Tom Grylls

And as Zorana mentioned, I think that can really help answer this question where at the moment, basically there's some evidence that suggests black carbon could be a more toxic component than particulate matter more broadly.

But there's not enough that consensus has been brought.

So these systematic reviews are really important towards scientific consensus on this, which can then inform the policy decision.

I think...

One of the things we can do collectively on super pollutants is build the case for additional action, increased ambition, increased finance.

And in order to do this, we need to assess the literature there is out there in terms of the health impacts of

these super pollutants in terms of the climate impacts of these super pollutants and aggregate that together to bring together this emergency break and climate and health story.

As we're doing that, I think it's critical to identify what the evidence gaps still are, in particular on the health side

There is a need for more dense monitoring networks of ozone and of black carbon, which can inform more and a strengthened health evidence base.

And then on the climate side, because these are so short-lived, we need to also look at climate change at a regional as well as global scale.

So some of the indirect health impacts of, for example, black carbon emissions are how it is changing monsoon patterns and the glaciers and what that means for flooding and rainfall changes, et cetera.

And global climate models...

designed to look as best we can at how the global climate system is changing.

But the resolution of those means sometimes we miss what's happening at the regional scale.

And as we start thinking about these short-lived climate forces, it's important to also be supporting more regional modeling studies.

And I think that evidence is again important to add to the story that we're able to tell on climate change in different parts of the world.

So I think overall there is a need for more data, but we know enough that the solutions we're pointing towards should be no regret actions, right?

I think they should be more interlocked.

I think there's some interesting structural political reasons for why they often are dealt with so separately, especially at the international scale.

I think there can be a hesitance to bring in the evidence behind the health impact that these emissions are happening alongside this