the scope of the treaty should be expanded to include all of these ecosystem, not all of these ecosystem services, but certain ecosystem services relating to salmon fisheries and climate change. And I think figuring out, I think the biggest challenge for the government is figuring out, to what extent are we going to transform this treaty that has basically worked for 60 years and sort of brought in the scope of these negotiations, which I think it's just sort of a slippery slope. And is this treaty as, you know, even the right vehicle for having those conversations about trend boundary environmental concerns. I don't know. I'm not sure I actually have an answer to that one. Yeah, I think that's the biggest challenge. I'm also thinking something that since the climate changes in the climate changes very much in the issue. So, help me understand this because I'm not that much familiar with the US government system. So I was thinking that, for example, the last government of the US, as far my understanding goes, not really very supportive of the measures to be taken about the climate change and everything. And I know that like in the US, there is a spoiler system. Like, once the government changes, almost a major portion of the administration changes. So with this shift of administration, do you think like that will have significant effect on making the future decisions on this treaty? And if yes, then how that might end up? Yeah, I think I would venture yes. I think that even under the Trump administration