Economic Modeling for Forecasting

Why Economists Are Missing the Real Cost of Climate Change (And What It Means for Your Future) Picture this: Your doctor tells you you have a 5% chance of a heart attack. Another looks you in the eye and says, “You won’t survive 5 years.” Who would you trust? This isn’t medical advice; it’s the gap between economists and climate scientists today. Most economic models treat climate change like a slow leak in a tire: “3°C warming = 3% GDP loss by 2100. Manageable.” Scientists see a grenade with the pin pulled. ● At 1.5°C: Crops fail. Storms intensify. ● At 3°C: Food systems collapse. ● At 5°C: Survival is uncertain. Yet economists keep calculating “0.05% slower growth” like it’s a rounding error. Let's take an example of the Gulf Stream (AMOC) If it collapses—possible at 1.5°C—scientists warn of 70% lower wheat yields. Famine. Societal chaos and the rest that would unfurl post it, I leave it to your imagination. And economic models? Some project GDP gains, assuming factories operate business-as-usual in Category 6 hurricanes. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰? These models run on 1960s logic in a 2100 world. They ignore: - Tipping points (methane bombs, ice-less Arctic summers) - Energy collapse (no power = no economy) - Human suffering (reduced to a spreadsheet cell) 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲: Insurers flee. Coastal cities sink. Officials ban the word “climate.” Economists call it a “0.06% growth dip.” Reality? Grandma’s house is underwater. Families can’t afford insurance. It’s time for a change: - Rethink economic models that treat climate, energy, and finance as disconnected Excel columns. - Elevate scientific warnings over abstract percentages. - Demand policies that match the scale of the threat. The stakes aren’t a decimal point in a GDP forecast. They’re harvests. Homes. Lives. I also created a video on the same, attached below; spread it if you believe it’s time to listen to science, not spreadsheets.

Climate change could reduce average income per person by 40% 🌎 A new study finds that a 4°C increase in global temperatures could reduce average global income by 40%, significantly more than previous estimates. Even with warming limited to 2°C, the expected decline in global GDP per capita is 16%—far higher than the 1.4% projected by earlier models. The findings suggest that current economic projections have underestimated the scale of financial losses associated with climate change. The research, published in Environmental Research Letters, critiques the traditional economic models known as integrated assessment models (IAMs). These models have played a key role in informing climate policy but have not fully accounted for the effects of extreme weather events or the interconnected nature of global supply chains. As a result, they have understated the broader economic impacts of climate risks. The new analysis improves on existing models by integrating updated climate forecasts and including the effects of supply chain disruptions caused by extreme weather. This approach provides a more comprehensive view of how climate change can impact economic systems, moving beyond the assumption that impacts are only local or easily offset by increased output elsewhere. The study challenges the idea that some regions could economically benefit from warming. While some colder regions might see marginal gains, the overall effect is negative due to the global nature of trade and economic interdependence. Disruptions in one part of the world can have cascading effects across sectors and geographies, reducing resilience and increasing vulnerability across the system. The authors conclude that current modelling practices risk underestimating both the costs of inaction and the benefits of rapid emissions reductions. Updating economic models to better reflect extreme risks and system-wide impacts is essential for informed policymaking. The findings reinforce the urgency of integrating climate risk into economic planning and decision-making. Source: The Guardian #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #risks

How do we estimate climate change macroeconomic risks in The World Bank's Country Climate and Development Reports? We just published a methodological paper that present a methodology used in many of them, with our partners at Industrial Economics (IEc). The methodology captures a set of impact channels through which climate change affects the economy by (1) connecting a set of biophysical models to the macroeconomic model and (2) exploring a set of development and climate scenarios. The paper summarizes the results for five countries, highlighting the sources and magnitudes of their vulnerability - with estimated gross domestic product losses in 2050 exceeding 10 percent of gross domestic product in some countries and scenarios, although only a small set of impact channels is included. The paper also presents estimates of the macroeconomic gains from sector-level adaptation interventions, considering their upfront costs and avoided climate impacts and finding significant net gross domestic product gains from adaptation opportunities identified in the Country Climate and Development Reports. Finally, the paper discusses the limits of current modeling approaches, and their complementarity with empirical approaches based on historical data series. I think there are strong complementarity between empirical approaches (which measure historical aggregated impacts and are key for calibration and validation) and process-based modeling (which can consider possible thresholds in the future and run policy counterfactuals). The paper is here: https://lnkd.in/gpAURDV5. Comments welcome! Kodzovi ABALO, Ph.D, Brent Boehlert, Thanh Bui (Tania), Andrew Burns, Unnada Chewpreecha, Charl Jooste, Florent McIsaac, Kim Smet, Kenneth Strzepek, and Diego Castillo and Heather Ruberl.

