What's going on everyone Sam here with latent sports cards and I am ripping 2022 Panini immaculate baseball hobby eight box case number 12 random team style here is the results again to the random you can find these always under the results tab on the website as well as the link in chat so I'm gonna get started give me one second going to go ahead and go live on tiktok i'm sorry guys and we'll get started oh not baseball here we go good luck everyone that's polio 101 happy place that'd be sick they got some good vets in here though like there's always going to be good vets in uh for the reds I feel like any team that's been around for a while always and uh hit pretty hard with the vets right here we go good luck what's up preset good luck everyone see we've got tim hudson starting off going to the age 46 out of 49 there you go oakland nice one there we've got dual of no one ryan and tom siever wow holy cow that's cool that is numbered 18 out of 25 both uh mezz so that will obviously go to the mezz game worn on both two congrats mezz that's sick we've got uh rpa on the eye black that is 13 out of 83 connor seabold for the red socks there you go red socks not too bad while I get some math for that one thing man feels bad we've got um jared kelnick immaculate marx hollow silver going to the mariners nice one there congrats brad s and the mariners yo happy place you ready are you here happy place happy place just want to just want to make sure you're here one of one laundry tag nike swoosh rpa go into the reds that is tj fridel congrats dustin s in twitch chat heck yeah let's go baby nice hit buddy told you we're pulling you a one of one and that's what what did we do first box one of one mag we're magging that for sure oh nice one here too we've got rpa going to the cubs that is greg deakman three color one color one color cut a little all right so happy place um no strudustin i love that uh it's cut a little bit long the uh fridel so we're not going to be able to fit it into a mag we are putting it into a top loader and we'll make sure that it gets like protected up and shipped properly for you but we just can't fit it into a mag unfortunately oh rave uh ravens or dolphins we're going uh ravens on that one ravens baby don't ask him that question you don't know none empty oh it's bridel tj fridel okay these boxes are three hundred seventy five dollars a piece deck three seventy five okay we've got five out of seven going to the twins byron buxton there you go minnesota uh player warren on the buxton you've got there not 28 hundred dollars i'm going to show you of that you've got uh jumbo three color patch jose al tuve going to the astros game warren on the al tuve nasty you're out on that one straws we've got rpa for the mechs that is three color uh 21 out of 25 thomas sabuki now i think we're at 375 right now for us not necessarily everything is not game worn thomas sabuki there you go mechs we've got nice going to the braves how about uh prospect patch autograph jersey number michael harris one of the possible uh possibilities of rookie of the year right there michael harris there you go braves congrats Atlanta oh this is sick dude this is so sick immaculate marks go into the cubs how about david ross 22 out of 49 heart and not necessarily the heart and soul but one of the leaders of that 2016 world series team now the manager david ross how cool is that that's awesome man maybe not the most expensive cardinal world but really unique and just really cool uh he's at the breaks yeah and then nasty one here go into the cardinals 49 out of 49 lars new bar new congrats cardinals on the two-color rpa there you go congrats uh st louis he's got the cardinals that would be dylan j that's dylan grandpa ross red sock legend very true for us very true here everyone all right we've got jersey card that is four out of 99 going to the cubs wilson contraris stop oan player warren on the contraris oh that's cool going to the yankees how about uh eight out of 49 mariana revera game warren on the mo congrats yanks who's got him that's awesome kevin r nice mariana got two-color rpa going to the reds tony santian there you go again dustin congrats buddy you've got a i think they've got a couple of uh rookies in this though right you'd be surprised uh we've got immaculate material signature batting gloves going to the white socks andrew vaughn there you go let me see what that's numbered to love this should be numbered to 10 congrats white socks that's nasty number to 10 got going to the red socks that is alex verdugo jumbo patch auto 19 out of 25 congrats socks again socks doing fairly well here too and to finish it off going to the brave 17 out of 50 rpa kyle moeller congrats again it's lanza lanza picking up some nice rookie autos here uh to get going thanks for the follows everyone on tiktok empty empty that's a 1.1k likes nice it's absolutely wild riley what's going on though man that was cry was like pretty sure it was a one-of-one i had to like run through the checklist to make sure it was but the thing was disgusting thing is going to be so sick when it gets redeemed thanks for the follows again everyone on tiktok as well oh that's sick holy cow dude we've got uh going to the cardinals jumbo uh fielding glove with the wilson patch lars new bar again heck yeah that's sick dude yeah this is i mean this would probably be magna anyway because it's uh three of three there you go st louis dylan j again hitting well just with lars new bar that's sick there you go again tiktok really sick looking hard there fielding glove embroidered got going to the yankees 30 out of 99 moose scouring there you go yankees legend right there grads on that one yanks got here you go uh ray got rpa 78 out of 83 kurtis terry going to the angel or to the rangers excuse me there you go texas ray ray with the rangers we've got going to the dodgers andy pages there you go congrats on that one on the prospect signatures 91 out of 99 got cool one here going to the uh blue jays that is 13 out of 72 out of lopez two colored patch auto congrats there blue jays and who's got this team nice one at the end here we've got a one of one printing plate go into the houston astros air yordan yordan alvarez there is the one of one one of one nice one there we'll get this one in a mag for ya kody congrats buddy yeah it was an embroidered fielding glove uh card chris thank you again everyone for the likes on tiktok appreciate it as well as everybody hanging out with us on youtube and twitch as always that new bar was pretty sick actually that glove dude wild yeah i was gonna say honestly i opened it i was like oh okay interesting oh i love iMac even like with baseball even though it's not licensed like it's still pretty freaking cool all right we've got starting off going to the royals that is 14 out of 25 uh brady singer brady singer uh christian these are like $375 a box we're looking for the big rookies wander franco flio Rodriguez he's got a prospect auto to the giant 17 out of 25 jumbo patch camillo dovol you can crats giants there you go i wish we i wish you were ripping more than that there you go giant strats on that one rpa wow that's disgusting rpa three out of ten chas mccormick going to the astros this is nasty dude holy uh steven qualan is in this product yes he is he is in this product we've got numbered four out of five on the green gunner henderson for the Orioles on the prospect patch keith j cub boom look at that one that is nasty holy cow that's disgusting that is a big card right there congrats again keith with the Orioles another nasty one coming up here again four out of five rpa on the eye black or four out of six excuse me erin ashby going to the uh brewers congrats on that one brew crew a little bit of a laundry tag there and then to finish it off we've got four out of ten immaculate eye black rpa jake mires congrats again astros kodi s eating with that astros spot um see time to be up till on this all right perfect good time i have to search then right on schedule uh link is in our bio charlie we are sold out on this uh product we're sold out on group break spots for the night um but link is in our bio if you'd like to purchase group break spots in the um uh in the future yeah we haven't posted for days out yeah i mean we haven't posted i think all the way up till tuesday or wednesday at this point uh we break on a schedule every night seven days a week right we've got going to the age jersey card frankie montess that is sick er uh 77 out of 99 player worn on the montess that is yankee legend now going to the cardinals nice one here we've got uh 47 out of 49 adam wainwright wainow game worn on that i believe we have them up at uh 374 99 immaculate baseball on our website link in bio if you'd like to purchase personal uh jumbo three colored rpa going to the royals that is jackson koar nice hit there kansas city 23 out of 37 beautiful patches on that too got going to the white socks danie mendic uh 96 out of 99 congrats on that one white socks nice hit we've got uh numbered five out of 10 that is going to the dodgers andre jackson on the eye black rpa congrats la to finish it off we've got again three colored rpa going to the astros and kodi s jake mires nice rpa on that one jake mires beautiful patch on that as well three color with five splits and see all right on to the next box if you purchase a group break spot you get everything in this break is shipped to your house of the team that you get in the random every single thing we do we personally don't keep anything we rip these all hundred percent for customers so these are all all these spots are purchased by our customers right we've got going to the cardinals that is uh dylan carlson 45 out of 99 rats there cardinals oh nice one here seven out of 25 go into the tigers how about spencer torkelson congrats tigers nice one there it's got the troit that is uh troit kevin w oh another nasty one coming up no you can get it shipped to your door if you'd like we have a ship it sealed option as well jsc how about going to oakland three out of five on the green color match shea lingaleers congrats on the prospect auto there look at that one tick tock gorgeous card on the shea lingaleers just got called up heck yeah it's got oakland that might be that is james hey on the oakland ace combo congrats james that's disgusting we've got rookie patch auto going to the diamondbacks drew ellis six out of ten on the eye black congrats arizona this one going to the tigers daz cameron uh eight out of 49 on the patch auto eight out of 49 there you go tigers a little bit of damage on the top uh corner in the top up there i'm gonna send an empty box with the tigers uh see we could take it up with panini but the corners were kind of messed up coming out of the box there so send you an empty box and wrapper all right nice way to end it going to the angels one out of 49 brandon marsh heck yeah angels louis s nice hit buddy that is awesome gorgeous angels patch on that three colors lingaleers is the worst movie ever made really i did i didn't catch any of the ufc kevin who fought who fought in the ufc i didn't catch any of it we got college football on right now got miami and texas a and n all right last box good luck here everyone got going to the mezz uh triple jersey card taiwan walker 20 out of 99 there you go mezz on the tie got jumbo rookie patch two out of 25 chas mccormick kody ass again with that astrospot geez people are talking about it was wild sandhagan versus song gotcha got four out of 49 that is elie morgan congrats on that one guardians that's sick there you go three color rpa got immaculate marks going to the twins four out of 49 that is frank viola there you go minnesota congrats on that one that is a sick card right there love the uh like the veteran hits in this the on card acetate stuff got shadow box signatures going to the royals daniel lynch 17 out of 25 on the shadow box congrats on that one kansas city ease holy cow canelope down there heck yeah neeks that's what we like to hear buddy and go into the uh braves we've got spencer strider 26 out of 99 congrats on that one nice rpa going to Todd b is that canelo versus triple g that's kanadi galovkin right yeah canelo and ggg baby all right let's do a quick recap guys we've got patches chas mccormick astros to 25 taiwan walker to 99 met spent uh spencer torkelson