Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

More than £494bn subsidies a year are harmful to the climate, says report

News Feed
Wednesday, September 18, 2024

More than $650bn (£494bn) a year in public subsidies goes to fossil fuel companies, intensive agriculture and other harmful industries in the developing world, new data has shown.The subsidies entrench high greenhouse gas emissions and are fuelling the destruction of the natural world, according to a report from the charity ActionAid.Developed countries are also actively subsidising such harmful activities. The UK, for instance, devotes about $7.3bn a year to effective subsidies for fossil fuels.Taken altogether, the sums involved in the developing world would be enough to pay for the education of all children in sub-Saharan Africa three and a half times over, each year.By contrast, developing countries are receiving only a fraction of those sums in climate finance, which would help them to move away from dirty and polluting industries towards a clean and low-carbon economy. Renewable energy projects in the developing world are receiving 40 times less than the fossil fuel sector, the analysis found.Subsidies for dirty industries and intensive agriculture have for decades been one of the most intractable obstacles to shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing. The International Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and other institutions have repeatedly called for a reduction in these subsidies.However, some of them are used to benefit the poor or to soften the blow of price rises or other shocks. That was the case in recent years in the UK when energy prices rose, prompting the government to help households with an energy price guarantee. Other countries made similar moves, which, ironically, along with the soaring prices helped fossil fuel companies to an unprecedented bonanza, much of which is being re-invested in new oil and gas exploration instead of clean and renewable energy.But in many countries, subsidies are directed towards industries regarded as politically important, or which have powerful lobbies.ActionAid analysts, describing their findings in a report entitled How the Finance Flows: Corporate capture of public finance fuelling the climate crisis in the global south, published on Wednesday, said many of the subsidies were owing to “corporate capture” of the government and public institutions.“This report exposes wealthy corporations’ parasitic behaviour,” said Arthur Larok, the secretary general of ActionAid International. “They are draining the life out of the global south by siphoning public funds and fuelling the climate crisis.”But he blamed governments in rich countries too. “Sadly the promises of climate finance by the global north are as hollow as the empty rhetoric they have been uttering for decades,” he said. “It is time for this circus to end. We need genuine commitments to ending the climate crisis.”ActionAid also found it was not necessary for developing countries to adopt the high-carbon and intensive agricultural practices that have destroyed nature and created the climate crisis, as developing countries could move swiftly to a low-carbon model that would still enable them to grow and prosper.The authors called for an end to destructive subsidies, more public finance from rich countries to be directed towards low-carbon efforts in the developing world, and for more stringent regulation of the banking sector that would require minimum standards for human rights, and social and environmental considerations, before finance is directed towards destructive industries.

ActionAid says ‘parasitic behaviour’ is fuelling the climate crisis and represents ‘corporate capture’ of public financeMore than $650bn (£494bn) a year in public subsidies goes to fossil fuel companies, intensive agriculture and other harmful industries in the developing world, new data has shown.The subsidies entrench high greenhouse gas emissions and are fuelling the destruction of the natural world, according to a report from the charity ActionAid. Continue reading...

More than $650bn (£494bn) a year in public subsidies goes to fossil fuel companies, intensive agriculture and other harmful industries in the developing world, new data has shown.

The subsidies entrench high greenhouse gas emissions and are fuelling the destruction of the natural world, according to a report from the charity ActionAid.

Developed countries are also actively subsidising such harmful activities. The UK, for instance, devotes about $7.3bn a year to effective subsidies for fossil fuels.

Taken altogether, the sums involved in the developing world would be enough to pay for the education of all children in sub-Saharan Africa three and a half times over, each year.

By contrast, developing countries are receiving only a fraction of those sums in climate finance, which would help them to move away from dirty and polluting industries towards a clean and low-carbon economy. Renewable energy projects in the developing world are receiving 40 times less than the fossil fuel sector, the analysis found.

Subsidies for dirty industries and intensive agriculture have for decades been one of the most intractable obstacles to shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing. The International Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and other institutions have repeatedly called for a reduction in these subsidies.

However, some of them are used to benefit the poor or to soften the blow of price rises or other shocks. That was the case in recent years in the UK when energy prices rose, prompting the government to help households with an energy price guarantee. Other countries made similar moves, which, ironically, along with the soaring prices helped fossil fuel companies to an unprecedented bonanza, much of which is being re-invested in new oil and gas exploration instead of clean and renewable energy.

But in many countries, subsidies are directed towards industries regarded as politically important, or which have powerful lobbies.

ActionAid analysts, describing their findings in a report entitled How the Finance Flows: Corporate capture of public finance fuelling the climate crisis in the global south, published on Wednesday, said many of the subsidies were owing to “corporate capture” of the government and public institutions.