As the global economy transforms to mitigate the #climatecrisis, decarbonising the A$2.6Trn global #iron and #steel industry, and the inevitable transition away from coking coal, is on the horizon with global finance beginning to enable this. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of both #ironore and #metallurgicalcoal (met coal). We provide 57% of the world’s iron ore (A$124bn FY23 revenue) and 52% of global metallurgical coal (A$61bn FY23 revenue) and are therefore massively trade exposed as the world belatedly moves to limit global warming to 1.5°C and low carbon steel making becomes a reality. Low emissions iron and steel technology innovation and readiness is starting to move in the right direction, with momentum picking up in finding commercially scalable solutions: ➡ H2 Green Steel raised €5.5bn in debt and equity in Sep 2023 to finance the construction of an integrated new steel plant that will deliver steel with up to 95% less CO2 emissions compared to steel produced with traditional blast furnace technology. ➡ Japan’s second largest steel producer, JFE Steel Corporation, announced plans to replace an ageing blast furnace in 2027 with one of the world's largest EAFs that will accelerate decarbonisation of its operations and the country. ➡ Australia’s largest iron ore producer, Rio Tinto, is investing ~US$6.2bn capex to develop the Simandou iron ore project in Guinea, Africa - the world’s largest untapped high-grade iron ore deposit, which is far better suited to conversion into green iron than Australia’s lower grade haematite ores. ➡ Former Fortescue senior staff at Element Zero patented a method of "electro-reduction" that is one of a number of possible technology breakthroughs in a race with the far longer established Boston Metal, and Japan’s Kobe Steel Midrex Technologies, Inc.) Australia’s #sustainablefinancetaxonomy is codifying an initial set of eligibility criteria for minerals, mining and metals by this year’s end. However, ignoring scope 3 emissions in favour of legal borders that cover only Australia’s scope 1 and 2 emissions is a fool’s errand. Australia’s enormous scope 3 exported emissions (i.e. from reducing iron ore into iron using met coal) are a measure of Australia's exposure to transition risk brought about by a decarbonising #ironandsteel sector. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has repeatedly affirmed energy security is feasible without opening new fossil fuel extraction projects, and that firmly includes metallurgical coal. Steel doesn’t have a climate problem. Iron has a coal problem, and Australia has an enormous opportunity to capitalise on this transformation, or be steamrollered while we procrastinate. Tim Buckley Blair Palese Fiona Deutsch Jasmine Fowler-Morrow Alli Devlin Ben Henry Joanna Kay Zarmeen Pavri Nicolette Boele Marcus Dawe GAICD James Loughridge Greg Liddell Clean Energy Finance Corporation BlackRock First Sentier Investors Australian Council of Superannuation Investors

𝗔 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗦&𝗣 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝟯𝟯% 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗗𝗣 𝗯𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟰𝟬. The S&P Global Report "Sustainability Insights: Why Planning For A 2.3°C Warmer World Is Critical This Decade And Next," paints a sharp quantitative picture. Their model predicts that by 2040, it’s very unlikely (2.5% probability) that the global average temperature rise will stay below 1.5ºC compared to the preindustrial average. It finds a 50% chance that cumulative economic costs from warming could reach between 9% and 33% of global GDP by 2040 in an unprepared 2.3°C scenario. Yet, even these multi-trillion-dollar figures could represent a lower bound if tipping points are reached. The frequency and severity of climate hazards will not increase linearly with temperature, and current models struggle to price in future extreme weather events or the crossing of climate tipping points.  The analysis suggests we are not just miscalculating risk, we are fundamentally misunderstanding its nature. Proactive investment in both mitigation and adaptation offers a clear path forward, giving a "triple dividend,". The benefits are threefold: 🔸 𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 directly reduce damage from physical climate hazards. 🔸 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 generate positive returns through outcomes like lower insurance costs and increased agricultural output, compared to the high-warming scenario. 🔸  𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 would deliver wider community advantages, such as reduced mortality rates and improved flood defences from natural solutions like mangroves. This highlights the critical need for increased investment in climate mitigation and adaptation, a need that is particularly acute in developing nations. 𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 The data shows that investing in resilience is not a sunk cost but a high-return strategy that mitigates avoidable losses, creates economic value, and builds a more stable society. It's time to reevaluate our risk frameworks and redirect capital toward resolving one of the most acute environmental, social, and economic problems of our time. #ClimateRisk #SustainableFinance #ClimateAdaptation #Economics #RiskManagement #ESG #ClimateChange #Resilience Source: https://lnkd.in/eayC25-Z ___________ 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘸𝘯. 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥𝘐𝘯: Scott Kelly

