>>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO." HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> WE'VE YET TO SEE REALLY CONVINCING EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS TO EXACTLY HOW THIS DAM WAS BREACHED.

>> BLAME GAME.

KYIV AND MOSCOW ACCUSE EACH OTHER OF DESTROYING A CRITICAL DAM.

I ASK UKRAINE'S FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK ABOUT THE AFTERMATH.

ALSO AHEAD.

>> SILENCE ONLY ALLOWS THE ABUSER TO ABUSE.

>> TAKING ON THE TABLOIDS.

PRINCE HARRY BECOMES THE FIRST BRITISH ROYAL TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND SINCE THE 19th CENTURY.

A ROYAL WATCHER AND "THE NEW YORK TIMES" BUREAU CHIEF MARK LANDLER DISCUSSES THE BOMBSHELL PHONE HACKING TRIAL.

THEN -- >> IF WE DON'T COME AROUND FIGURING OUT HOW TO PRICE THOSE PRICELESS THINGS, WE WILL ABUSE THEM.

>> PRICING THE PRICELESS.

WRITER PAULA DiPERNA ARGUES HOW CAPITALISM SHOULD BE USED TO FIGHT THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND PROTECT THE PLANET'S MOST PRIZED NATURAL ASSETS.

>>> AND -- LIFE, LOVE, AND LOSS.

THE STAR OF MINDY KALEY'S HIT COMEDY DRAMA "NEVER HAVE I EVER" TALKS TO ME ABOUT THE INDIAN AMERICAN CULTURE CLASH.

>>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY FUND.

SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LARKSYLA AND MICKEY STRAUSS.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

WE TRY TO LIVE IN THE MOMENT, NOT MISS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

AT MUTUAL AMERICA, FINANCIAL GROUP, RETIREMENT SERVICES AND INVESTMENTS.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

WE BEGIN WITH THE BLAME GAME.

BOTH KYIV AND MOSCOW ARE POINTING THE FINGER AT EACH OTHER AFTER THE DAM WAS PARTLY DESTROYED, FLOODING NEARBY COMMUNITIES.

IT'S A STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT RESERVOIR THAT SUPPLIES WATER TO RUSSIAN OCCUPIED CRIMEA AS WELL AS THE ZAPORIZHZHIA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

THE NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL CALLED IT AN OUTRAGEOUS ACT THAT PUT THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS AT RISK CAUSING SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

THE KREMLIN CLAIMS IT WAS DELIBERATE SABOTAGE BY UKRAINE TO CHOKE CRIMEA'S WATER SOURCE AND DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE WIDER BATTLE.

WHAT DO WE KNOW RIGHT NOW?

WELL, THAT IS THAT THE SATELLITE IMAGES SHOW THE DAM WAS DAMAGED A FEW DAYS BEFORE IT COLLAPSED.

WHAT WE CANNOT VERIFY IS WHETHER THAT DAMAGE CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLLAPSE OR WHETHER IT WAS DESTROYED DELIBERATELY.

ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK IS UKRAINE'S DEFENSE MINISTER AND ADVISOR TO THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT.

HE JOINS US LIVE FROM THE UKRAINIAN CAPITAL OF KYIV.

ANDRIY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

SO YOU HEARD THE RUSSIAN ALLEGATIONS BLAMING UKRAINE FOR THIS.

WHAT IS UKRAINE'S RESPONSE?

WAS UKRAINE RESPONSIBLE?

>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO POINT FOR UKRAINE TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND FOR US IT'S BEEN SHOCKING THAT THAT HAPPENED.

THEN IT WAS SHOCKING HOW CYNICALLY RUSSIA WAS BLAMING US.

AND TO BE HONEST IT WAS PRETTY SHOCKING HOW MANY NEWS AND MEDIA PICKED UP THIS AND STARTED TO CALL IT A BLAME GAME, BASICALLY PUTTING ON THE SAME FOOTING THE TRUTH AND PROPAGANDA AND SAYING THAT WE'RE POINTING FINGERS AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF.

I MEAN FOR US IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S CATASTROPHIC IN UKRAINE, LOTS OF PEOPLE WITHOUT HOUSES AND SO ON.

AND IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE WHO KNOWS UKRAINIAN POLICY AND UKRAINIAN PEOPLE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK WE CAN DO THIS WITH OUR OWN POPULATION.

>> IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN RUSSIA'S HISTORY AND ITS LIST OF WAR CRIMES COMMITTED OVER THE PAST YEAR TO BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THEIR -- ABOUT THEIR RESPONSE AS TO WHO IS TO BLAME HERE.

DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE, THOUGH, TO POINT TO RUSSIA AS THE CULPRIT?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO REASON FOR UKRAINE TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE GAIN NOTHING OUT OF THIS, LIKE, WHATSOEVER.

THE DISRUPTION OF WATER SUPPLY TO CRIMEA IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT LITERALLY ANYTHING BECAUSE AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THERE HASN'T BEEN TO SUPPLIES TO CRIMEA AFTER THE WAR FOR YEARS.

AND RUSSIA STILL OCCUPIES CRIMEA AND SO IT'S NOT GOING TO DISRUPT THE MILITARY OPERATION.

HOWEVER, IT'S GOING TO SERIOUSLY DISRUPT THE UKRAINIAN DEFENSIVE BECAUSE IT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CROSS WITH THE LAND OPERATION.

AND OF COURSE THE DAM WAS UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF RUSSIA, SO THEY CONTROLLED THE DAM.

THERE'S BEEN A BATTALION OF RUSSIAN ARMY STANDING THERE FULL-TIME, LIKE 24/7.

IT'S BEEN UNOCCUPIED TERRITORY, SO UKRAINIAN FORCES DID NOT CONTROL IT.

IT WAS HEAVILY FORTIFIED BY RUSSIAN SOLDIERS.

SO THEY HAD FULL ACCESS TO THIS.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACCESS.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE IMPACT THIS COULD HAVE TO THE COUNTER OFFENSIVE, WHICH IS BELIEVED TO BE UNDER WAY NOW.