“This report exposes wealthy corporations’ parasitic behaviour,” said Arthur Larok, the secretary general of ActionAid International. “They are draining the life out of the global south by siphoning public funds and fuelling the climate crisis.”

But he blamed governments in rich countries too. “Sadly the promises of climate finance by the global north are as hollow as the empty rhetoric they have been uttering for decades,” he said. “It is time for this circus to end. We need genuine commitments to ending the climate crisis.”

ActionAid also found it was not necessary for developing countries to adopt the high-carbon and intensive agricultural practices that have destroyed nature and created the climate crisis, as developing countries could move swiftly to a low-carbon model that would still enable them to grow and prosper.

The authors called for an end to destructive subsidies, more public finance from rich countries to be directed towards low-carbon efforts in the developing world, and for more stringent regulation of the banking sector that would require minimum standards for human rights, and social and environmental considerations, before finance is directed towards destructive industries.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

MacKenzie Scott Has Given $26B to Nonprofits Since 2019. Here's What She Supported in 2025

The billionaire and author MacKenzie Scott revealed $7.1 billion in donations to nonprofits Tuesday, bringing her overall giving since 2019 to $26.3 billion

The billionaire and author MacKenzie Scott revealed $7.1 billion in donations to nonprofits Tuesday, bringing her overall giving since 2019 to $26.3 billion. Scott first pledged to give away the majority of her wealth in 2019 after her divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Since, she's distributed large, unrestricted gifts to nonprofits without asking for applications or progress reports. Largely, her giving has focused in the U.S., though not exclusively. Scott doesn't have a public foundation and so it's not easy to independently track her giving. But she's revealed her gifts in occasional blog posts and essays posted to her website, Yield Giving, which also now includes a database of her grants. The amount of her annual giving has fluctuated, ranging from a reported $2.1 billion in 2023 to $7.1 billion in 2025. In 2025, Scott's gifts showed a particular focus on supporting colleges and universities, especially historically Black and tribal schools, as well as community colleges. She also gave major gifts to organizations focused on mitigating and adapting to climate change. A new emphasis on climate organizations When the list of 2025 recipients was published Tuesday, it included a number of significant gifts to climate groups, with the largest — $90 million — going to the collaborative Forests, People, Climate, which focuses on stopping tropical deforestation. The nonprofit Panorama Global has analyzed Scott's giving over the years and found that historically, giving to the environment has represented a small part of her overall donations. In 2024, only 9.4% of Scott's gifts went to environmental groups, though on average the amount of those gifts was larger than to other areas, according to their research. “What we’re now seeing is different years have different focus areas,” said Gabrielle Fitzgerald, founder and CEO of The Panorama Group. “So last year, there was a really big economic security focus. This year, I really see education and climate.” Scott's assets have grown even as she's given away a fortune When Scott started detailing her giving in 2020, her fortune was valued around $36 billion, according to Forbes. It's fluctuated over the years, but today, Forbes estimates her net worth to be $33 billion, even as she's given away more than $26 billion. Initially, Scott told grantees not to expect or plan for a second gift, but over time, she has given additional gifts to some of the same organizations, often larger than her original grant. “She clearly is getting comfortable with reinvesting in partners that she thinks are doing good work,” said Fitzgerald. At least one organization, CAMFED, which supports girl's education in African countries, has now received four gifts from Scott, including the largest so far, $60 million, in 2025, according to Scott's website. Many generous gifts to minority colleges and universities In addition to at least $783 million Scott gave to historically Black colleges and universities in 2025, her website details many gifts to tribal colleges, community colleges and scholarship funds. “It looks like she sees a lot of need, particularly in two areas ensuring people are getting higher education and ensuring that groups are working to protect the climate,” said Fitzgerald. While Scott has given to higher education since 2020, those gifts have historically been a smaller portion of her education funding. In a 2024 analysis, Panorama Global found nearly 30% of Scott's education grantees were focused on youth development. Marybeth Gasman, a professor at Rutgers University and expert on HBCUs, said she noticed that what sets many of the HBCUs who receive Scott's funding apart from others is steady, consistent leadership and Gasman said, “She’s very interested in institutions that are rooted in community.” The value of unrestricted grants Scott does not put any conditions on her donations, allowing recipients to decide how and when to spend the funds. Unrestricted funding is rare from major donors and foundations, with many choosing to support very specific projects over specific timeframes. However, research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy in 2023 found that concerns about nonprofits misusing Scott's funds or growing unsustainably have largely not been born out. In part, that may be because Scott's team researches and vets groups extensively before making donations. Unrestricted gifts can help nonprofits weather disruptions, test new approaches or technologies or invest in the systems and infrastructure that underpin their work. For example, after the Trump administration cut funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the nonprofit Village Enterprise, which runs antipoverty programs, used a grant it received from Scott in 2023 to keep essential programs running.Additionally, Scott allows groups the flexibility to decide whether to publicly share how much they've received, with more than a third of recipients in 2025 not disclosing the grant amounts in Scott's grant database. Fitzgerald said altgoether, she thinks Scott tries to not make her giving about herself. “In her essays, she’s always talking about other stakeholders and other people’s contributions," Fitzgerald said. "So it’s very different than many other philanthropists who are often the center of the story of their gift.” Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and non-profits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Why we only recently discovered space is dark not bright