to 25 that is uh tigers dylan carlson to 99 cardinals adam lane right to 49 cardinals frankie montas to 99 a's camello doval to 25 giants brady singer to 25 royals uh moose scouring to 99 yankies mariana reverend to 99 yankies wilson contraris to 99 to 99 cubs got hose al tubay to five astros man that spot killed it byron buxton to seven twins uh tom sever nolyn ryan dual jersey to 25 there you go matt sick one there and tim hudson to 49 a's that's our non-magged autos we've got spencer strider to 99 braves daniel lynch to 25 royals uh frank viola to 49 twins elie morgan to 49 guardians brandon march to 49 angels got dazz cameron to 49 uh tigers jew ellis to 10 diamondbacks shea langle years to five nasty nasty prospect at their a's uh jake meyers to 99 astros got andrey jackson to 10 for the dodgers danie mendic for the white socks to 99 jackson koar to 37 royals jake meyers to 10 astros erin ashby to six uh brewers chas mccormack to 10 astros man astros eight dude got autolopes to uh 72 blue jays andy pages to 99 uh dodgers kurtis terry to 83 rangers kyle moeller to 50 braves alex verdugo to 25 red socks got tony sentian to 99 reds uh david ross the 49 cubs sick it there uh thomas sapooky to 25 metz greg deakman to 99 cubs connor siebold to 83 red socks had a couple of redemptions jared kelnic to the mariners michael harris to the braves and andrew vaughn to the white socks we had some nasty magged cards come out of this we had gunner henderson four out of five going to the orioles uh tj friedel one of one for the reds had printing plate one of one for who else but the astros yordan alvarez we had lar's newt bar 49 out of 49 rpa for the cardinals and really nasty three out of three wilson glove patch for the cardinals lar's newt bar that'll do it for the break everyone thanks again for the fill next up we've got football so uh sit tight thanks again tiktok


Well, good morning, good afternoon and good evening. I'm very pleased to open up this session on financing the net zero transition. I can't think of anyone better than I'd rather have this conversation with the panel we've assembled today. I've got some great diverse perspectives on this challenge of how we're going to increase rapidly the flow of capital into solutions for climate change. I'll just introduce our speakers and then we'll have an open conversation which hopefully we'll dive into this topic and find out their views. So we're joined by Sonny Harvard, who is the president of asset management business for UBS and then and looks after their sustainable investment business. We have Commissioner Mered McGuinness, the Irish commissioner in charge of the financial services commission within the European Commission. We also joined by Philip Hildebrand of Blackrock, who is vice chairman and responsible for sustainable investment at Blackrock. Thank you and welcome. And finally, and not last but not least, Bill Winters, chief executive of the Standard Chartered Bank and a member of the task force on the voluntary carbon market. Thank you all for joining me. I know it's all different time zones and hopefully we all had a strong coffee. And I wanted to just kick off this session by asking your views on what are some of the barriers and enablers in your experience of how we get these large sums of capital reallocated into solutions for climate change. These are going to be physical infrastructure assets that are often going to be long lived. So how do we do risk investment and get that flow moving? And perhaps I come to you, Sonny, first, would that be okay? Sure. And thanks for having us at UBS. I think there are a lot of barriers, one less with the change of the administration in the United States. I think what President Biden has done to rejoin the climate of the Paris Accord and all of the things he's following on in his policies to allow more freedom of flow for investments into climate and other ESG products, I think will help us a lot, giving the private markets an ability to be global in our approach as opposed to carving out the U.S. and our issues is one of the first. Look, I think we've got tremendous demand among our clientele around the global. I think we've got the private sector very, very engaged in designing products. The missing link right now is data, consistency of data around the globe so that we can create more products to meet that demand. That becomes even more difficult when you think about many investors want to get into financing renewables and a lot of the pre-IPO products in the capital that we really need for that project finance as the private markets. How do you get the data even away from general meetings and away from proxy votes and all of that will be another barrier that we have to face. But I have to say, I think we've come a long way in just the last two years at pulling down a lot of those barriers. And I feel pretty good about the prospects for the climate aware universe, if you will, of products and investment. That's wonderful. Coming to you next, Mered, if that's okay. Obviously, sometimes it's going to take a public move to de-risk some of these investments because many of them are becoming cost-competitive and profitable, but there's still a lot of solutions which are still too high up the cost curve. So could you talk briefly about the role you see the Commission playing in helping with that challenge? Well, I'm going to pick up on this point about information and data. I think that's absolutely clear because what's happening at the moment is awareness is very high and we have, if you like, both the demand and the supply issues, I think beginning to come into balance. The issue, as I hear it from companies and investors, is knowing what exactly is sustainable. We know what's not working and we know the brown industries, but in terms of other sectors and your headline is about transition. We, for example, at the EU level have our taxonomy on sustainable activities, which is very clear and science-led and we're debating that with stakeholders at the moment. And what that is is both a destination and a signpost. And our greatest concern is that we make sure that those industries that want to transition to net zero and need investments, that they get the finance to do that. And it's very reassuring to hear that the industry aside, the financial side is also wanting to do that. And I suppose I think that's been driven by a lot of talk about climate over a long period of time. I think that the COVID-19 crisis has also been quite a catalyst to shake up the globe and realise our vulnerabilities and how we need to tackle these things. I suppose there are other issues at the EU level that we are also aware of. There's a global need to be coordinated. So we tend to be ambitious, perhaps more so. And I think we want to be leaders in this field, but we also work globally with the international platform on sustainable finance. And to your point about public-private, I mean, this is key. But I do believe that the political will, and this is the most important thing, the political will is there to do more and to do it more rapidly. The leaders at the EU level have agreed that the ambition for 2030 will be higher than we currently have. So the parliament wants 60% reduction in emissions by 2030. The leaders have said 55%. And those are tough targets to meet. And it's a very short period of time. So mobilising capital for these investments would be absolutely critical, as will ongoing research and innovation. And we're also involved in that space. But in one sense, the big debates are over. Now we're looking at let's talk about how to get the money flowing, because we will not have carbon neutrality, net zero, unless the finance flows towards sustainability. And I'm really pleased to hear some leaders in this area who perhaps have not been speaking out in the past, now coming to the table and wanting to be part of this very big movement. Yeah. There's so much I'd love to come back on. But I'm going to move on to Philip and ask Philip, you the same question from Blackrock's perspective. How are you feeling? What are some of the remaining barriers and what's been enabling in recent months and years? Of course. Thank you for having us here this morning. So I'd say, first of all, it's important to frame just how big the problem is. We're going to need to mobilise somewhere in the neighbourhood of three to six, seven trillion dollars per year for many, many years to come. So the challenge is enormous. And so the question of what blocks it, what enables it, I think is very important. The positive news, of course, is that as the Commission has said, we now have over 120 countries that have explicit regulatory legislative net zero goals. The US has joined. That's a very big step. The change is certainly fundamentally the whole landscape. We also have a period where fiscal spending is very much alive and going on. And countries, again, the Commission with its recovery fund at the forefront of this, is spending a lot of money, a lot of public money. And it's clearly saying a significant part of this 30%, let's say in the European case, has to go into spending for climate transition. The key now is to use this regulatory convergence and the willingness to use public money as an enabler, as a catalyst to get private money flowing. Because no matter how big the commitment will be from the public side, it will not be enough to get to the trillions of dollars per year for many years to come. So we desperately need the mobilization of private capital. And the way that can happen is by having, and this has been mentioned by the Commissioner, we need a global standard that allows capital to respond to the public policy incentives and start to help mobilize these enormous sums of money that we will need to fund the transition to net zero. Thank you so much. And Bill, from your position in the standard chart, how are you seeing this lens? And if you could say something a little bit perhaps about Asia, that would be really fantastic. Because of course, there's so much long-lived assets there that do need to transition and be fascinated to hear your views. Yeah, thanks for having me. First of all, I'll pick up on a few of the comments that Philip and Merid and Suni all made, which I think are spot on. The need certainly across a sustainable development goal is probably $10 trillion per year of which climate, as Philip said, is probably something like $6 trillion four years to come. The substantial problem that we have right now is where the framework is reasonably well established in Europe and well done to the European Commission for making sure that happens. It's not well established on a global basis. And the ability for that capital to move into many of the developing economies, which are both the source of a lot of the emissions that we're all struggling to contain, but also at the highest risk of the consequences of climate change, we're far from having a framework that's suitable. So whereas we can see a path to getting to something like 80% or more of the financing requirements in Europe and I think the Americas, the U.S., now that we've got an administration in the U.S. that's supporting the cause, the available financing in emerging markets is less than 10%, less than 10% of what's needed. And as Philip said, without having a coordinated private and public sector approach to that huge financing gap in emerging markets, most notably in South Asia and sub-saharan Africa, but as you mentioned also other parts of Asia that are in addition to everything else, particularly badly impacted by the COVID pandemic. So the private sector capital that was finding its way into emerging markets is much less likely to do so when the risk profile has increased so much on the back of all the stresses and strains around the COVID pandemic. So I would say the most substantial barriers to achieving the financing targets that we've all got, one would be getting that re-established coordination between the public and the private sector in order to, as Philip said, to catalyze private sector capital. The public sector will need to step up that certainly in many cases will be led through blended finance type transactions led by the multilateral agencies, but direct government assistance will be helpful at times as well. This problem can be solved. If you've looked at this