AND OBVIOUSLY UKRAINE IS NOT DISCLOSING ITS MILITARY PLANNING, BUT THERE ARE MILITARY EXPERTS WHO WOULD HAVE EXPECTED ONE OF THE BIG GOALS TO SEVER THAT LAND BRIDGE CONNECTING CRIMEA TO UKRAINE.

THIS WOULD -- THIS WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT HAPPENING AT LEAST AS QUICKLY AS UKRAINE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN.

ARE THERE CONTINGENCY PLANS IN THE WORKS GIVEN THAT THIS PLAYED OUT THE WAY IT DID TODAY?

>> OF COURSE.

AND THERE'S BEEN A WHOLE NUMBER OF SCENARIOS FOR THE COUNTRY'S OFFENSIVE.

SO I'M SURE OUR ARMED FORCES WILL SWITCH TO SOME OTHER ONE.

BUT INDEED THAT COMPLICATES THE SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY AND PARTICULARLY AROUND CRIMEA BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE'S A WHOLE MASSIVE PIECE OF LAND AROUND THE CRIMEAN PENINSULA ON THE TOP OF IT, WHICH ACCESS TO THAT PIECE OF LAND FROM THE WEST BASICALLY.

THAT'S WHERE THE FLOODING HAPPENED, AND IT'S COMPLETELY BLOCKED.

INDEED THERE'S ONLY BEEN A COUPLE OF CROSSINGS THROUGH CRIMEA IN THAT AREA AND THEY DON'T EXIST ANYMORE.

SO, YEAH, WE NEED TO DO SOME CHANGES, YES.

>> IS THERE A CHANCE THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A NATURAL BREACH GIVEN THE DAMAGE THAT WE REPORTED HAD RECENTLY BEEN DONE TO THIS DAM JUST A FEW DAYS AGO?

>> WELL, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INVESTIGATION, BUT WE HAVE SEEN -- I'M SURE THERE WILL BE VIDEOS FROM SATELLITES THAT WILL BE EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESSES AND SO ON.

BUT THERE IS LIKE A VERY STRONG CHANCE WE HAVE SEEN A REAL VIDEO FROM THE EXPLOSIONS AND THIS OBVIOUSLY WAS MAN MADE.

>> THE ZAPORIZHZHIA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AS YOU KNOW RELIES ON THE WATER FLOW FROM THE RESERVOIR UPSTREAM TO COOL ITS REACTORS.

NOW, THE IAEA SAYS THERE'S, QUOTE, NO IMMEDIATE SAFETY RISK AT THE PLANT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS MONITORING THE SITUATION.

HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT THE WATER LEVELS THERE AT THE REACTOR?

>> I'M NOT A NUCLEAR SPECIALIST, BUT WHAT OUR SPECIALISTS ARE SAYING RIGHT NOW IT IS CONCERNING.

THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF ARTICLES AND STUDIES SINCE LAST YEAR BECAUSE WE KIND OF UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS ONE OF THE KEY RISKS.

AND, YES, THERE IS A CERTAIN RISK.

I'M SURE IT'S MANAGEABLE, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY A COMPLICATED SITUATION, WHICH IS A ANOTHER -- ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN TERMS OF RUSSIANS WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS.

BUT UKRAINE HAS NO BENEFIT FROM THIS SITUATION WHATSOEVER AT ALL.

>> WHAT ARE YOUR BIGGEST CONCERNS GIVEN YOUR MILITARY BACKGROUND IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK THIS COULD HAVE ON THE COUNTER OFFENSIVE?

>> TO BE HONEST I MEAN WE'RE QUITE WELL-PREPARED FOR THE COUNTER OFFENSIVE.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'LL DISRUPT OUR PLANS COMPLETELY.

I MEAN I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME CHANGE, TLMD BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS.

I THINK THAT RUSSIANS ARE QUITE PANICKING, AND THEY ALSO HAVE LACK OF FORCES.

SO PERHAPS WE'LL MOVE FORCES OUT FROM THE FLOODED AREAS.

PARTICULARLY THEY WOULD FEEL THAT AREA IS KIND OF SAFER BECAUSE OF DIFFICULT ACCESS, SO THEY WOULD MOVE THEM TO SOME OTHER DIRECTION.

AND THAT MAY SOMEHOW IMPACT OUR -- OUR PLANS BUT NOT CANCEL THEM COMPLETELY.

>> THE FLOOD OBVIOUSLY IS A HUMANITARIAN TRAGEDY AS WELL AND ONE THAT COULD IMPACT THE COUNTRY'S GRAIN INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY.

KYIV IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST A GRAIN SUPPLIER FOR THE WORLD.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE ON THAT FRONT?

>> WELL, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY EKE LOGICAL AND CATASTROPHIC AND TECH LAJICAL DISASTER.

CERTAINLY THERE WOULD BE MASSIVE STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THIS, WHICH WE'RE ONLY NOW TRYING TO ASSESS.

THERE'S ALREADY -- THERE'S ALREADY POLLUTION FROM THE NEARBY OIL TERMINALS, LIKE SMOIL OIL STATIONS.

WHICH NOW ALL THIS OIL IS GETTING TO THE WATER SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.

VERY SUBSTANTIAL.

AND SO PROPER LIKE LOGISTICS AND PROPER TRADING AND AGRICULTURE IN THAT WHOLE AREA WILL BE SEVERELY IMPACTED.

IT'S DIFFICULT AFTER LIKE LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO ASSESS THAT, BUT FROM WHAT WE SEE ALREADY, OF COURSE IT'S SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.

>> THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL AS YOU JUST NOTED, AND LOOKING AT THESE IMAGES THEY'RE JUST HORRIFYING, EVEN THOSE THAT GAMED OUT THE LIKELIHOOD THIS DAM COULD BE BREACHED LAST YEAR AND DIDN'T EXPECT WATER LEVELS TO BE AS HIGH AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS OF COURSE A SERIOUS CONCERN HERE.

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE WAR FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE IN THAT IT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE COUNTRY AFTER THE END OF THIS WAR, AFTER UKRAINE'S VICTORY TO JOIN NATO.

AND THAT IS A PURSUIT THAT THE LEADERS OF THE COUNTRY, THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY AND YOU YOURSELF CONTINUE TO MAKE.

YOU WRITE IN "FOREIGN AFFAIRS KWAELGTS THIS ARTICLE.