For centuries, Europeans thought that eternal daylight saturated the cosmos. The shift to a dark universe has had a profound psychological impact upon us

Adobe Stock Photo/Phoebe Watts A blue Earth ascends over the barren surface of the moon, against the black void of space. This famous photograph, Earthrise, was taken on Christmas Eve of 1968, by Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders. After almost six decades, we take this image for granted. But imagine a different Earthrise, in which space isn’t black but bright blue, like the clear day sky. As strange as it may strike you, this is how most Europeans imagined it for centuries. We know our understanding of the universe has undergone other major transformations, with far-reaching effects. For example, the shifts from an Earth-centred to a sun-centred universe and from a finite to an infinite universe weren’t only scientific discoveries. They made people genuinely rethink their place in the cosmos. The shift from a bright to a dark universe is of comparable significance, but it has been almost lost to history. In recent years, through my research in literary history and the history of science, I have tried to piece together when this shift happened. When, so to speak, did space turn dark? And I’ve found myself asking: what happened to us in the process? Earthrise, a photograph taken from the lunar surface in 1968, crystallized the idea that space was darkNASA Consider the testimony of Domingo Gonsales, the protagonist of the first English science-fiction novel, Francis Godwin’s 1638 Man in the Moone. Travelling to the moon aboard a swan-powered spacecraft, Gonsales reports seeing very few stars – and these few, “by reason it was always day, I saw at all times alike, not shining bright, as upon the earth we… see them in the night time, but of a whitish colour, like that of the moon in the day time with us”. Why does he see fewer stars than we do from Earth? And why are they pale, like the moon seen in the daytime sky? Because his space simply is the daytime sky. The sun has dimmed the light of the brightest stars and drowned out completely that of fainter ones. From our perspective, Gonsales’s universe is upside down. In his version, it is in daytime that we see it as it really is, whereas at night it is obscured by Earth’s dark shadow. But if we ascended into space at midnight, we would eventually break out of the shadow, into the eternal day beyond. In Francis Godwin’s Man in the Moone, the protagonist Domingo Gonsales sets sail for the moon in his swan-powered spacecraftHoughton Library Gonsales doesn’t mention the shadow, but we catch a glimpse of it in another early space travel story, John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Approaching Earth, Milton’s Satan sees “the circling canopy / Of night’s extended shade”. In imagining a premodern Earthrise, then, we should add this shadow into the picture – a dark cone extending from the gibbous planet into the blue heavens and disappearing below the lunar horizon. Other authors explain why space isn’t just bright, but bright blue. The most common explanation is that the “firmament” – the variously imagined vault of the cosmos – was blue in colour. This is the view, notes Milton’s contemporary, the atomist philosopher Walter Charleton, held “not only by vulgar, but many transcendently learned heads”. In looking at the day sky, they thought they were simply looking at the end of the universe. The path towards Earthrise This universe also appears in visual art. Here, again, comparison with Apollo 8 is instructive. Some hours after capturing Earthrise, the crew delivered a radio broadcast to Earth from lunar orbit. Commander Frank Borman wished Earthlings a merry Christmas and read from the biblical account of creation. For the first time, humans attained a comparable, godlike perspective on their blue planet, sparkling in the black abyss. But when premodern artists illustrated these same biblical verses, they often drew the inverse: dark Earths, suspended in azure heavens. To complete the alternative Earthrise, imagine one of these darker Earths, rather than the familiar “blue marble”, ascending over the lunar surface. And it wasn’t just poets and painters. Philosophers and scientists also imagined such universes. Aristotle describes “the shadow of the earth (which we call night)”. Two millennia later, so does Copernicus, writing that “while the rest of the universe is bright and full of daylight, night is clearly nothing but the Earth’s shadow, which extends in the shape of a cone and ends in a point”. There was nothing irrational about such views. Early European thinkers simply had no compelling evidence to the contrary, especially regarding the nature of outer space and of Earth’s light-refracting atmosphere. Without such evidence, why suspect that night is the rule and day the exception? What reason had a premodern Christian to break with centuries of tradition and no longer view the heavens – the abode of God, angels and blessed souls – as a realm of eternal light, but one of eternal darkness? A 13th-century manuscript depicts a grey Earth casting a black shadow into a blue universe (left). The newly created Earth is also imagined as a black marble surrounded by a blue cosmos in a 15th-century manuscriptHeritage Image Partnership Ltd/Alamy; Bibliothèque nationale de France Which isn’t to say bright space was universal, even in premodernity. Thinkers of the Islamicate world, for example, accepted dark space from the 9th century onwards, though the reach of their views in the West seems to have been limited. By all accounts, dark space had to be rediscovered by European thinkers in the 17th century. For one thing, the period saw major advances in the scientific understanding of the atmosphere. Indeed, “atmosphere” is a 17th-century word, and one of the first to use it in English was Walter Charleton, whose universe can be described as the missing link in the story: neither bright nor dark, but changing from one to the other as the observer turns towards and away from the sun. This is because Charleton’s universe is still bounded by a firmament – although a black one, “and not azure, as most suppose” – and is also filled with swarms of tiny particles or “atoms”, driving him to speculate about their visual effects. But for Otto von Guericke, who accepted an unbound, infinite universe, and made groundbreaking experiments studying the vacuum, space is, precisely, space. If we found ourselves in such “pure”, “empty” space, with “no body lighted by the sun either underneath or before” us, we would “see nothing other than shadow”. From this point on, dark space is increasingly accepted by European scientists and scientifically literate thinkers. But that isn’t where the story ends, because bright space still survives for centuries in the popular imagination. Fast-forwarding to 1858, here is the astronomer James Gall, imagining ascending into space in a work aimed at the Victorian general reader: “We look around, and oh, how strange! the heavens are black”. Gall knows space is black, but he doesn’t expect his audience to know it. And this audience isn’t necessarily uneducated in other departments. It isn’t an ignoramus or a child who, as late as 1880, still believes the universe is an “enormous sphere of blue” – it is a distinguished literary historian, David Masson. Isolated instances continue into the 1920s, the very doorstep of the Space Age. We are dealing, then, not only with a lost, but also remarkably recent shift in our cosmological imagination. Because some of the most striking evidence appears in literary works, especially space travel narratives, it was first noticed by literary scholars: C. S. Lewis and, more recently, John Leonard. But it is yet to receive sustained study, and its cultural impact remains almost entirely uncharted. This impact has been profound, although it often hides in plain sight. For example, it is widely recognised that images like Earthrise transformed our planetary and environmental consciousness. Earth became “whole” and “blue”, but also “fragile”: emblematic of the imperatives of political unity and ecological sustainability, as well as the threat of nuclear warfare and anthropogenic climate change. What isn’t recognised, however, is that this transformation wasn’t due solely to a new view of the planet, but also of what surrounded it. Whole Earths had been imagined, depicted and reflected on since antiquity. But most floated in bright universes, eliciting very different reactions. The impact of Earthrise was therefore even greater than commonly understood. Once such images entered mass circulation, they wiped away even the last remaining vestiges of the old, bright cosmos, searing its exact inversion into the popular imagination: Earth as a luminous oasis in a dark cosmic desert. Earth was never “blue” or “fragile”, as such. It appeared so against the lethal darkness around it, which now became not only a scientific but also a cultural and psychological reality.