from the other side and I know we've got two experts on the panel who can speak directly from the asset management perspective, but there's a $50 trillion opportunity here, investment opportunity. These are interesting assets. These are assets that that savers want to invest in both for social reasons, but also because they should generate an acceptable return on a risk-adjusted basis. But what we'll need to do to really tap into that $50 trillion opportunity is get the standards right and then get the public sector partnership right. Fantastic. I wonder if you mentioned that Bill, the word risk, and it fills me that the way that the finance sector views risk has got to be fundamental to this transition, both in terms of what I worry about, which is physical risk of climate change, the sort of cascading impacts that we're starting to see even at just one degree warming. The globe is not experiencing that as an average. There are parts of the world which are seeing really substantial changes far faster than we expected. So physical risk feels like it's accelerating. Then you've got transition risk of again, the globe is not equal. There are some countries highly dependent on carbon and supply of carbon and the consumption of carbon. Their risk is what do we do? How do we cope with that huge shift that's about to happen? So that does make it a really complicated challenge. I completely agree with you. I think the technologies are there, but we do need that political will. So, Mered, if I could come back to you and when you think about Europe, Europe's quite nice. It's our kind of microcosm of the world in some ways. You've got very cold dependent countries. You've got very agricultural dependent countries like your own. How do you politically manage that risk of transition? Well, I think your introduction to this point speaks to the problem that we're not all equal and things are not fair. But I was interested in how some of my colleagues, if you like, prefaced this debate, the amount of investment needed is enormous. But remember, there was an amount of investment put into brown technologies up to now. And it was enormous too. So it's about redirecting. And I'm glad that what Bill said, it's not impossible, but it does need coordination. So yes, even within Europe, there are worries from some member states, some sectors about what this will all mean to them. And I really answered that very plainly by saying, look, we've made a commitment both by 2030 and then 2050. So the direction of travel is in one way only. There is no way back. And in order for us to meet that target here at EU level, and we have a global commitment to do that, you start by looking at each sector, identifying what is sustainable and helping industries move towards it. So I think finance is absolutely crucial. I think the political context is crucial. And here's one thing I think is really missing from the piece. I think we need to understand how difficult this is for individuals on the ground. So if we close down peak factories in the region I come from, workers are really affected. Are we looking after their interests really well? Because unless we get buy in from society, and I was listening again to Bill about Asia and the problems there, we need citizens to buy into this. There is a willingness among citizens to address climate change. But when it impacts on their particular life or job, we have to be there with the public supports in order to make sure that the transition is just. And I think if we don't do that, that will be a bigger barrier to progress. Let me also say that companies, asset managers have a duty of care and a responsibility to deliver on this. So we don't have choice in this. And I would really love to hear this morning from those who are in asset management, the three key things they need. And maybe not just looking at it from their perspective, that's obviously the job, but also looking at it in the wider global context that if they fail, so in other words, if we fail to deliver on this, really, that's quite a shocking thought. And given that we are currently in a world where we're all stuck where we are, we don't mix with people because a pandemic we never prepared for has hit us. I think this is a real wake-up call for the world about what can happen. And it's not as if it's decades away. It's very close to us. So I love my ask here this morning, it's why I want to listen in. With clarity, what do you need, but also don't think of it only from your perspective. What are investors asking for? Today it's not just about that crude return on investment. It's about a wider issue of delivering on sustainable future environment, all of those things around that biodiversity and climate change. So it's complicated, it's messy. But if we don't do it, then we won't be talking in 30 years time, it will be over. I think you've hit on something there, which is the extent to which we might be expecting the finance sector to try and do this. I sometimes worry that the finance sector is there to do what it does, which is to make a return and to oil the wheels of business. And I worry that it's on politicians and public will to sort of create the right conditions, rather than expect the finance sector to solve it. And I worry sometimes we think to put too much emphasis on that. But Sonny, Merritt asked a very direct question there. Do you have a wish list that would help in terms of driving these things forward? I do and I agree completely. I'll start by saying I think the definition of return has shifted for many years. And again, even in the United States very recently, it was all about just a financial return and an absolute measure. I don't think that's the way it is. The world of investing has moved for years into outcome-based investing. So whether it was income or absolute return or relative value, whatever, adding a social return on top of that is not as big a shift as many people think. And we are seeing that grassroots demand. So I think a lot of that is there already. I think in terms of what we need, I'll maybe shift it, Commissioner, back to you. We do need consistent and available data. And I think the regulators and legislatures have been great about getting that. We need more of it and we need it globally. I think a consistent approach around the globe would be good. Again, big steps recently in the U.S. to pull us online. But as much as I think we can get a lot of help on what data we have available, I will caution the legislatures to stop short of telling us how to use the data. And I'm just going to pick up on something you said. Transition is absolutely critical here. So there are two types of investing that we can do now and generally in the parlance, which is exclusionary, right?  And the number of people will tell us, if we don't do that, it's not sustainable investing. And then there's the transition side. And we very much believe in engagement of companies and bringing them along and helping them with that transition. Every company will be at different phases. And how we do that is important. And I think we do have a critical role to play as in achieving that. So if we have definitions of what is sustainable that are too narrow or can't change over time as new data sets and new analytics come in, we might stifle innovation. So again, cutting off fossil fuels from an investment is eco-friendly for sure. Transitioning companies and or maybe even a long short strategy where you're going along those that are transitioning more readily versus short those that aren't caring at all about it, these are all different ways to approach that mobilization of capital that the commissioner talked about that we need to see. So it's just a cautionary tale, not too definitive in terms of what we're coming out with, but more data for sure and consistency of that data are on top of our list. Yeah, fantastic. Turning to Philip, from Blackbrox perspective, do you have a wish list? Are there innovations that you're driving that are going to help in this challenge? The good news is the asset management, the capital owners as well as the asset managers are now at the front end of what's going to be a tectonic shift towards sustainable investing. That's clear. And we firmly believe that's only the very beginning. The reason this has been triggered is because policy has converged around a global net zero framework as everybody has stated here. So the beginning is set. What we now need is clarity on how we're going to get there and it needs to be just and equitable and fair. I think everybody has rightly pointed this out. It's going to take time. And then what we urgently need, rising carbon prices, that's a policy matter ultimately. And then finally, I think the key to have definitional standards that clearly quantify or define what is climate compatible, net zero compatible investment and what isn't. And I think again, the commission deserves a lot of credit for having set out first on this journey through the taxonomy. What we now need is a concept that can be applied globally. And I think the joining of the US into these discussions, of course, is a great opportunity. The more convergence we have around global standards, the more clarity what that's going to be, the more rapidly we can then see this tectonic shift take place in order to mobilize the trillions that we need. So this is a classic case of, you begin with good public policy to use public money as a catalyst and then private money flows. I think it's very important when we talk, this is a kind of a private sector in many ways agenda, but we have to always remember that at the outset, you need a coherent good policy incentives through public spending, which we now have, and then private money can solve. Yeah, I have to say, I witnessed the transition of the electricity sector in the UK from a policy makers perspective and saw the power of successive policies, consistent policies that enabled the de-risking and that we kind of need that to spread globally.  To get specific here on this global standards question. I mean, it is going to be different at a global level from a European level because the scale of the challenge, let's just take China, for example, replacing all of that thermal coal infrastructure. It might mean that our definitions, as Sunni said, need to be relatively flexible to allow those innovations to come through that can really replace those thermal assets. And so do you sort of have a sense that there will be, what's the right fora in which we can discuss this globally? Will it be a combination of the US, China and Europe kind of converging? Well, I think that there's clearly an opportunity for multilateral discussions around standard settings and shared objectives. But I go back to the title of this conference and the word that we throw around a lot, which is transition. At the end of the day, governments have made their own net zero commitments. Businesses, for the most part, have been making them in one way or other even earlier. And at the end of the day, the people who are going to reduce emissions are businesses and individuals who are engaging with businesses. So I think we have to start with a good understanding of what is the net zero transition for each one of the people that are making these commitments at the ground, individuals to the extent that we want to do that, but certainly businesses. And as Philip said right at the outset and others, we need to get some common understandings around the metrics. How are we measuring the progress that we're making? Governments can be helpful in that. But as much of the reduction is going to need to come as a result of actions taken by businesses around the world, this needs to be a business-led initiative as well, informing government policy and obviously following government policy as that policy comes out. And there will be a continuous and iterative process. And the very essence of communicating a net zero commitment and recognizing that many companies have made 1,500 companies, that's by my count, have made net zero commitments, relatively few have said exactly how they're going to do that and how they're measuring it along the way because the standards aren't clear yet. I think as we get convergence on what we think are acceptable standards, and there are pure private sector initiatives, spend a fair amount