TO PROTECT EUROPE, LET UKRAINE JOIN NATO RIGHT NOW.

IT IS TIME THEN TO LET UKRAINE JOIN NOT SOONER OR LATER BUT NOW.

BY ENTERING THE ALLIANCE THE COUNTRY WILL SECURE ITS FUTURE AS PART OF THE WEST AND IT CAN BE SURE THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE WILL CONTINUE TO HELP IT FIGHT AGAINST MOSCOW.

EUROPE, TOO, WILL REAP SECURITY BENEFITS BY ALLOWING UKRAINE TO JOIN THE ALLIANCE.

IT IS APPARENT THE CONTINENT IS NOT READY TO DEFEND ITSELF AND ITS POLITICIANS HAVE LARGELY OVERESTIMATED ITS SECURITY.

INDEED EUROPE WILL NEVER BE SECURE FROM RUSSIA UNTIL IT CAN MILITARILY STOP MOSCOW'S ATTACKS.

AND NO STATE IS MORE QUALIFIED TODAY DO SO THAN UKRAINE.

YOU MAKE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT IN THIS PIECE, BUT ARE YOU WORRIED THAT IT IS ONE THAT IS FALLING ON DEAF EARS BECAUSE IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF NATO MEMBERS SEEM TO BE TIPTOEING AROUND THIS ISSUE.

>> AT THE MOMENT, YES.

WELL, THANK YOU.

AND AT THE MOMENT I THINK, YES, THEY'RE NOT READY.

AND I THINK WE ARE WITH THE ARTICLE AND WITH THE EXPERT DISCUSSIONS WHICH IS BUILDING UP THAT ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE EXPERT COMMUNITY AND POLICY MAKERS.

AND I THINK AT SOME TIME THE EUROPEAN AND WESTERN IN GENERAL POLICY MAKERS WILL UNDERSTAND RUSSIA IS A THREAT NOT JUST TO UKRAINE, IT'S NOT JUST A REGIONAL CONFLICT BUT A SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT ON A MUCH BROADER SCALE.

ALSO THEY'LL UNDERSTAND THE CAPABILITIES CURRENTLY PRESENT IN EASTERN EUROPE ARE NOT ENOUGH, AND THEY'RE HELPING UP TO BUILD A VERY STRONG UKRAINIAN ARMY.

SO SINCE THEY'RE INVESTING MONEY AND RESOURCES IN THIS ARMY, WHY NOT PLAN THIS ARMY WOULD BE PROTECTING THE WHOLE EASTERN EUROPE AND NOT JUST UKRAINE, AND IN THIS CASE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ACCEPT AN ALLIANCE.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW OR AT THE SUMMIT IN ONE MONTH, BUT I THINK BY HAVING THIS DISCUSSION OVER AND OVER AGAIN WE'LL GET CLOSER TO THAT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE LATEST HEADLINES AFTER THIS DAM BREACH.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELL, THE LAST TIME A BRITISH ROYAL WAS IN COURT -- GET THIS -- IT WAS 1891 AND KING EDWARD VII WAS GIVING EVIDENCE IN A GAMBLING SCANDAL.

WELL, TODAY IT'S PRINCE HARRY IN THE WITNESS BOX AT LONDON'S HIGH COURT GOING UP AGAINST SOME OF BRITAIN'S BIGGEST TABLOID NEWSPAPERS.

HE'S AMONG MORE THAN 100 CELEBRITIES AND SOCIALITES SUING MIRROR GROUP NEWSPAPERS ALLEGING THEIR REPORTERS HACKED THEIR VOICE MAIL AND DECEPTIVELY OBTAINED INFORMATION.

MGM IS FIGHTING THOSE ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMED BOSSES WEREN'T AWARE OF ANY ILLICIT ACTIVITY.

PRINCE HARRY TOLD THE COURT EDITORS AND JOURNALISTS HAVE, QUOTE, BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS FOR THE DISTRESS THEIR BEHAVIOR AND ARTICLES CAUSED HIM.

A JOURNALIST AND ROYAL EXPERT AND A "NEW YORK TIMES" BUREAU CHIEF MARK LANDLER JOINS ME NOW FROM LONDON.

WELCOME BOTH OF YOU.

MARK, LET'S SET THE SCENE HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS APPEARANCE OF PRINCE HARRY.

WE TOLD YOU THE LAST TIME SOMEONE IN SENIOR LEVELS, THE ROYAL FAMILY WAS IN COURT WAS OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, WELL OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

WHAT DID WE SEE TODAY?

>> WELL, CONSIDERING THERE HASN'T BEEN A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY IN COURT FOR AS YOU SAY 130 YEARS, PRINCE HARRY HANDLED IT AT SOME LEVEL LIKE A GUY WHO REALLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

HE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN A VERY CALM MATTER OF FACT MANNER.

HE DIDN'T RISE AND TAKE THE BAIT.

HE DIDN'T LOSE HIS TEMPER, AND I THINK HE REALLY ACQUITTED HIMSELF VERY WELL GIVEN THE FACT AS YOU SAY ROYALS IN GENERAL AVOID COURTROOMS.

THEY MUCH PREFER TO SETTLE TRIALS, SETTLE LEGAL CASES BEFORE THEY EVER GET TO TRIAL.

SO TODAY WAS SOMETHING OF A TEST FOR HARRY, AND AT LEAST ON -- FROM THE OPTICS POINT OF VIEW LEAVING ASIDE THE LEGAL CASE, I THINK HE PERFORMED RELATIVELY WELL.

>> THIS TRIAL INVOLVES DOZENS OF ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT HIM, AND AS WE HEARD FROM MARK, IT'S QUITE A DIVERGENCE HOW THE ROYAL FAMILY TYPICALLY HANDLES THE MEDIA AND SOCIAL HEADLINES IN THE PUBLIC.

TO BEGIN WITH, THEY AVOID CONFRONTATION.

ONE ROYAL INSIDER NOTED HARRY WOULD SEE HIMSELF AS FIGHTING THEIR BATTLE, TOO, TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF THE MONARCHY.

IS THIS HOW YOU VIEW THEY SEE IT?

