climate change still featured in this treaty because if, for example, there is less snow melt or less snow accumulation because of a changing climate that has serious impacts on, you know, U.S. hydroelectric power generation and the economy of the Pacific Northwest, I think 40% of Washington electricity is hydroelectric. So if there's less water, there's less power, and that's quite devastating to the Northwest economy. So to that extent, I think it's sort of the impacts, the potential impacts of climate change on this treaty had already been taken into consideration, whether under the current administration that might be expanded to include sort of more comprehensive environmental values, it seems possible. I also think that this treaty is not a major foreign policy priority for either government. So it's kind of skated under the radar a little bit. And during like some of the, there were 10 rounds of negotiations and then it kind of was put on hold during the changing government. So I think whether it will be picked up with sort of more focus on environmental concerns, I think remains to be seen. Actually, both the questions came from my experience as a government officer, because in our case, in the US or in most of the developed countries generally what I see that although the governments change but the national policies and the national goals more or less remain same very minor changes unless like some drastic measures they can but in this the world, government changes