of time here at the WEF this week talking about those, we're getting real backing for that. Taking that agreed set of standards and then having that go back into the interplay with whether it's the eutaxonomy or other global or multilateral negotiations around what are the agreed standards is a critical piece to that. Now, we all know that most businesses aren't going to be able to get to net zero entirely through their own reduction activities. That has to be the first and overall priority is for every business to reduce its own carbon emissions greenhouse gas emissions. But ultimately, there's going to have to be some facility for people who get to net zero by transferring money to other people who are able to actually remove carbon from the environment, which may not be the businesses that we run. And I don't want to front run the task force on scaling voluntary carbon markets too much, which we're talking about this evening. But having a robust market will also be very supportive in terms of helping us all agree those common standards because there will be a market attached to it. I'm going to end with a quick fire round if that's okay. Mered, what did you want to come back on that? Really helpful from my side, but can I just say the issue of having science-based taxonomy, which identifies sustainability and loosening it up to much wider, I think is difficult, even though there are pressures to do that because I think you've got to follow the science. I do think that we need also to look at the transition and that's less clear about sectors, how they will do that and how they will get access to finance. But we don't have a choice. And even today, we didn't have a choice. We couldn't fly. We couldn't meet because the world said a pandemic, a virus stopped us. Climate change is the same. We don't have choice here. And while the role you're saying of the finance sector, it can't do it all or whatever point that you said earlier, I think there's also a duty on the finance sector and asset managers to be part of what is the best future for the next generation. And I'm really happy what Sony said that we're not just looking at the cold hard return on investment statistics. There is a wider debate here. It's difficult for some companies to take that on board, but there's no choice. Thank you so much. Right. I'm going to end with a quick, rapid question if everyone can just give me their top succinct answer to this. It does feel as if there is this alignment now, but there's so much change that needs to happen. And there's probably decades of built-in biases within all our systems, whether governmental or the finance sector. So culturally and within our own frame of influence, what are some of the things that we can do to shift that cultural backdrop to this challenge? And if you've got a kind of idea within your own business in what you're seeking to do to try and spread this awareness out of sustainable investment across much broader into the sector, quick answers would be wonderful. And then we'll be wrapping up and going into a private session. So I'll usually start with, I'll go in reverse order. So Bill. Clear commitments, clear metrics and a high degree of transparency. Fantastic. Thank you, Philip. I would say the same. I can only tell you in addition that the motivation internally of our staff is extraordinary. So I count a lot on the kind of the personal commitment that we have. I've never seen our staff so excited as they are right now, as we issue these new guidelines on how we're going to do this. Excellent. And Marat, you know, I've kind of answered that in a way and I'm glad to hear that at asset management level, there is this commitment and we need to see it delivered on. I think at the political and societal level, I said earlier, we need to make sure that everybody is on this journey and that the transition is just. And I think that's not just a European wish. I think across the globe, we know that there are injustices around climate change. So we need to get that right because if we don't have support from the ground up, then we will have real problems. Thank you. Anthony, culturally, how do we shift culture? I think it's a combination, maybe of all of them. I think every company has a purpose and expanding that purpose or refining that purpose to ensure that includes socially acceptable, the social dynamic ESG type goals would be critical. That starts the grassroots that Philip mentioned in terms of the culture of your entity and then it expands to all of your clients, vendors, everybody else that's engaged. So a purpose driven company, including ESG and that purpose. Fantastic. Just a reflection that we've obviously, as you've touched on, we have gone through this extraordinary couple of years, a year of complete disruption and that moment kind of takes stock and think about how fragile is the sort of structure that we've created. And hopefully we'll see some lessons learned about that public-private engagement that has led to record speeds of vaccine development, the capital system mobilizing, government creating purchase guarantees to sort of make markets. It has been a real challenge. I think just reflecting personally, the problem with climate is how do you make it feel as urgent as these more direct threats to human health? Because I think, Mered, you summed it up, that it is not a long distance threat. This is something that's unraveling now. So how do we get that urgency into this question? And maybe it is going to be a case of looking at what's worked so far in sectors that are decarbonizing, but also learning from the COVID experience. Thank you so much for your comments this morning. I really appreciate everyone joining us at different hours of the day. Thank you, everyone, for watching. Thank you for coming.


So one of the things we've talked about is how a string is just an array of characters. It's just a collection of characters But one of the things that we can do with this is because we're dealing with a data type is we can treat it like an Object and that's actually what we've been doing From the beginning every time we've worked with a string, you know take a look at that dot char adder that dot length Those are known as class Methods that we've been working with you know someone already built them someone did something in the past that Designed out you know how to work this so that's pretty nice in my opinion So let's take a look at some of the other cool things that we can do with it for example. We've got the Split method and what happens with the split method is it'll take whatever's inside here It's parameter and it will actually turn the string into An array of strings a string array. So if you think about it, we've got Java C sharp Python We got three words all separated by spaces. That's the kind of thing. I want to focus in on all of a sudden Well, what happens if I wanted to turn them into? Individual strings, you know, I wanted just Java and just C sharp and just Python What I can do is I can use the dot notation dot notation To then say I have this class method I want to work with and I want to separate them. I want to split them Based on the space character space Character remember it is important to remember. It's a space character. So what happens is suddenly I get a string Array called tokens and it's no different than me coming in here and saying Java C sharp Python the only difference is you know, I had to do that. I had to separate it from there And then I can interact with it as I need to One of the other things we can do inside of a string is something known as a regular Expression also kind of referred to as regex And how this works is we're no longer working with just a string, but we're talking about The pattern of text so say for example, you know the word the sentence Java is fun or Java is hard They both match sort of sort of the same pattern where it's Java is Blank so what we could do is we could actually utilize another class method called matches And how matches works as it expects Some string That has a pattern to it and again with regular expressions. Java already understands how regular expressions sort of work So we say Java Star now you're looking at that dot that dot says that There we go that dot says I want any any character in the world after Java as long as my String starts with Java and as you can see what it'll do is it'll come back with a boolean true or false true or false if my string my string Matches that and we can do a lot of other things with that say for example. I'm doing a phone number Number validator. I want to make sure that my customer types in the right phone number. Well, guess what? We look at something like this 910 8 6 7 5 3 0 9 Whoa, whoa, whoa, and I need to look at that and I can say well here's sort of the regex Pattern that I'm looking for I'm looking for a digit in fact I'm looking for three digits in a row that I'm looking for a dash And I'm looking for then three more digits and then I'm looking for another dash and then guess what I'm looking for for more digits We can start to apply this everywhere We can actually utilize regex when we're dealing with our replace all and replace First methods as you can see we can kind of take this little structure here and we're saying well I want to go ahead and if I find the dollar sign the plus sign or the Pound sign I want to go ahead and just replace it completely with three ends And so we see if we look at our string. I've got a plus sign a dollar sign and a pound sign hashtag Replace each instance with three and a Three ends So as you can see we have a large subset of these that we can start to build from and work with and I won't go over all of them But I encourage you to kind of practice with them because regex Syntax knowing regular expressions is actually very powerful Be you a system administrator or a programmer because everybody kind of has to deal with text


And welcome, hello everybody, and welcome to another SusageVision talk. As usual, I would like to remind you that our talk series is part of the worldwide neuroinitiative, so I can encourage you to check the upcoming talks from other groups. We'll find all the relevant links in the description below. So today I'm glad to receive Professor Sanké Janssen from Duck University in Durham, North Carolina. Originally trained in mathematics and heart, Sanké Abtein is PhD in biology from the University of North Carolina in 1996, is enjoying different oceanographic institutions as a postdoctoral fellow, and is now a professor in a biology department of Duke University since 2001. I also had that he also was a research associate from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. The Sanké studied camouflage, signaling, and non-human visual modalities for the last 27 years, is particularly interested in vision and camouflage in the open ocean, but has also worked on coastal and terrestrial species, magnetoreception, natural ammunition, and human cataracts. His research combines mathematical analysis with biorpherol and morphological studies and in-situ measurement and imaging. His fieldwork currently involves open-research bruises that use cuba diving and deep sea submersibles. In addition to exploring the evolution and diversity of the optical and visual tricks that animals perform, is interested in improving communication between theoretical and experimental scientists, and also between art and science. So with all that, hello Sanké and thanks for accepting our invitation today. Hello everyone. I'm going to share my screen here. All right, good that worked. Yes, good. Hello everyone. This is actually the first time I've done this through YouTube, so yet another way to do this virtually. And what I'd like to talk to you about today is how our own sort of human sensory and cognitive biases influence our studies of visual modalities and using examples of my own research from visual ecology in the open ocean. Now I'm waiting to see if it will actually advance my slide. It didn't. All right, slide you need to advance. I've seen this happen before when it's run through Zoom. There we go. Okay. Yeah, sometimes there's an odd delay to get from the first to second slide. So I've come out of an art background and mathematics and physics, and so I've ended up in a field of biology of visual ecology that's sort of been