>> NOT QUITE BECAUSE THE MOTTO OF THE ROYAL FAMILY HAS ALWAYS BEEN NEVER COMPLAIN, NEVER EXPLAIN.

I THINK THAT IF PRINCE HARRY'S TELLING HIMSELF THE NARRATIVE THAT I'M STANDING UP FOR THE ROYALS, THAT'S NOT QUITE WHAT'S HAPPENING, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK HE SEES HIMSELF AS CRUSADING ON BEHALF OF ALL PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC EYE IN THE SENSE OF CELEBRITIES.

AND HE'S ALSO CRUSADING FOR HIS OWN CHILDHOOD SELF.

IN HIS STATEMENT IN COURT -- THE PREPARED WRITTEN STATEMENT, HE SPOKE ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS CHILDHOOD, THE FACT THAT EVERY NEW ALLEGED BREACH OF HIS PRIVACY BRINGS HIM BACK TO THINKING ABOUT WHAT HE WAS LIKE AS A CHILD, WHAT HE WENT THROUGH AND HIS BROTHER WENT THROUGH AND WHAT HIS MOTHER WENT THROUGH.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE MIRROR GROUP AND HIMSELF ALL DAY NOW.

AND WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE DOING IS PUTTING IN FRONT OF THEM DOZENS OF ARTICLES FROM DOZENS OF YEARS AND THEY'RE ALMOST GOING THROUGH IT LINE BYLINE.

AND MIRROR GROUP IS SAYING THIS DETAIL HERE, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY SOMEONE AT THE PALACE.

AND IT'S PRINCE HARRY'S JOB LEGALLY NOT TO PUT THE ETHICS AND THE SORT OF FLAVOR OF THE WAY TABLOIDS WORK ON TRIAL BUT TO SAY, NO, YOU ACQUIRED THIS INFORMATION THROUGH ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL MEANS.

>> HE SAID THAT BEGAN IN HIS EARLY DAYS AT EATON WHEN HE WAS A STUDENT THEN AND HE WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHY VOICE MESSAGES HE HAD RECEIVED, HE GOT THE INDICATION THEY'D ALREADY BEEN LISTENED TO WHEN HE HADN'T RECEIVED THEM.

YOU MENTIONED SOME OF HIS STATEMENT THERE.

I'D LIKE TO READ FOR OUR AUDIENCE WHAT HE SAID.

HE SAID AS A TEENAGER AND IN MY EARLY 20s I ENDED UP FEELING AS THOUGH I WAS PLAYING UP A LOT OF THE HEADLINES AND STEREOTYPES THEY WANTED TO PIN ON ME MAINLY BECAUSE I THOUGHT IF THEY WERE PRINTING THIS RUBBISH ABOUT ME AND PEOPLE WERE BELIEVING IT, I MAY AS WELL DO THE CRIME, SO TO SPEAK.

IT WAS A DOWNWARD SPIRAL WHEREBY THE TABLOIDS WOULD CONSTANTLY TRY TO COAX ME, A DAMAGED YOUNG MAN THAT WOULD MAKE ME A GOOD STORY AND SELL LOTS OF NEWSPAPERS.

LOOKING BACK ON IT NOW, SUCH BEHAVIOR ON THEIR PART WAS UTTERLY VILE.

WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT THE DEFENSE IS MAKING IN RESPONSE TO THESE STATEMENTS?

>> WELL, THE DEFENSE IS MAKING A NARROW ARGUMENT, WHICH IS THAT IT DENIES HAVING HACKED THE PHONES OF HARRY, OR THERE ARE IN FACT OTHER PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE.

SO IT'S MAKING THE NARROW ARGUMENT IT HASN'T HACKED THEIR PHONES.

IT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CASES OF UNLAWFUL GATHERING OF INFORMATION.

I THINK THIS HAD TO DO MOSTLY WITH THE USE OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS.

AT THE END OF THIS CASE THERE PROBABLY WILL BE SOME FORM OF RESTITUTION TO THE PLAINTIFFS INCLUDING HARRY, BUT I THINK THE MIRROR GROUP'S GOAL IS TWO FOLD.

THEY WANT TO KEEP THOSE NUMBERS AS LOW AS THEY CAN, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO OPEN THE DOOR TO A FLOODGATE OF OTHER PEOPLE COMING TO THEM TO EITHER LITIGATE OR ASK FOR LARGE SETTLEMENTS BASED ON HACKING.

SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THEY'RE MAKING HERE IS THE CLASSIC STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARGUMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

WHY IS HARRY WAITING FOR MORE THAN 12, 13, 14 YEARS SINCE THE PHONE HACKING SCANDAL TO BRING THESE CHARGES?

HARRY'S LAWYERS RESPOND, WELL, YOU CONCEALED YOUR METHODS FROM US AT THE TIME SO HOW WERE WE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR NEFARIOUS TECHNIQUES WERE?

AND SO THEY'RE MAKING A MUCH MORE TO SOME EXTENT A NARROW CASE WHEREAS HARRY IS MAKING A BROADER CASE, A BROADER INDICTMENT OF THE EFFECT TABLOIDS HAVE HAD ON HIS LIFE AND ON THE LIVES OF MANY OTHER PEOPLE.

>> DOES IT HELP AT LEAST IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AS WE HEARD FROM MARK THAT HE'S JOINED OVER 100 OTHER PLAINTIFFS AND CELEBRITIES AND WELL-KNOWN FIGURES IN THIS CASE?

>> YES AND NO.

EXACTLY AS MARK POINTED OUT, THIS IS A LEGAL TRIAL.

IT IS NOT NETFLIX HARRY AND MEGHAN EPISODE 7 OR 8.

IT IS A VERY TRICKY POSITION FOR PRINCE HARRY BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND HE'S A STAR WITNESS.

HE'S A STAR LITIGANT, AND HE'S BRINGING SO MUCH EMOTIONALITY TO HIS STATEMENTS AND TO HIS SHEER PRESENCE BECAUSE FROM A PUBLIC POINT OF VIEW, OF COURSE, WE KNOW THE WHOLE STORY.

SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE SOAP OPERA.

AND THE MIRROR GROUP ARE REPEATEDLY SAYING YOU NEED TO PROVE THESE ALLEGATIONS.

WE NEED TO NAIL DOWN ALL OF THIS.

