Sure. So scope two again, this is purchased electricity emissions, the key thing to understand are renewable energy certificates, these things called RECs in the lingo. And essentially, a REC represents what is often called an environmental attribute or green attribute, a sort of claim of ownership of a megawatt hour of electricity that came from a renewable source. Now, it seems relatively simple to think of this as an accounting metric, where whoever holds the RECs has the right to claim that they got the electricity from a renewable source. And when you purchase electricity, if you purchase the RECs as well, then you're, you're the holder of that title to the claim that you purchase renewable energy. And the reason we have these is that when you think about an electricity grid, you have different generating sources of renewables and fossil fuels that are putting electricity into that grid, and then it's distributed through the grid, and then is this coming out and you can't track the sort of flow from generating source to, to end user directly, so this is a way to do that tracking. And RECs were developed when states in the United States were putting forward renewable portfolio standard requirements. So they'd say something like we need to have 30% renewables by X year. And it was a way to sort of track compliance with that. All sounds well and good. The challenge is that the way that RECs are purchased, they can either be purchased in a way that is bundled or unbundled. And before that sounds too confusing, think about it this way: when you're buying renewable electricity, you can buy just the electricity, which is like you're paying for the kilowatt hours, or you can buy the electricity and the RECs. But there are also markets where the RECs are simply sold as these titles to renewable electricity separately from actually purchasing the electricity. So when the RECs are sold together with the electricity that's called bundled, and when the RECs are sold separately from the electricity that's called unbundled. And even though in all our accounting systems, the holder of the REC has a right to claim that they have purchased renewable electricity, if you're simply buying unbundled RECs on a secondary market--first of all, they're really cheap. Secondly, it's hard to argue that you buying those RECs--that are being resold and resold and resold--that you are actually creating new renewable electricity out there. And, and yet, in our accounting systems, you can use them to essentially offset your scope two emissions. So here you are, using lots of electricity, keeping the lights on, and you don't really care where that electricity is coming from. It's coming from your grid, plenty of fossil fuel sources. You're not putting in energy efficiency measures. You're not putting up new solar farms or things like that. And then you just buy these cheap, unbundled RECs and say, well, that covers that. And yes, technically, you have these certificates. But it's hard to argue that you've actually induced these additional emissions reductions. And because it's hard to argue that you've induced additional emissions reductions, from the climate standpoint--going back to how Alex talked about, you know, what is the climate care about--it's hard to argue that you are actually sort of neutralizing out the emissions that you're responsible for. It's even more complicated when you have states that have these requirements for huge portions of renewable electricity, because even if you do buy the RECs along with the electricity, it's not exactly that the institution of higher education is setting the state's renewable electricity standards or policies. And I find it personally somewhat problematic--and I think the research bears this out--that just sort of participating in a state's policy initiative is somehow akin to aggressive climate action. Not that we shouldn't support states' policy initiatives, but the way it's looking here is that, oh well, you bought this power and it came with these RECs, so you can use whatever electricity that you want. So what we found is that without accounting for REC purchases, the median reduction of scope two emissions across the institutions that declared neutrality was 31%. But with all the RECs, the median reduction was 100%. Meaning that RECs are pretty heavily used. And again, there's nothing wrong with this, it's perfectly allowed. It's just from a scientific standpoint, the argument that purchasing a REC is truly an additional emissions reduction doesn't quite pass the academic rigor test when, when RECs are really probed in detail.