Rising Temperatures Disturbing Americans' Slumber, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Climate change is costing people some shut-eye, and a new study...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Climate change is costing people some shut-eye, and a new study says it’s only going to get worse.Higher daytime or nighttime temperatures slightly lower the amount of sleep a person gets, researchers reported in the December issue of the journal Environment International.By 2099, people could be losing up to 24 hours of sleep each year due to rising heat, researchers projected.“This work is an important step toward understanding how sleep is affected by environmental stressors like heat, which can increase the risk of disease and even death,” said lead researcher Jiawen Liao, a postdoctoral research associate in population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.“If we can help people sleep better, we may be able to reduce illness and save lives,” Liao said in a news release.Hot weather can disturb sleep in several ways, researchers said in background notes. Heat prevents the body from cooling down, can trigger a stress response and reduces the time a person spends in deep sleep and REM sleep.In turn, poor sleep increases the risk of many different health problems, including heart disease, breathing issues and mental health disorders, researchers said.“We already know that when there are extreme heat events, more people die from cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease,” Liao said. “What will this mean for population health as global temperatures continue to rise?”For the new study, researchers analyzed sleep data collected for more than 14,000 adults, amounting to more than 12 million nights of sleep. The team compared people’s sleep against weather data for their area to see how temperature affects sleep.Results showed that an 18-degree Fahrenheit difference in daytime temperature was associated with about 2.2 minutes of lost sleep, while the same increase at night was linked to more than 2.6 lost minutes of sleep.“This may seem like a small amount, but when it adds up across millions of people, the total impact is enormous,” Liao said.As one might expect, sleep loss is highest during the hot summer days from June to September, researchers said.There also are geographic differences, with folks on the West Coast losing nearly three times as much sleep as people in other regions.All told, U.S. adults could lose between 9 and 24 hours of sleep each year by 2099, depending on where they live, researchers projected.Rising temperatures also were associated with more disrupted sleep throughout the night, and more time spent awake in bed, researchers said.Researchers next plan to investigate whether indoor cooling, green roofs or better sleep hygiene can counter the effects of heat and help people get a good night’s sleep. They also plan to see whether improving sleep can reduce heat-related health problems.SOURCE: Keck School of Medicine of USC, news release, Dec. 5, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