WE NEED TO GET TO THE GRANULAR LEVEL.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BRITISH TABLOID CULTURE IS TERRIBLE, WHETHER WE ARE AWFUL ELPEOPLE, WHETHER PRINCE HARRY CAN TRUTHFULLY MAKE THE STATEMENT AS HE DID IN COURT TODAY THAT THE BRITISH MEDIA AND THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ARE, QUOTE, IN BED TOGETHER AND ARE ALSO AT ROCK BOTTOM.

A ROYAL IS NEVER MEANT TO COMMENT ON THE POLITICS OF THE DAY, SO HARRY IS BREAKING MASSIVELY WITH CONVENTION BUT STICKING CLOSE TO HIS PUBLIC IMAGE.

>> MARK, WHAT COULD THIS ULTIMATELY MEAN FOR THE U.K. PRESS WHEN THE JUDGE FINALLY HANDS DOWN HIS RULING?

IS THIS SORT OF A PRECEDENT SETTING POTENTIAL HERE?

>> WELL, IT'S SORT OF A STRANGE SITUATION BECAUSE THE HACKING SCANDAL, OF COURSE, UNFOLDED MANY YEARS AGO.

AND BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE WORST MISDEEDS, THE WORST FORMS OF HACKING AND VOICE MAIL INTERCEPTION HAVE BEEN ROOTED OUT OF THE INDUSTRY LONG AGO BECAUSE THEY FEARED IF THEY DIDN'T VOLUNTARILY CURB THEIR PRACTICES, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DO IT FOR THEM.

SO TO SOME EXTENT IT IS CORRECT TO SAY THIS IS HAPPENING LONG AFTER THE CONDUCT ITSELF.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HARRY'S POINT IS THAT THE UNDERLYING CULTURE OF INTRUSIVENESS OF REMORSELESSNESS OF EXCESS HAS REMAINED EVEN IF THE PAPERS AREN'T ACTUALLY HACKING ANYMORE.

SO I THINK IF HE WERE TO EMERGE VICTORIOUS, IT WOULD BE A BLOW FOR HIS CASE, AND IT MIGHT CAUSE SOME INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE TABLOIDS.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH POINTING OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT HARRY HAS BECOME AN EVEN DIFFERENT FIGURE THAN HE WAS FIVE YEARS AGO.

HE LIVES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HE HAS HIS OWN LIFE, HIS OWN CAUSES.

THE PRESS HAS UNIFORMLY GONE SOUR ON HIM.

I THINK IT WAS VERY INTERESTING BUT PERHAPS NOT SURPRISING WHEN PIERCE MORGAN, A FORMER EDITOR OF THE DAILY MIRROR, WAS DOOR STOPPED RECENTLY AND ASKED ABOUT THESE CHARGES.

HE GAVE A VERY DEFIANT RESPONSE.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE LECTURED BY THE LIKES OF PRINCE HARRY ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES.

I THINK MANY IN THE BRITISH MEDIA MAY TAKE THAT POINT OF VIEW EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT QUITE AS BLUNT AS PIERCE MORGAN.

>> MARK HAS BEEN RIGHT TO NOTE THE PUBLIC VIEWS OF PRINCE HARRY HAVE MARK UDLY CHANGED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

HE'S SUING TWO OTHER PAPER GROUPS OVER ALLEGED PHONE HACKING AS WELL AND THAT IS THE NEWSPAPER OWN BY RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS.

BOTH OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS DENY ANY WRONGDOING, BUT COULD WE SEE HIM TAKE THE STAND AGAIN?

>> WELL, WE KNOW HE'S LUTITIOUS, SO, YES, I THINK THAT'S A POSSIBILITY IF IT GETS THAT FAR.

IF YOU PUT THESE THREE BIG MEDIA GROUPS TOGETHER IT'S VERY TELLING WHAT PRINCE HARRY IS DOING.

IF YOU NOTICE IN ALL HIS INTERVIEWS HE KEEPS REFERRING TO THE BRITISH MEDIA, THE BRITISH TABLOID PRESS.

IT'S ALL ONE MONOLITH TO HIM.

AND WHAT MAKES THESE TRIALS AND THESE ACTIONS HE TAKES SO COMPELLING IS THE FACT WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH TO THE HEART OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY DRIVING HIM.

YES, OF COURSE, IT'S ABOUT PRINCIPLES.

IT'S ABOUT MEDIA OPERATIONS AND ETHICS AND VALUES.

WHAT KIND OF A WORLD DO WE ALL WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN?

BUT IT'S ALSO DEEPLY PERSONAL.

HE'S BEEN TRIGGERED AND RETRIGGERED EVERY TIME THERE'S AN ARTICLE.

>> MARK, FOR OUR VIEWERS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND AROUND THE WORLD THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AS PRIVY TO THE CONSTANT COVERAGE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AND OF PRINCE HARRY AS A YOUTH AND HIS MOTHER IN THE 1990s AND EARLY 2000s, GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT THAT PRESS WAS LIKE BACK THEN.

>> WELL, IT'S PROBABLY HARD TO IMAGINE WHAT LIFE WAS LIKE FOR A YOUNG MAN AT THE CENTER OF THAT MAELSTROM.

YOU KNOW, IT IS A FACT THAT THE ROYAL FAMILY IS A FAIRY TALE.

AND FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME THE TRAGEDY AND THE TRIBULATIONS AND THE PIT FALLS OF A YOUNG HARRY WERE CENTRAL TO THAT FAIRY TALE.

SO HE WOULD HAVE FIGURED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF TABLOIDS MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK.

AND ONE CAN ONLY FEEL SYMPATHY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT WAS LIKE FOR A 14 OR 15 OR 16-YEAR-OLD YOUNG MAN TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

AND THAT IN PART EXPLAINS WHY HE WITHDREW FROM ROYAL DUTIES AND WHY HE AND HIS WIFE MEGHAN HAVE MOVED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

I THINK HE FELT LIKE HE DID NOT WANT TO SUBMIT TO THAT KIND OF A ROLE FOR -- YOU KNOW, FOR THE COMING YEARS, AND HE WANTED TO TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

OF COURSE AS WE KNOW FROM HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES PARTICULARLY AS A CELEBRITY COUPLE THE CAMERAS HAVE A HABIT OF FOLLOWING PEOPLE LIKE THAT, AND HE'S ENCOUNTERED HIS OWN BRUSH WITH PAPARAZZI AND ATTENTION IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT EASY FOR A GLOBAL FIGURE LIKE PRINCE HARRY, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING COMPARES TO THE INTENSITY OF WHAT HE ENDURED AS A TEENAGER IN ENGLAND.

