems more than the average person than carbon four than the market. So yeah, I yeah. But then the market is for carbon forests offsets would be willing to pay for it.
Right. Can't we take a could take Kevin. well we'll do Monterey first.
so on the flip side to that, are there any particular areas that you are really excited about that, Gates Ventures, that, you know, have a focus on. Yeah. So, I mean, there, Yeah, I guess I, I tend to like the oddball things that probably aren't going to work, just because they're more fun to think about. But, I mean, one project that we're that I'm more heavily involved in. yeah.
I mean, basically, first of all, let me just start off by saying I'm just, like, in favor of anything that works and I don't really care. I'm not so much of a Partizan of for this technology or against that technology. If you can get something to work and be cheap, I'm happy. Work meaning? Yeah. That said, it produces it provides it services and it doesn't have harmful environmental consequences.
And it's cheap. Then I'm happy with it. So I don't really pick favorites too much.
The one project I'm working on now that that Breakthrough Energy's created a unit for us. shell changing aircraft, flight patterns to avoid the formation of contrail induced cirrus clouds. And, you know, the EPA estimates that, social cost of carbon is around $190 a ton CO2. It's thought for like 1 to $2 per ton CO2 equivalent.
You could get, you know, an equivalent amount of cooling just by shifting air flights a little bit, you know, so that's one project. I mean, we're looking at this various things like borehole or underground thermal energy storage or just like, you know, resistivity heating the solid earth and or, you know, to store electricity. But there's a bunch of things, but none of which may or may not be commercial.
I don't I'm really not a fan of different things. Got it. And then, you know, as we think about the efficiency side of the equation. Right. And so things that maybe aren't on the bleeding edge of technology, how does Gates Ventures and yourself think about that? any, any areas in particular? What do you think about boring technology? Yeah.
I don't know, but, you know, efficiency. yeah. Right. I mean, efficiency says an important, piece. I mean, if you can do the same. I mean, one of the reasons electric cars are nicer than gasoline powered cars is more of the energy goes into, you know, providing the service directly instead of just heating the environment.
And, you know, and obviously the LEDs and all these other, efficiency improvements, help reduce emissions. But of course, efficiency can never get us to zero emissions. And so I think efficiency improvements are essential, but not sufficient necessarily. But not sufficient.
Yeah. I, I think another area in climate investment that maybe there's a little bit of opaqueness in is deal structure, deal valuation, kind of the amount of investment that goes in. And how does, Gates Ventures think about the information sharing and, you know, like market signaling in that environment? through the, the projects you're all involved in. Yeah, I'm probably not the person to speak to this one. Yeah. It's the the investment side is really through Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
And that would be a different team. more on the science of value. And there's sort of the, you know, there's the name effect, right.
There is. Oh, Bill invests in. Yeah, electro. And, you know, the headline actually says Bill gates Funded startups does. Yeah. I mean, they're
I mean, first of all, they have pretty good vetting, but at different, you know, each of these three things that I said, the fellows, the Ventures and catalyst, there's some pretty serious vetting going on at each of these stages. And so there are a bunch of investors that can Breakthrough Energy Ventures invest in something. They'll follow along and just assume that they can trust the vetting that Breakthrough Energy Ventures. And that's usually, but not always a good assumption. Yeah. you talked about this a little bit earlier, but, you know, in some of the dynamics working with Bill gates, but what is, you know, when you disagree on a course of action, maybe how does those conversations go? Or, what's that relationship like, disagree than what he wants happen.
Sure, sure. Yeah. No, I mean, I really my role is information provision. told him where he was wrong at some point and he has changed his, Yeah. Yes. Yeah. No, I see one of my key roles, actually, is to try to bring information that, conflicts with his priors. I mean, one example is, you know, he very reasonably favors, energy systems that have high spatial density or energy density, and, you know, which leads him to like, things like nuclear power and so on.
And he was somewhat initially dismissive of wind and solar. And we brought in people from National Renewable Energy Lab to describe their study about, you know, how you could get 80% emissions reduction in the electricity sector at zero cost. And then also Chris Clark, did a similar study, and we brought in that. And once Bill saw, you know, this modeling work that showed that as long as you have the fossil fuel back up to provide system reliability, that there was all this cost saving through fuel substitution, that then he, you know, became, you know, positive, you know, changed his mind about wind and solar and became positive about it.
And so that, yeah. So I think he's very, information driven and is ready to shed his priors in the face of new information. Got it. how have you all thought about, you know, geographic split in terms of, you know, are there areas of the world where he feels like there needs to be more investment? How does Gates Ventures think about its role there? Yeah.
So again, I can't speak on behalf of Bill, but my general impression is that the thought is that the rich countries, are where the, technology development needs to happen, that you that, That, you know, that the technologies can be created here and costs driven down. And then when, you know, as the global south becomes wealthier and the technologies become cheaper, that then they could be adopted later there, but that, you know, for people who's primary thread is, you know, things like food, shelter, jobs, you know, to expect climate change to be at the top of their agenda a little unrealistic, but just probe a little bit. So, sure. I mean, sure, the the original invention might have happened here in our national labs. China is the one that has climbed the learning curve, slid down the cost curve, and frankly, subsidized the development and the learning by doing.
Right. So in many ways, it's but the their electric cars, they're the solar panels and so on. So in some sense right. It goes the other way. Yeah.
Well, I think, you know, if you divide the world, the people of the world into five groups, you know, the this, China has about 20% of the people, and they're in that, you know, that 60 to 80 percentile in terms of richest people in the world, India also has about 20% of the people in the world, and they're in this sort of 20 to 40. So there's 20% of the countries have a per capita GDP above China's 20% between China and India, 20% below India. And, you know, and so I think, you know, most of Bill's global South kind of work is focused on that 20% that's below India. But of course, many people in India are in that category also. and I forget where the question was going, but the. Yeah, but so I think, I think the idea that obviously China is maybe, you know, one of the places where technologies are being developed and improved, but I think they're still in the top half of the world in terms of per capita GDP.
Probably time for one more question. But, you know, as you think about where innovation is being driven, you know, do you feel that comes from, you know, places that are, government supported, research institutions, private industry or what's your view on that? So, you know, I think a key actually wanted to talk from Bill gates, his father, and he was saying, look, my son, wouldn't have become a billionaire unless, you know, there were roads and highways and a rule of law and schools and things, you know, that that that, you know, one thing I'm fearful of right now is, you know, we just need the rule of law, and we need good educational system because I think the the ideas come out of people who have an education. And then the ability to commercialize these ideas depend on, you know, working in an economic system and a legal system that protects companies. And I have a friend who created a company in Moscow.
And when it gets to a certain size, you know, some somebody comes and threatens to break your legs unless you give it or worse, unless you give them half the company. And if you're trying to create a business in that environment, it's not very good. And so, you know, I think the just having the basic rule for a legal system, good education is key. And I would say not all of the good ideas come out of universities, but they almost all come out of people who have a good education because you need some physics or chemistry or some kind of ability to think and and communicate. And so, you know, I think the seed corn for innovation is, is just, yeah, rule of law, this civil infrastructure and education.
Awesome. Well, thank you so much. let's give a round of applause to Professor Wagner and Ken.
2024-11-25 20:46