🌍Typology of climate scenarios by MSCI Inc. and United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) 🔹 1. Fully Narrative Scenarios These scenarios are qualitative descriptions of potential climate futures. ✅ Strengths: - Easily customizable - Useful for high-level strategic discussions - Can capture complex risks that are difficult to quantify ⚠️ Limitations: - Subjective and vulnerable to bias - Lack of numerical outputs makes them hard to integrate into risk models 🔍 Example Providers: - University of Exeter & Universities Superannuation Scheme 🔹 2. Quantified Narrative Scenarios This type builds on fully narrative scenarios by adding expert-driven quantitative estimates (macroeconomic forecasts, asset class returns, regional physical risks). ✅ Strengths: - Balances qualitative storytelling with numerical data - Allows for scenario comparisons without requiring sophisticated models - Easier to communicate results with clear quantitative insights ⚠️ Limitations: - Can give a false sense of precision if assumptions are weak - Still dependent on subjective expert input, leading to potential biases 🔍 Example Providers: - MSCI Sustainability Institute & University of Exeter – Estimating physical climate risks based on expert-defined damage functions. - IEA - WEO 🔹 3. Model-Driven Scenarios These scenarios rely on integrated quantitative models to project how climate change and transition risks might evolve under different policy and economic conditions, using macroeconomic models, IAMs, and energy system models. ✅ Strengths: Highly structured and data-driven, reducing subjectivity. Can produce detailed, sector-specific outputs useful for investment decisions. Widely used by regulators and financial institutions for stress testing. ⚠️ Limitations: - Expensive and time-consuming to develop and maintain - “Black box” nature of complex models makes interpretation difficult - Results are only as good as underlying assumptions and data inputs 🔍 Example Providers: - NGFS – Climate scenarios for central banks and financial supervisors - IEA – Net-Zero Emissions by 2050, STEPS & APS scenarios - IPCC – SSPs & RCPs 🔹 4. Probabilistic Scenarios Probabilistic models go beyond single-scenario forecasting by assigning probabilities, variance, and uncertainty estimates to different climate outcomes. ✅ Strengths: - Models uncertainty, improving risk management - Enables sophisticated stress testing for asset prices, portfolios, and corporate exposure - Valuable for insurance, catastrophe modeling, and financial risk assessments ⚠️ Limitations: - Highly complex and computationally demanding - Requires strong assumptions about uncertainty - Limited research on how climate change affects probability distributions 🔍 Example Providers: - NGFS & IPCC Probabilistic Models #ClimateFinance #ScenarioAnalysis #SustainableInvesting #RiskManagement #climatescenarios

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 - 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 3 𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 or ignore them all-together. This shapes decisions on public investment, debt sustainability, and our collective ability to transition in time. I recently looked into how deep the modelling gap runs: 🔹 Global income losses from climate change 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 19% 𝗯𝘆 2050, with a likely range of 11–29%, according to the latest empirical studies. Yet widely used models like 𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗘-2024 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 3.1% output loss at 3°C warming and 7% at 4.5°C - a dramatic underestimation. 🔹 $2.86 trillion in historical climate damages (2000–2019) are recorded empirically, versus just $0.8 trillion in DICE estimates - 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 3.5 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿. 🔹 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility projects that delaying decarbonisation could increase the national debt-to-GDP ratio by 10–100 percentage points by 2050. Yet mainstream Debt Sustainability Assessments (𝗗𝗦𝗔𝘀) 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗨 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆. 🔹 Perhaps most concerning: 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 50% 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. Climate damages by 2050 outweigh the combined GDP losses from mitigation and impacts by a factor of 1.8 - yet our economic models still bias us toward delay. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 - especially in EU settings where fiscal rules and DSAs are central tools of economic governance. 📌 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗮𝗽. I want to highlight the excellent work by Dezernat Zukunft - Institut für Makrofinanzen, who recently reviewed how to integrate climate risk and transition investment into EU DSAs. Their proposals offer a crucial pathway to update the way we think about debt, risk, and climate. Another leader is Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), who brings together the climate with the fiscal and monetary policy community. 🛠️ Finance ministries need to work on approaches that merge macroeconomic and climate science insights and use them! 🧠 𝗪𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. 𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱! Peter Handley Ursula Woodburn Philippa Sigl-Glöckner Ludovic Suttor-Sorel Leslie Johnston, M.Sc. Jo Swinson Rosa Klitgaard Andersen Ida Lærke Holm Olivia Lazard Linda Zeilina-Cross Pascal Canfin Karl Pincherelle Philippe Lamberts Radan Kanev Alexander Reitzenstein Brian Kettenring Daniel Valenzuela Apratim (Tim) Sahay Adam Tooze Rana Foroohar