>> MARK LANDLER, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO COVER THIS STORY FOR OUR VIEWERS.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>> WE TURN NEXT TO AN INNOVATIVE WAY TO PROTECT OUR PLANET, FROM WILDFIRES TO RECORD BREAKING HEAT WAVES, THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS HAVING A REAL COST BOTH TO HUMANS AND WILDLIFE.

GROWING CARBON EMISSIONS ARE LARGELY TO BLAME, SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

WRITER PAULA DiPERNA ARGUES IN HER NEW BOOK "PRICING THE PRICELESS" THAT THE NATURAL WORLD IS AN INVALUABLE ASSET AND WE NEED TO START VIEWING IT THAT WAY IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER POLLUTION.

SHE JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS WHY THIS COULD BE THE KEY TO SPURRING ACTION.

>> THANKS FOR BEING WITH US.

FIRST, WHAT'S IT HEEN?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO PRICE THE PRICELESS?

>> WELL, IT'S KIND OF TO WALK A MET PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL LINE REALLY TO ACCEPT THAT WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON INVALUABLE PRICELESS THINGS.

WE ALL KNOW LOVE IS PRICELESS, HEALTH IS PRICELESS BUT SO THE ATMOSPHERE AND SO ARE THE WILDLIFE AND SO ARE THE WETLANDS, AND THAT IF WE DON'T COME AROUND FIGURING OUT HOW TO PRICE THOSE PRICELESS THINGS, WE WILL ABUSE THEM AND AS WE HAVE SEEN THROUGH HISTORY.

WHAT YOU DON'T PAY FOR, YOU TEND TO ABUSE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REVERSE THE ABUSE AND MOVE NATURAL ASSETS FROM, YOU KNOW, BEING CONSTANTLY A COST CENTER TO BEING AN ASSET YOU HAVE TO PROTECT.

>> WE HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO PRICE LOTS OF ABSTRACT THINGS.

SORT OF THE ENTIRE DOT COMBOOM, BUT EVEN TODAY HOW WE LOOK AT A VALUE OF A COMPANY TECHNICALLY NOT SELLING ANYTHING AND NOT MAKING A PROFIT.

>> YEAH, THE QUESTION CAME TO MY MIND.

I LOVE UBER, IT'S VERY CONVENIENT BUT HOW CAN SOMETHING LIKE UBER OR ANY OF THESE CHAIRING ECONOMY BUSINESSES BASICALLY SOFTWARE, THE MARKETS VALUE THEM AND THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND OUR ATMOSPHERE IS VALUED AT ZERO.

THAT SORT OF DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS IDEA CAME FROM.

AND WE ALSO VALUE ART.

WE VALUE A LOT OF THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE VALUE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, SO THE ABSTRACT NATURE OF IT SHOULDN'T BE HOLDING US BACK PARTICULARLY FROM A REASONABLE SYSTEM OF PRICING.

>> SO, YOU KNOW, LET'S WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU HAVE.

I THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THERE IS VALUE IN ART, BUT USUALLY THEY SAY, WELL, IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

YOU HAVE A WHOLE CHAPTER ON THE DETROIT MUSEUM AND THE ART THAT WAS IN DETROIT AND WHAT KIND OF VALUE THAT WE ULTIMATELY HAD TO PLACE ON IT.

SO WHAT DO WE TAKE AS A LESSON FROM THE VALUATION OF ART THAT WE CAN APPLY TO THE CLIMATE?

>> WELL, SO IF YOU THINK OF THE ART COLLECTION IN THE DETROIT MUSEUM -- THE ART MUSEUM, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WAS PRICELESS, HAD ALL KIND OF PHENOMENAL WORKS AND THE FAMOUS MURALS WHEN THE CITY OF DETROIT WAS CONFRONTING BANKRUPTCY PEOPLE THERE THOUGHT, WELL, WE'LL JUST SELL THE ART AND WE'LL USE THAT MONEY TO PAY OFF THE DEBTS.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT APPRAISERS CAME IN AND THEY ALL HAD DIFFERENT VALUATIONS FOR THAT COLLECTION.

THE DIEGO RIVERA THEY COULDN'T PRICE IT AT ALL BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY TRULY PRICELESS.

THEY COULDN'T AGREE TO A PRICE.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS ALL THIS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT OPINIONS KIND OF MELDED INTO A DECISION, WHICH WAS YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CAN'T VALUE THIS ART.

IT'S BEYOND VALUE.

IT'S SO IMPORTANT WE ACTUALLY CANNOT VALUE IT, SO LET'S JUST STIPULATE A BASE NUMBER AND SOME FOUNDATIONS CAME IN AND PUT THAT MONEY FORWARD.

AND THAT WAS USED TO PAY OFF PENSION FUNDS AND OTHER DEBTS.

AND THE ART WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE NEVER TO BE PUT ON -- POTENTIALLY ON THE AUCTION BLOCK EVER AGAIN.

A TRUST WAS CREATED.

SO THAT WAS A CASE WHERE ACTUALLY PRICELESSNESS SAVED A WHOLE CITY.

AND IT WAS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENTS THEN AND THE FOUNDATIONS AND EVENTUALLY THE MUSEUM ITSELF TO ASSIGN ITSELF A VALUE THAT COULD NEVER BE STIPULATED.

AND SO THE SUCCESS WAS THAT EVERYONE AGREED THAT THERE'S SO MUCH VALUE WE COULDN'T PUT A PRICE ON IT, THEREFORE WE BETTER NEVER SQUANDER IT.

IT'S TOO IMPORTANT.