perfectly suited for me in that I get to look at all these different sort of beautiful animals and think about their visual systems, their camouflage, their signaling, their bioluminescence, the biophotonics of their skin, how they actually produce all these optical effects. And it's really just been sort of a playground for me of all these different things I can work with. And in terms of techniques, we've worked with open ocean scuba diving, open ocean submersible work, remotely operated vehicles in the ocean, various molecular biophysics work, mathematical modeling, microspectrophotometry, a little bit of electrorhetnography, and so on and so on. We like to say that we're a tax on independent lab and a method independent lab. We're very much driven by questions, the questions that drive us and the questions that change over time. What I like to talk to you about today is a very old concept from von Uchsel, known as Umwelt, the idea of that animals live in their own sensory world. And this is something that we think of mostly in the direction of animals having sensory abilities that we do not. For example, animals have electro reception, animals have magneto reception, they have ultraviolet vision, they have infrared vision and so on. But what we sometimes forget is that we have sensory capabilities that other animals don't have, and that we also tend to parse the world in cognitive ways that may not be accurate representations of how animals themselves parse the world, their sensory world. And so because of this, you can end up basically making mistakes in your hypotheses. And some of these are assigning significance to a feature that an animal cannot perceive, assigning significance to a feature that we find striking but that an animal may not, assuming that the lab optical environment is in fact visually relevant and not actually getting the optical environment in the true environment. And finally, assuming that animals subdivide stimuli in the same way that we as scientists do. We as trained, you know, in sort of the Cartesian scientific divide things into orthogonal coordinates sort of way. I realize I'm speaking to the choir here, you know, to people that have thought about these issues a lot. And it's important to me because these are actually some of my own failures. I think it's important for all scientists, especially older or more established scientists, to admit that they fail more often than they succeed. And this is actually real data. I went through and looked at all the different sort of projects that I've initiated over the last 30 years, and all the various ways in which they ended. You can see that a small fraction ended in success, and that a larger number died in various ways, some quite painful. So this story actually this talk I'm giving is sort of a story of three failures. Failures in that the original hypothesis turned out to be completely wrong. But out of this failure, we were able to retrieve some success by realizing a new way of thinking about something that led us to newer hypotheses that were more accurate. And so I guess you could say we have succeeded by failing. The first one is going to be about acuity. The second one is going to be about eye size. And the third one is going to be about polarization vision in the ocean. So to begin with acuity, in general, humans really love color. This is an image from the color festival in India. Color just very much appeals to us as visual scientists. But the actual range of colorability in animals is not so large. This is data collected from a number of different invertebrates and vertebrates looking at the lambda max of different visual pigments. And you can see, for example, in the upper left hand corner that the different visual channels and pass or form birds is actually quite conserved. And that no matter what, you're pretty much always looking at visual pigments over a fairly narrow range, typically what we call the visible and even only a subset of this visible running from about usually 350 or so to about 550. But if you look at acuity, our ability to resolve spatial detail, this can vary enormously, even among animals that we all consider as having relatively good eyes. Here, just looking at a number of different animals plotting eye diameter versus acuity and cycles per degree, we see a range of about four orders of magnitude. And in fact, that many of the animals that we study would be considered legally blind by human standards, meaning that they would have vision worse than what, at least in the US units, we call 2200, which means an acuity one-tenth of what it would normally be to dismiss focus. And even if you look within a smaller group, this is within fish. This is phylogeny here showing acuity as a bar graph in cycles per degree. You can see that there's an enormous range of acuity, even among a relatively smaller group than considering all of animals and all of compound eyes and all these other things. So there are ways to get a sense of what this variation in acuity might mean for what an animal can get out of a scene. It's very important to understand that no matter what technique you use here, you can't actually model what the animal actually sees. All you can really do is provide an estimate of the information remaining in the scene if it's being looked at by a visual system with a lower acuity. This particular method is a Fourier method. You start with an image, you fast Fourier transform it, you multiply that with the modulation transfer function of the imaging system, which is a function of the resolution of the retinal system. And then if you take that product and you do an inverse Fourier transform, you can show what image, what information is remaining in this image. Now, of course, there are things like edge enhancement and a number of other techniques. We call the macros inside the eye and any of these brains that will change the way this actually appears, but it can not actually recover information. And so this gives you an idea of what's available, what's not. And it's also important to remember this is for a static image, a moving image will, of course, provide additional information. So for example here, if you're looking at a deep-sea crab, you know, it looks quite obvious, you know, in its background of its coral, this thing usually lives at about like 500 meters down on deep-sea coral reefs. If you first change the image so that it actually matches the spectral content of the illumination and the visual sensitivity of the eyes looking, you can see that what was, you know, originally quite an obvious animal on the coral is now relatively cryptic. And now if you actually convert this image to what it might look like if it was seen by an animal with a deep-sea visual acuity, which tends to be lower than surface-fish visual acuity, you can see that it's become quite cryptic indeed. So we came to all this sort of in reverse. We were first interested in this project with Eleanor Caves and Tammy Frank in cleaner shrimp. Cleaner shrimp are a group of extremely colorful small crustaceans that have all these beautiful little patterns and spots and so on, and they're known for cleaning. Just like cleaner fish, there's actually cleaner fish in this image. They will set up stations, fish will arrive, they will stop, and then, you know, the shrimp will clean the gills in the mouth and so on. And we're interested in sort of the different sorts of visual communications that were going on. You know, how were the shrimp communicating to the fish? Was there anything about the fish that was being communicated back to the shrimp? And also with all these little color patterns, was there any sort of information being sent back and forth between the shrimp? And we fully expected that the shrimp, you know, being highly colorful animals would, one, have decent color vision and two, that they would have a relatively sharp vision for their size so that they could see these small patterns when they were close to each other and this would signal dominance or sexuality or something of that sort. And we looked at three different species from different locations in the new world and we did two things. The first was actual electro-retinography with chromatic adaptation and to our surprise, we found out that these animals were entirely monochromatic. Even worse than the average crustacean, which is typically dichromatic, these animals had no ability to discern color whatsoever. We worked with Tammy Frank as an extremely good ERG person and tried every single method we could and we were not able to pull out a second visual pigment. So any of the color information these shrimp have is not being passed to each other visually. Then we used an optomotor assay to get a sense of their spatial resolution. Some of you have probably already done this where you put an animal in the middle of an arena with rotating black and white stripes and then you change the width of the stripes to larger and larger and see at which point they can no longer turn to maintain a stable image on their retina. And we did this under several different brightnesses of light and we also looked at what their visual acuity would be predicted by the morphology, the number of facets per degree in their eye and their sensitivity function. And what we found is that their spatial resolution was actually unusually bad even for their eye size. It varied of course by the brightness of the light and so on but typically their minimum resolvable angle was on the order of 10 degrees which is truly terrible. And so our hypothesis that these colors were being used for signaling to each other turned out to be a complete failure. Here we see the animals as we see them you know through the camera you know very obvious striking animals. Here we converted the images to how they would appear you know with the correct visual pigment the fact that they're monochromatic and then here is what they actually look like viewed from only two and a half centimeters away you know with the spatial acuity that they have. Now of course there will be more information when the the animals are actually moving relative to each other but you can see that you know at the very least all the tiny little spots and patterns on the shrimp did not appear to be useful to each other. This led us to think more about visual acuity and how visual acuity and the spatial resolution of patterns might actually play together in an interesting evolutionary way. We thought of a number of different examples that would be fun to think about one being the stability patterns on spider webs it's this big X that you see that makes the spider web more obvious to our eyes and you know at first blush one might think that this might not be a good idea because it makes a filter feeding animal this spider more obvious. But if you look at how this stability of this X pattern looks to the average insect vision it's not visible but it is quite visible to bird vision and so one hypothesis is that they put this extra pattern to avoid accidental destruction of their web by larger animals that of course they would never catch that have sharper vision. Another example are these you know these poison dart frogs that to an insect they remain invisible they're insect prey but to birds that might actually attack them and you know they use warning coloration to warm them off that warning coloration is still visible. An example from the ocean might be the fact that many of the stinging tentacles of jellyfish are actually quite obvious they're either highly pigmented or they're bright white which again makes little sense for a filter feeding animal except when one considers that the animals that they're trying to actually catch have relatively poor acuity and the animals that they don't want to accidentally swim through their web you know their tentacles and destroy them have quite high visual acuity and so we could be looking at acuity specific signals which is something you know we're pursuing further. So in that way we're able to take an original failed hypothesis and turn it into a new way of looking at you know how acuity matters for evolution. The second study is about eye size and depth in oceanic cephalopods and as a collaboration of a number of different people Eric Warrant and Don Eric Nilsson at Lund Michael Vecchione at the Smithsonian and Katie Thomas who was a grad student of mine at the time but is now at the Natural History Museum in London and it came out of a general interest in eye size and the important device size for increasing sensitivity or potentially increasing resolution and cephalopods were particularly interesting because they have an enormous range in body size and even for their range in body size an unusually high range in eye size.  