EPA Eliminates Mention of Fossil Fuels in Website on Warming's Causes. Scientists Call It Misleading

The Environmental Protection Agency has removed references to fossil fuels from its online page about climate change causes

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has removed any mention of fossil fuels — the main driver of global warming — from its popular online page explaining the causes of climate change. Now it only mentions natural phenomena, even though scientists calculate that nearly all of the warming is due to human activity.Sometime in the past few days or weeks, EPA altered some but not all of its climate change webpages, de-emphasizing and even deleting references to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, which scientists say is the overwhelming cause of climate change. The website's causes of climate page mentions changes in Earth’s orbit, solar activity, Earth's reflectivity, volcanoes and natural carbon dioxide changes, but not the burning of fossil fuels. Seven scientists and three former EPA officials tell The Associated Press that this is misleading and harmful.“Now it is completely wrong,” said University of California climate scientist Daniel Swain, who also noted that impacts, risks and indicators of climate change on the EPA site are now broken links. “This was a tool that I know for a fact that a lot of educators used and a lot of people. It was actually one of the best designed easy access climate change information websites for the U.S.”“It is outrageous that our government is hiding information and lying,” said former Obama National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief and Oregon State oceanographer Jane Lubchenco. “People have a right to know the truth about the things that affect their health and safety, and the government has a responsibility to tell the truth.”An October version of the same EPA page, saved by the internet Wayback Machine, said: “Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earth’s climate. Natural processes, such as changes in the sun’s energy and volcanic eruptions, also affect the Earth’s climate. However, they do not explain the warming that we have observed over the last century.”That now reads: “Natural processes are always influencing the earth’s climate and can explain climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. However, recent climate changes cannot be explained by natural causes alone.”“Unlike the previous administration, the Trump EPA is focused on protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback, not left-wing political agendas,” said Brigit Hirsch, EPA spokesperson, in an email. “As such, this agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult. Plus, for all the pearl-clutchers out there, the website is archived and available to the public.” Clicking on “explore climate change resources” on the EPA archived website leads to an error message that says: “This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it.”Former Republican Governor Christie Todd Whitman, who was EPA administrator under George W. Bush, said, “You can refuse to talk about it, but it doesn't make it go away. And we're seeing it. Everybody's seeing it.”“We look ridiculous, quite frankly,” Whitman told The Associated Press in an interview. “The rest of the world understands this is happening and they're taking steps... And we're just going backwards. We're knocking ourselves back into the Stone Age.”Democratic EPA chief Gina McCarthy blasted current EPA chief Lee Zeldin, calling him “a wolf in sheep's clothing, actively spiking any attempt to protect our health, well-being and precious natural resources.”Nearly 100% of the warming the world is now experiencing is from human activity, and without that, the Earth would be cooling and dropping in temperatures until the Industrial Revolution, Swain and other scientists said. The EPA listed natural causes “might be causing a very tiny amount of warming or cooling at the moment,” he said.Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that there is consensus among experts from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or NASEM, on the causes of climate change. “Numerous NASEM reports from the nation’s leading scientists confirm that the climate is changing as a result of human activities,” McNutt said. “Even the EPA acknowledges that natural causes cannot explain the current changes in climate. It is important that the public be presented with all of the facts.”Former EPA climate advisor Jeremy Symons, now a senior advisor for Environmental Protection Network of former EPA officials, said: “Ignoring fossil fuel pollution as the driving force behind the climate changes we have seen in our lifetime is like pretending cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.”Michael Phillis contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.