AND THE ATMOSPHERE SHOULD BE IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

>> LET'S SAY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THERE'S VALUE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD WITHOUT OUR PROTECTION, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE COUNTRIES LOBBYING IN KIND OF DIFFERENT WAYS ON HOW TO PRICE THE ATMOSPHERE, SO HOW DO WE COME TO THAT COMPACT, THAT AGREEMENT THAT SAYS, OKAY, THIS IS IN FACT PRICELESS AND WE SHOULDN'T REALLY BE BARGAINING WITH IT?

>> WELL, YOU HAVE SOME AGREEMENTS NOW.

OBVIOUSLY THE MAIN WAY TO PRICE THE ATMOSPHERE IS THROUGH WHAT ARE KNOWN AS CARBON MARKETS AND CAPPING TRADE IN PARTICULAR, WHICH IS BASICALLY A DIET.

YOU KNOW, THE EMITTERS GO ON A DIET AND AGREE OR ARE REQUIRED TO LOSE CARBON WEIGHT, SO TO SPEAK, STOP EMITTING.

AND THE ATMOSPHERE IS OUR COSMIC PENTHOUSE REALLY.

IF YOU LOOK UP, IF YOU COULD SEE 60 MILES, YOU'D BE SEEING THE END OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

THAT'S ALL THE LITTLE BIT OF SPACE.

I DON'T KNOW THE LAST TIME YOU RUBBED YOUR FACE, BUT ONE OF THE ASTRONAUTS SAID THE ATMOSPHERE WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE EARTH AS PEACH FUZZ IS TO THE PEACH.

THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE HAIR ON YOUR FACE OR THE SKIN OF YOUR FACE.

AND SO INTO THAT COSMIC, THAT'S A SUPER SCARCE SUPPLY.

SO SUPPLY AND DEMAND SAYS YOU CAN'T WASTE THAT SUPPLY FOR A LOW PRICE.

YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THE PRICE GO UP.

AND SO THE CAP IN TRADE REALLY PUTS -- STIPULATES A -- IT STIPULATES A QUANTITY OF SPACE THAT MAY STILL BE USED TO POLLUTE.

AND AS THAT COST GOES HIGHER, THOSE STIPULATED USES WILL BECOME TOO EXPENSIVE, AND THEREFORE POLLUTION SHOULD DROP.

THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CAP IN TRADE AND CARBON MARKETS IN A WAY THE UNITED STATES GETS CLOSE AND IT CAN'T PULL THE TRIGGER.

THERE ARE ACTIVE LOBBIES ACROSS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS STATE GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE STILL VERY LOCKED INTO THEIR WAY OF PROFITS, WHICH IS THE FOSSIL FUELS AND THE MINERAL EXTRACTION THAT HAPPENS ON THEIR LANDS.

SO HOW CAN WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WITHOUT LARGE SCALE PARTICIPATION IN A CAP AND TRADE MARKET, IT BECOMES INEFFECTIVE?

>> BASICALLY WHAT PEOPLE FORGET THE CAP AND TRADE IS NOT JUST A PENALTY, IT'S ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY.

SO THE HIGHER THE PRICE TO POLLUTE, THE MORE INCENTIVE TO INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES.

SO IF YOU INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE LET'S SAY THE CAP ON THE PRICE ON THE ATMOSPHERE IS $30 A TON, WHEN IT GOES TO $60 A TON, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO INVEST IN AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE YOU'LL MAKE MONEY ON THAT.

IT'S THE SAME WITH WHAT IS CALLED GREEN INVESTING.

PEOPLE THINK THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY INVESTING, YOU KNOW, SHIFT IN CAPITAL FROM DETRIMENTAL USES TO PRODUCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

THAT'S A MONEYMAKER THESE DAYS.

IT'S AN OLD STORY YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT A CONCESSIONARY RETURN IF YOU INVEST IN THINGS THAT ARE MORE ORIENTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

YOU MAKE MONEY IN ESG.

IT IS NOT -- IN IS NO WAY -- SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO ESG HAS BEEN IT'S NOT PRUDENT, IT'S NOT IN THE BEST SHAREHOLDER INTEREST WHEN, IN FACT, ACTUALLY IT IS SUPREMELY IN THE SHAREHOLDERS INTEREST.

IT'S PROTECTING FROM RISK LIKE WILDFIRES AND FLOODS, AND SECONDLY IT'S A MONEYMAKER.

IF YOU EXCLUDE INVESTORS AND MONEY MANAGERS FROM LOOKING AT ESG FUNDS YOU'RE SAYING BASICALLY DON'T LOOK AT FUNDS THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE MONEY THAN OTHER FUNDS.

>> YOU PEPPER THE BOOK WITH TONS OF EXAMPLES.

ONE OF THE EXAMPLES SAY FOR EXAMPLE FORESTS IN MYANMAR, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT SHOWS THE REST OF THE WORLD.

>> SO MYANMAR NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THE DESTRUCTION TODAY WAS ONE OF THE FIRST COUNTRIES TO TRY TO VALUE ITS FORESTS, ITS ECOSYSTEM.

AND THEY DID WHAT'S CALLED AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICE ANALYSIS.

AND THAT BEGAN TO PRICE SAY FOR EXAMPLE THE VALUE OF THE MANGROVES, WHICH EVERYBODY THINKS WE CAN'T SWIM AT THE BEACH, THERE'S NO BEACH THERE, THERE'S JUST A BUNCH OF WASTELAND, TANGLED ROOTS.

MANGROVES KEEP THE OCEAN FROM BANGING INTO THE COASTS, SO THERE'S A VALUE TO THAT.

BUT SINCE WE DON'T VALUE THE MANGROVES BUT VALUE THE COASTAL PROPERTY, WE CUT THE MANGROVES DOWN THINKING, WELL, WE'LL MAKE THE HOTELS THERE WHEN ACTUALLY OVERTIME THOSE HOTELS GET SLAMMED BY TYPHOONS.

AND SO IN MYANMAR THIS GROUNDBREAKING STUDY WAS DONE, AND THEY WERE EVEN ABLE TO VALUE THE VALUE OF ELFBTS IN PULLING LOGS OUT OF THE FORESTS AND PUT A VALUE ON THE ELEPHANT AS A WORKER NOT JUST AS A COST CENTER, OH, AN ELEPHANT WE HAVE TO FEED IT.