Katie went to the Smithsonian Museum and studied on the order of about 150 different species of cephalopod got a great number of measurements of body and eye size. Some of these actually had to be lifted off of racks by forklifts because the animals were enormous and she was actually able to get you know measurements from giant squid and so on and so here you see the raw data put together by phylogeny and you're looking at eye size sorting the animals into those that live in bright habitats those that live in dim habitats what we call the mesopelagic portion of the ocean down to about a thousand meters and those that live in completely dark habitats. The first thing you see here is that there's quite a range and that there's a pretty strong phylogenetic signal and then if you were to you know look at this you know on a regression with the size of the bodies you can see that as it's typical the eyes become larger as the bodies become bigger and if you look at it more carefully you see that the size of an eye relative to its body is higher for the animals in the dim habitats those in the ocean between 200 and 1000 meters than those in completely dark habitats and those in bright habitats which is something that's generally seen. One finds you know that animals in bright habitats have relatively small eyes for their size or you could call an average and that is you move to more and more challenging dim environments the eyes become larger and then when you move to completely dark habitats eyes start to shrink again and in some cases you know completely vanish for example in cave animals but the question then was does any of this matter you know how much does this actually affect visual range you know these changes in eye size you know the assumption would be that these eyes are getting larger in these dim deep environments to improve visual range and visual range is important for a number of reasons one you know they could be looking for food they could be looking for each other or they could be looking out for predators and the idea has always been that you know if the eye is larger then that increases visual range and they're able to see a predator from further away and have a better chance to escape. Together with Don Eric Nielsen and Eric Morant we developed a model of visual range underwater that incorporates a number of different factors it incorporates the ambient light it incorporates the visual system its sensitivity the geometry of the eye it also incorporates the murkiness of the water as things move away in the water they become fade away due to the murkiness of the water itself and in the end a whole lot of math can be squished down into a relatively small equation which surprised us and it only depends on a few things depends on the contrast of the target what's being looked at it's width its size the attenuation coefficient of the water which is a number that describes how murky it is the pupil diameter of the viewer the eye sensitivity times the light level available and the integration time of the eye this is pretty much all inside a function known called W which is called a Lambert W function and this is actually what allows this equation to be seen in such impact form the only thing you really need to know about it is that this function rises extremely slowly um with number so in other words as if you go back as everything inside that W parentheses gets larger the number the function changes very little at all so you have to increase eye size by a tremendous amount to really get any gain in visual range is the bottom line um this is just some more math we looked at both this and also um illuminated sources like bioluminescent sources and so what i'm going to show you here are a set of graphs um the x axis is always going to be sighting distance how far you can see a prey item a predator a mate whatever divided by your own body size and so if it's one and you're six feet tall two meters tall you can see something two meters away and this is as a function of depth with the different squid species lined up by their average depth in their habitat um so the first thing you see is you just see all the different squid species we looked at and the obvious thing that comes out of this is that the visual range plummets with depth and once you get below about 500 meters um it becomes very difficult to see anything at all um we knew that it dropped off but we didn't know it dropped off that severely and we calculated that for a squid um to be able to see what a squid can normally see at the surface to be able to see that at a thousand meters its pupil would have to be one kilometer across um so eye size does let you see further but not by much and so here we've added in sizes for each of the dots that correlates with the actual lens diameter you can see that you know the larger lens diameters do push you know the dots a little bit to the right you know the larger dots are on the right and then this is actually looking at the investment um how much the eye size is larger than you would expect for the given size of squid how much it is above or below a regression line in a plot um but the biggest thing to take away from this is just that eye size does help you in the deep but it helps you far far less um than you would ever expect um this led us to think more about what actually you know can be useful you know in the deep and what we what you're looking at here are the same set of squid looking at targets except now they're looking at targets that are bioluminescent and you can see if you compare back and forth that there's an enormous advantage to having a luminous target even though the amount of light coming from these targets is actually quite low most of this bioluminescence could not be seen in dim room light it's quite dim but just that little bit um all of a sudden allows you to be able to see things that are 10 to 100 meters deep and so now we've been looking at this sort of break that occurs when you go from the top part of the ocean from zero to 500 meters to 500 to 1,000 meters at this 500 meter spot there's a change in what is possible visually you go from a world where you can see just from the light that comes down from the sun to a world where you can really only see bioluminescence and this has led us to think much more carefully about the visual ecology of the animals that are 500 meters and deeper that their camouflage their signaling everything else cannot depend on the light from the sun it has to entirely depend on light from bioluminescence and that changes the visual ecology dramatically and so this has led us to a number of other papers and new avenues of research the last thing I want to talk about is about polarization vision um and in particular whether it's used as a camouflage breaker um this was done with a postdoc at the time Yaqir Gagnon who's now at Lund University Tom Cronin at the University of Maryland and Justin Marshall at the University of Queensland um and this is getting at the whole problem of how difficult predation is in the open ocean how easy it is to be eaten um this picture here shows you that in the open ocean you can be eaten by birds and sharks at the same time um you can be eaten in a three-dimensional way you can be eaten from below you can be eaten from the side you can be eaten from above and there's very little there's nowhere you can hide from I mean there's nothing you can hide behind you can't disappear to a reef you can't disappear behind a tree and so your only real hope in the open ocean to avoid predation if you're not chemically defended or if you're not very fast you know is camouflage and so a primary thing that our lab is interested in is how does camouflage work in the open ocean because in the open ocean you need to actually look like water um which is challenging and there are only four ways that light can deal with matter um it can go through it as in transparency it can bounce off it in a shiny way as in mirrors um it can be produced by matter as in bioluminescence or it can be absorbed selectively and some of it reflected back as in coloration these are the only things that light can do with matter and in most situations the camouflage is entirely based on coloration but in the open ocean where predation is so intense and camouflage is so tricky we see all four of these occurring with great regularity and so it's a great sort of natural laboratory for understanding camouflage tricks and on how animals break camouflage today I'm just going to talk about transparency in mirrors and how that relates to polarization vision as a possible camouflage breaker there are many many um transparent animals in the open ocean um this is a beautiful one it's a transparent octopus called vitro leadenella um but a problem with many transparent animals and here you're seeing three transparent animals looked at through parallel polarizers and then looked at through cross polarizers for those of you who remember polarization microscopy um what this does when you look at something through cost polarizers is it lights up anything that changes the polarization of light by being what we call birefringent anything that either lowers the polarization or changes its direction and so the idea has been for quite a while probably for I don't know the last 30 40 years that because the ocean is polarized ocean light is actually quite polarized when the water is clear and because a number of animals have polarization vision in the ocean such as cephalopods some fish um some crustaceans um that this is used as a camouflage breaker that the animals floating in the water change the polarization of the background light and that this can be seen by the animals with polarization vision and there have been laboratory studies looking at this and so on and we were interested in whether this actually occurred in nature um our original model of how this would work is that light would come down from above it would some of it would be scattered towards the viewer and then the background light with its polarization represented by a red arrow here the polarization would either be shrunk represented by the smaller arrow as it passes through this tina floor or the polarization would actually turn by the tissue but either way the person viewing who looks a lot like Lenin here um would be able to tell this difference and break this transparency camouflage using polarization vision um and we wanted to see if this actually occurred in the real world as opposed to in the laboratory we built two different camera systems the one on the right was extremely expensive um highly complex involved a rotating crystal in the front go back and forth 90 degrees every other frame and to actually give you you know really wonderful polarization information the one on the left was two $500 cameras with extremely cheap polarizing filters on top of each lens and we just pushed the buttons at the same time which one do you think worked it was the cheap one um the expensive one was never really what we wanted it to be but the cheap one actually worked very well so one lesson you know is always use the cheap equipment in your research because it'll probably be more reliable um and this will give us images like this um you're looking at the red the green and the blue channel um don't worry about the top row in this case the M row is what it looks like um you know just sort of under natural light and then the P is the percent polarization and what you see is that the polarization image isn't in any way more obvious than the um the normal unpolarized image and this is of course a very crude way of looking at this which we're going to get back to in a moment because this is not exactly address how a visual system might do this but what we it did allow us and we looked at many many different species in many different orientations and different kinds of water we never saw that beautiful birefringence that I showed you in that first