significant co-benefits -- including water conservation, reduced soil erosion, and beneficial nutrient recycling. Id. at 10. In our latest work we determined, again, that a drawdown of ~100PgC was “an appropriate ambitious estimate for potential carbon extraction via a concerted globalscale effort to improve agricultural and forestry practices.” Exh. B at 15. In the light of those co-benefits and the wide-range of activities such “natural” carbon drawdown is likely to entail, we elected not to attach a price to that first ~100PgC of necessary carbon drawdown. See id. at 14. I stress however that, on the basis of our analysis, no implication is warranted that such a level of carbon drawdown is likely to occur absent changes in policy at the local, state, national, international and business firm levels. Rather, we mean only to suggest that the requisite land use changes should be deemed sensible investments, from the long-run social and economic perspective, in terms of improved agricultural yield, enhanced forest products and services, etc., even before their necessarily beneficial climate consequences are taken into account. In any event, systematic global emissions reductions did not commence in 2013. To the contrary emissions, temperature, and climate forcing trends all reflect our entirely unsustainable present path. Id. at figures 2, 5, 8 and 14, and accompanying text. Accordingly, we must anticipate and confront atmospheric carbon drawdown requirements that substantially exceed 100 PgC, if we are to prevent truly catastrophic consequences to the Philippines6 and other nations. 6 In this regard I note that, in virtue of the Philippines’ location and other relevant considerations of physical geography and development, Filipinos may be disproportionately vulnerable to the ravages of impending climate impacts, including amplified sea level rise and severe weather events. See, for example, Kahana et al., Projections of mean sea level change for the Philippines, Met Office (Dec. 6, 2016) Page 4 of 7