Current climate change policies are modelled to result in greater economic losses than any other event. My Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) colleagues have been drilling into the economic estimates of climate change. Estimating the economic impacts of climate change is difficult and those that have developed, and are leading the use of, the latest models acknowledge that these models systematically underestimate the costs. There are a number of reasons for this, such as the models not yet attempting to incorporate climate tipping points. Or as Norway's sovereign wealth fund explains, the models "underestimate physical climate risk, as the damage functions fail to capture the losses associated with the systemic impacts of climate change". (https://lnkd.in/g5_pn8vb). But even acknowledging our estimates of climate change are likely to become more severe as the science matures, it's clear that climate change is an unprecedented shock to the world's economy. One way to contextualise the scale of the challenge is to compare it to previous economic crises, such as the global financial crisis, or the impacts of covid. This shows that climate change will cause economic losses equivalent to covid, but every 5-6 years and compounding indefinitely. What sort of emission mitigation activities become sensible when viewed through this lens?

New UNSW paper "Reconsidering the macroeconomic damage of severe warming" gives much higher estimates of future economic costs of high level climate change than typical in the modelling literature. https://lnkd.in/gUWhWCY5 It's a useful illustration of what might happen - while many traditional economic model estimates likely underestimate the impacts and risks, probably by a lot. I'm quoted in the Guardian: "(traditional economic) models say that climate change makes little difference to the future world economy, which is contrary to what physical impact science and a nuanced understanding of interdependencies in the economy would suggest.” https://lnkd.in/gQESQpW6 Here's a fuller set of comments by me: There is a long tradition of economic modelling that clearly and severely underestimates the economic effects of climate change. Traditional economic models do not represent the risk of systemic disruptions or compounding impacts leading to systemic failure, and they assume high degrees of substitutability between different economic activities. These models are then fed with some selected assumptions about climate impacts. The result is that the models say that climate change makes little difference to the future world economy, which is contrary to what physical impact science and a nuanced understanding of interdependencies in economy would suggest. On the substitutability point: So if for example agriculture becomes unviable in a part of the world, these models assume that there will be more agricultural output elsewhere to make up for it, and former farmers will simply work in other jobs. In reality, collapsing food supply chains can lead to major disruptions including famine and conflict and thereby big losses in economic activity.   Decisionmakers usually see low estimates of economic impacts from climate change, from traditional models that do not properly represent economic risks from climate impacts. Those models are very likely to under-estimate the economic impacts, and perhaps dramatically so. Alternative analyses that illustrate that there is a risk of severe economic damages are useful to counter-balance the low-ball estimates. We do not know how badly future economies will be affected, both because we do not know the precise nature of future climate impacts and because we do not know how flexible or inflexible economies will be in adapting to those effects. But there clearly is a risk of very bad economic outcomes, which decisionmakers in government and in business need to be aware of. Graham Readfearn Andrew Pitman, AO, FAA Tim Neal Ben Newell

"Financial institutions often did not understand the models they were using to predict the economic cost of climate change and were underestimating the risks of temperature rises, research led by a professional body of actuaries shows. Many of the results emerging from the models were “implausible,” with a serious “disconnect” between climate scientists, economists, the people building the models and the financial institutions using them, a report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the University of Exeter finds." " For example, an assessment of global gross domestic product loss in a so-called “hothouse” world of 3C higher temperatures by a group of 114 central banks and financial supervisors, known as the Network for Greening the Financial System, did not include “impacts related to extreme weather, sea-level rise or wider societal impacts from migration or conflict”. As a result of such overly “benign” models, large financial institutions had reported that they would suffer minimal economic impacts if the world warmed by significantly more than 1.5C higher than pre-industrial levels, it said." https://lnkd.in/ekwqiJmP