picture between the cross polarizers we never saw these animals become more obvious to polarization vision than to normal vision which sort of broke our hypothesis um and if there's one lesson from this is that it's always dangerous to fall in love as a visual ecologist with your pretty pictures um examples of this are people who study fluorescence um fluorescence can look really beautiful when you have a lot of excitation light and then a really strong filter to block all of the light from coming back except the emission wavelength then you know the rocks on this upper left hand corner can look really stunning but the rocks on the right are being illuminated by the same emission I mean excitation spectrum but you don't see any real polars and any real strong fluorescence at all because you haven't filtered out everything else and so it can be dangerous to you know look at something under an extremely artificial lighting system and then try to convert it to what's going on in the real world another example is the beautiful iridescence from the comorows of tina floors which you see in the lower left these sort of rainbow effects of the body and people thought you know what is the visual purpose of this but this only works under highly directed illumination like for example from a flash flash of a camera if you were to look at them underwater normally unless you're very close to the surface the lighting is so diffuse in the ocean that you don't see any of this iridescence at all so the most important thing I think in all visual ecology is to at some point be inside the optical environment of your animal to get a better sense of what optical effects truly matter and which ones don't um so we wanted to know you know why we weren't seeing you know this birefringence in these images and so we could unfortunately not directly measure the light field in all directions this turns out to be very difficult but because the ocean is optically very simple we were able to model it um and this is done by looking at what are called the inherent optical properties which are sort of a description of how murky the water is and then there are instruments that measure this which we had and then you use software that will take you know this measurement about how murky the water is and grind it through a whole bunch of math and then tell you exactly how much light there is in all directions at all wavelengths depending on how much light there is above the ocean where the sun is the amount of waves and so on um there's a side reaction where a lot of your money goes away because the software costs ten thousand dollars but they do give you a t-shirt so you get something out of it um and what we found in these models is that the downward light the downward radiance compared to the horizontal radius was much much brighter so much brighter than we didn't even expect and if you were to look at the ratio of this downward light to this horizontal light it's on the order of a hundred for most wavelengths and then gets all the way up to about five thousand um so in this waters that we're dealing with even down to significant depths down to a hundred meters the light coming down is much much brighter than the light you see from the side so our original image actually needs to look like this it needs to look like a lot of downward radiance just a little bit of horizontal radiance and what we see from the animal is actually the scattered downward radiance even though only a few percent of the light that goes down is scattered horizontally to the viewer that ends up overwhelming the system um and so we that downward radius is not polarized at all and so you don't see any birefringes and so this initial failure of trying to see in nature what people had seen in the lab for the last 30 years allowed us to get a better understanding of the structure of light in the ocean so for the very last thing i wanted to talk about polarization vision and how it might work to break camouflage in silvery animals which has also been a hypothesis for a while many many open ocean animals are quite silvery and when we see them on land of course they look very obvious but it turns out that if you hold a mirror vertically in the open ocean it's quite a good piece of camouflage so how does this work so imagine you have an oceanic predator in this case it's my wife and she's looking at a fish this sort of cross section here and even though the fish's body is curved there are these mirrors represented by the short black lines that are all vertical the underwater light field is often fairly symmetrical about the vertical axis and so that when she is looking at the fish she sees light behind her head that is of the same radiance same brightness as the light as if she looked directly through and so you literally are playing a trick with mirrors when you have a mirror in the open ocean it's more complicated than this because the underwater light field isn't as symmetric as we would like but this is how the basic principle works this was unearthed a long time ago in the 60s by Eric Denton at the Plymouth marine lab and he found that indeed the mirrors seen here in a you're looking at a cross section of a fish the bleak um and the little short little red lines are the mirrors you can see that even though the fish's body is curved the mirrors are vertical the whole way around and that you're actually these things have evolved this very fine tuned photonic structure for using mirror as a piece of camouflage in the open ocean these mirrors are made of bands of guanine crystals that act as a whole series of different quarter wave stacks for different wavelengths and because of this they in theory at least should change the polarization of light when you shine light off a structure like that it should change the polarization and the idea again has been for about 30 or 40 years that this should allow animals with polarization vision to see them but the question is does this actually occur in the real world you know does a predator with you know any sort of polarization vision you know looking at this animal now able to break this camouflage again we have more cameras including on the left and even more expensive camera um made by um victor grove at um washington university um and that it gave us these images which show in these four columns the intensity the degree of polarization of the image the angle polarization of the image and something we call profile which i want to talk about in a moment you can see immediately the problem with all these polarization things is that you're false coloring an image you can't directly compare for example the linear polarization image to the intensity image because you've just picked a false color map and you could pick a false color map that would make this look very obvious or make it not look very obvious so we needed a way to compare polarization contrast to intensity contrast in a physiologically relevant way um fortunately this had been worked out by martin howe and just in marshal only a year or two before this um and they looked at you know basically a polarization sensitive system um in this case it's set up you know with an invert system um with a channel of micro villi going one direction a channel of micro villi going the other direction a comparison between different neurons and so on and eventually you end up with a way of modeling this quite well and then using that to determine polarization thresholds so that you can actually compare brightness vision to polarization vision in a real way this is just to show you you know there's some math involved um the thing that they didn't look at though was how does the polarization change as it moves to the water if we want to understand how far away this animal can be seen due to polarization vision we have to also accept that the polarization may change as it moves through the water and this is where the normal way of our separating polarization into two orthogonal axes of degree of polarization and angle of polarization don't work because it turns out these two things talk to each other here is just a graph to demonstrate this it's showing how the degree of polarization of a target as you move away from it in um attenuation lengths just think of them as arbitrary units depends on the angle of that polarization relative to the angle of the background and so you can't just measure how polarization attenuates through water you need to also know the angles of it which ends up making a real mess of it um and it's a way of sort of saying that our cognitive bias towards how we like to divide the world may not be how the animals actually divide the world may not be a good way to do this instead you have to look at a different formulation that turns out to be a lot closer to how um a visual system might do it which is known as a stokes vector i'm not going to belabor the math of it but it allows you to come up with unambiguous ways of looking at how polarization attenuates underwater in a way that makes a lot more sense with how we know that polarization visual systems work and so in the end you can end it with something like this here r the row r is just a normal radiance image like normal black and white vision and then p is the polarization image of just one particular fish and the first thing you can see is that this polarization image is not nearly as obvious as the radiance image and these have all been corrected to match um thresholds so this you know they should match you know to the eye if they had the same brightness and this led us to be suspicious that perhaps our hypothesis that polarization vision broke silvery camouflage was false we then looked at it um you know actually you know calculated all the numbers and we found that this was indeed true um this figure is sort of a a map of increasing desperation um the only thing you really need to know from it is that if the data is in the sort of orange triangle that means that normal vision works better than polarization vision for seeing these animals at a distance and that if it was in the data is in the purple upper triangle that polarization vision is better and our hypothesis was true um and you can see that you know for all these different graphs it's always in the lower orange triangle meeting our hypothesis was very false the reason there are so many different graphs are that we once we found that we didn't get an answer we started to think are there any conditions under which we would get a positive answer or polarization vision actually helped the row no row lines are no rotation and rotation meaning if we allowed the animal to rotate its head so that it got the strongest polarization signal from the fish would that be enough to allow polarization vision to be helpful and it wasn't the three rows are increasing sensitivity of the polarization sensor all the way up at the bottom to pretty unreasonably strong polarization sensitivities and the left two versus the right two um columns are the ones on the right only are for water in which the degree of polarization was at least 25 um to basically say well what if we only use the water that is the clearest and is the highest background polarization does that help in the end none of it helped um it turns out that polarization vision did not allow these fish to see each other at farther away and this led us actually to what we call the five stages of scientific grief because we have written an entire um proposal and gotten it funded on basically showing that this was true um and it was not true and just and I you know at the same time first went through denial um you know we must have made a mistake there's something wrong we kept sending our postdoc here back you know to show to find the mistake then Justin in particular got very angry because he had always thought this was true and then we went back to more bargaining how can we look at this in a way that does make polarization vision you know matter um and then we just sort of resigned ourselves to it after a short period of depression we accepted it and then we send it off to publication and watch the reviewers go through the same five steps as they again would not believe it but the bottom line is these animals you know based on the actual data we had weren't more visible and that this polarization vision camouflage breaking out hypothesis for the particular animals at least turned out not to be true um we did a little more exploration as to why um we found that the degree of polarization of the background um was quite close to the degree of polarization of the fish that's shown in the left graph here you can see that the degree of linear polarization of the background the x-axis that data is just a little bit below the one to one relationship and if you looked at on the right graph the difference in the angle of polarization of the light coming off the fish versus the angle of polarization of the background you can see again that it was mostly centered around zero with not many data points far from zero so these animals even though we thought the light would change polarization as it bounced off the fish it actually did not or at least not enough to really make a difference i'm going to skip this modeling part here um and just end with one statement that this doesn't mean the polarization vision is useless i mean it's obviously there for a purpose but that it's apparently not useful for seeing things as far away as possible a nice analogy of this is color vision underwater um when we see something close up for example this sea turtle in the upper left we see all the color and the color makes it more obvious and the color makes it perhaps more identifiable to species or to sex or so on but as the turtle swims away in the lower right um the color information goes completely away and all we're left with is brightness information so it seems that as animals move away underwater um the last information remaining is always just the brightness information the animal is always just a little brighter a little darker than the background but with roughly the same hue and with no real polarization information but that doesn't mean that closer up polarization can't serve a purpose and with that i'd like to thank you for listening and i'll be happy to take any questions thank you thank you that was uh really interesting before we sorry remove this stupid mask before we move to question i'd like to invite uh everybody on on the audience to join us on zoom right now we've shared a link for this uh zoom room so if you want to come and join us to ask your question or further discuss the topic you're most welcome to do so so please join us and turn off your youtube video sound um i mean i had a couple of questions but you answer most of them during during your talk um when you were discussing uh for interest from uh daniel or so you asked how do you measure equity um yeah so yeah so this is one of these things where you know any model is only good as the information that goes into it so you know there are multiple ways to measure acuity um you know you can measure acuity behaviorally you know with an optomotor assay which is you know what we had done with the shrimp um you know you can you know it's the classic one where you spin black and white stripes and then make watch the stripes get smaller and smaller and see at which point they can no longer do it the danger of any assay of that sort is you can only tell if an animal won't do the activity not whether it can't which is of course a problem with all thresholds um another way people have measured acuity is by you know using morphology um you know looking at you know if you look at the spacing of photoreceptors in a camera eye or if you know you look at um you know the interometrial angles and the um the acceptance angles of compound eyes you know you can get that information but again you don't know how close to this theoretical maximum the animal can go those are two of the the biggies so there's a whole set of um sort of subversions of you know these different ways of getting acuity um acuity of course can vary across a retina as we know with our own fovea um so you know we could have extremely high acuity in one part of our eye lower acuity in another and there's a whole complicated interplay between the information you can receive from a static info a static image versus a moving image you know there are these wonderful demonstrations of a bunch of lines where it doesn't look like anything's there and then when one set of that lines moves across the other you see that those set of lines represents um sort of a bird shape and so you do get information additionally from moving and actually we've been converting this particular software to also work with movie inputs to give a better sense um so these sort of Fourier transform methods like I said they can't tell you the actual perception of an animal which is almost fundamentally impossible um but they can tell you the information available so for example like it's kind of like looking at the resolution limit of a microscope you can see detail below the resolution of a microscope but it's false detail you know you can do certain sharpening things in that sort but you can't recover detail unless of course you use some of the weirder new super resolution microscopy techniques and so they're really measures of information availability than they are a true representation of the perception of the animal that you did uh I guess that also answered uh the question asked by Damien Joubert Joubert sorry um we have Michael Doe with us today so um Michael Doe wonderful talk thank you are animals specialized which is a camouflage conspecific for example do the particular pigments present within otherwise transparent bodies storage I mean can they see the camouflage counter species the domain question can you say that again animals with uh those special animals can they see the camouflage conspecific the own species oh can an animal see the camouflage of its own concept that's a really good question um you know that sort of leads to the it's related to the whole private channel concept you know can animals signal to each other in ways that other animals cannot detect um we wrote a long review about this arguing that maybe there aren't as many private channels as people originally thought um but that's always been an idea and the the idea that you know can animals see each other's camouflage sort of falls in that private channel idea um you know all camouflages are you know unless they're truly perfect um can be broken by different modalities you know for example an animal with higher acuity than another may be better at breaking certain forms of pattern camouflage um animals with color vision can break a can can break a camouflage that only works for animals with you know let's say only monochromatic vision and so on um but I don't think it's been studied a great deal um whether on average well camouflaged animals are particularly good at finding each other visually you know within their own species um because of course you know there are other modalities as well and behaviors also change so you know if an animal approaches a conspecific um the conspecific was camouflaged may release that camouflage for example a flounder may pop come up off the ground or in particular a cephalopod might switch from camouflage form to any of its number of different um sexual signaling forms um so it would be a little bit tricky to do but it's a really interesting question um sorry I'm reading the question as I discovering it uh so we have another one from Michael Doe is there an inverse relationship between camouflage and the degree of social interaction across species I guess there's a shrimp in her fish you showed earlier oh god has anybody ever looked at that um I would I would doubt it I mean I mean of course you know anytime you think about it's something true across all species and is there a general pattern it's like you know be scary to ever guess but there's certainly many counter examples I mean there are many I mean you know they're extremely social schools of fish that are all quite silvery and quite well camouflaged um but it does lead to funny questions so I mean that um octopus I showed you know is extraordinarily well camouflaged the transparent octopus um but the only way that it can reproduce is to actively copulate it has to find another completely transparent octopus and mate and we know they do um because we have movies of them actually mating and it's not a common animal at all it's quite a rare octopus and of course the ocean's very large um and the depth ranges over which this animal operates is also quite large um so somehow they managed to figure it out and it's tricky to you know think about sometimes you would think well maybe they're using another modality um but for something like a transparent octopus I mean maybe it would be a chemical signal but in the plagic world chemical signals because they're everybody's moving in the same bulk current they're left with just simple diffusion which is slow um and of course you know things like that aren't using sonar or things that sort so the whole question of how animals balance camouflage and social interaction I mean it's it's a long old one I mean John Endler was of course very interested in this and how guppies you know balance being able to signal with each other but also not be too obvious you know to predators um and we've thought about it in a practical way you know can you design lures for fish that don't catch sea turtles you know what are the ways in which sea turtle vision differs from swordfish vision so that you can catch one and have another be different you know can you play with temporal characteristics or spatial characteristics um but yeah it's a long-standing question whether there's an overall relationship across all species I would doubt it just because biology is always so messy yeah complicated topic um just to let people know audience know I will shut down the stream after this last question so if you want to join us please do so in the meantime the link is still in the chat you won't be accessible after that um I have one last question from Tom Baden did you look at any possible wavelength dependence in your trade-off between polarisation and brightness um let's see we did look at we we had the different channels um so you know we looked at you know in this case the camera systems you know we were looking at a red a blue and a green channel so we didn't have you know fine spectral information like with hyperspectral imager we didn't see anything um now it's the thing of the the tricky part of that though is there's almost no red channel so you know we're working in a blue ocean at some depth and so there's almost no red information at all and so that you know channel is quite noisy and so all that we're really left doing is comparing the blue and the green channel um but no we don't have any hyperspectral information to look at that question it'd be interesting to look at um in general when we've looked at some of these things like transparency and mirroring and so on look at wavelength dependence we haven't found anything particularly striking the one place fascinatingly enough where we found a strong dependence we've done work on ultra black fish um fish that have extremely low reflectances um you know you know far below one percent like on the order of 0.05 percent and we found that even though the reflectance across the visible spectrum is extremely low it's far lower right at the wavelengths that are used by bioluminescence at about 480 nanometers um you know the values there are one third to one quarter what they are at the blue and red edge of the spectrum um so those animals even though you think it wouldn't matter anymore because they're so extraordinarily dark to begin with are still have a very strong wavelength dependence of their camouflage um but you know some of the very first work I did which was on transparent animals looking at wavelength dependence there there was never anything interesting there which surprised me I always assumed that there would be a stronger um you know that all these traits would become more prominent as one moved to the portion of the spectrum where most of the light occurred which is in the ocean about at 480 nanometers but it turned out not to be true unfortunately all right thank you for that um last chance for audience to join us on zoom um thanks in case it was very interesting don't like me and so I'd like to thank everybody that was there today and I'll see you next week for another the sex vision yeah all right well thank you all right take care and we are