NO, THIS ELEPHANT IS PROVIDING TREMENDOUS VALUE TO THE COUNTRY.

NATURE YOU COULD SAY IS THE MOST UNDERPAID AND UNPAID WORKER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

WE DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR ITS WORKER, SO NATURE IS SUBSIDIZING OUR ECONOMY VERY DIRECTLY, AND WE DON'T SEE THAT EITHER.

AND THE IRONY IS THAT SOME NUMBERS SAY THAT THE VALUE OF NATURE'S WORK IS LARGER THAN THE GDP OF THE WORLD.

>> WHAT WOULD THAT NUMBER BE?

>> WELL, GDP OF THE WORLD IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $100 TRILLION AND THE NUMBER STARTED IN TERMS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT ONE POINT WAS $120 TRILLION A YEAR WHICH MAKES THE ECONOMY A SUBSIDIARY OF NATURE.

EVEN IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE WILDLY OFF BY SAY 30, $40 TRILLION A YEAR, THAT'S STILL A VERY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY THAT NATURE IS PROVIDING THE ECONOMY.

AND WE'VE GOT TO GET IT NOT TO BE SUBSIDIZING NECESSARILY FOR FREE.

AND SO I THINK BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND YOU SEE, WELL, THERE'S A SWAMP OR THERE'S A TREE AND THE BRANCHES ARE JUST BEAUTIFULLY BLOWING IN THE WIND.

YOU DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PERFORMING A SERVICE FOR US.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK A LOT OF OUR MENTAL EFFORTS SHOULD GO IS TO RECONCEPTUALIZING OURSELVES AS LIVING IN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE'RE IN NATURE, NOT JUST A BEAUTIFUL PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT EVEN THOUGH AS MUCH AS WE LOVE THAT.

>> PAULA, ONE OF THE THINGS YOUR BOOK DOES IS LAY OUT THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT INSURERS PLAY IN HOW WE PRICE OUR RISK.

JUST LAST WEEK STATE FARM INSURANCE SAID THEY ARE NO LONGER GOING TO INSURE NEW HOME OWNERS IN CALIFORNIA.

THEY ARE CITING LET ME QUOTE HERE A RAPIDLY GROWING CATASTROPHE EXPOSURE BECAUSE 25,000 HOMES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY WILDFIRE THERE IN JUST THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING CALLED THE FOREST RESILIENCE BOND.

EXPLAIN THAT FOR US.

>> SO THE FOREST RESILIENCE BOND IS A FANTASTIC INVENTION, A FINANCIAL INVENTION.

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO SOME GRADUATE STUDENTS AT THE BUSINESS SCHOOL CAME UP WITH IT.

AND BASICALLY THE SHORTHAND IT'S A WAY TO VALUE, SECURITYIZE, AND INVEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT WILL BE REALIZED SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE.

YOU TAKE A FOREST AND THINK, OKAY, IT'S JUST TREES STANDING THERE.

WELL, FOREST TENDING, TAKING CARE OF A FOREST IS KIND OF LIKE GARDENING THE FOREST.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BRUSH OUT FROM THE GROUND.

YOU HAVE TO TRIM THE TREES.

YOU HAVE TO TRY TO SOMEHOW MAKE SURE A FIRE DOESN'T JUMP FROM ONE TREE TO THE OTHER, AND OF COURSE THAT REQUIRES WATER.

AND IF THERE'S NOT WATER AND NOT RAIN, THE TREES BECOME VERY DRY.

SO IT'S A TERRIBLY VICIOUS CYCLE, AND THE IN CASE OF CALIFORNIA THE GOVERNMENT, THE WILDLIFE SERVICE WAS SPENDING A FORTUNE PUTTING WILDFIRES OUT AND THEREFORE EELTING INTO ITS BUDGET FOR PREVENTING THE FIRES.

SO THE FOREST RESILIENCE BOND BRINGS TOGETHER BENEFICIARIES -- THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CALLED -- OF A RESILIENT FOREST WHO, OF COURSE, OBVIOUSLY ARE THE WILDLIFE SERVICE.

EVERYBODY BENEFITS IF THEY CAN PROTECT THE FOREST BUT ALSO LOCAL INSURERS WHO DON'T WANT TO PAY AND CANNOT PAY INCREASINGLY HOME OWNERS WHO ARE BURNED OUT LET ALONE KILLED OR HURT.

AND TOURISM OPERATORS WHO REQUIRE FIRE TUESDAY BE HEALTHY SO THE TOURISTS WILL COME AND EVEN THE HYDRO POWER PLANTS.

THE BOND SECURES PRIVATE INVESTORS AS WELL AS PUBLIC INVESTORS WHO SAID, OKAY, QUANTITATIVELY A FOREST IS THIS GROUP OF TREES IN LAKE TAHOE AS AN EXAMPLE IS WORTH "X" AND WE'LL PUT "X" INTO IT, AND THEN THE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE THE BENEFITS LATER PAY THE BOND BACK.

SO IT'S KIND OF ADVANCING TIME IN A WAY, AND IT'S VERY EXCITING.

AND THEY'VE GONE FROM A COUPLE OF MILLION TO 25 TO 30 MILLION.

I THINK THERE'S EVEN TWO FUNDS NOW, ALMOST $50 MILLION WHERE PRIVATE INVESTORS HAVE PUT MONEY UP FRONT TO ENABLE THE FOREST TO BE TENDED PROPERLY TO POSTPONE WILDFIRES AND BRING THE BENEFITS OF RESILIENT FORESTS INTO THE BALANCE SHEET.

IT'S JUST THE WAY -- IT'S AN INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPT, AND SO THINKING OF FORESTS AS INFRASTRUCTURE IS A BREAKTHROUGH BECAUSE INFRASTRUCTURE YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN.

IT'S NOT JUST, LIKE, A COST.

>> TELL ME ABOUT WHAT COMPANIES, FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES OR OTHERWISE CAN DO ACTIVELY TO TRY TO START PRICING SOME OF THESE THINGS, TO TRY TO START PUTTING IT ON THE BOOKS.

YOU TALK A BIT ABOUT THE GLOBAL SHOE COMPANY PUMA AND THEIR KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL PNL.

>> THE PUMA ENVIRONMENTAL PNL WAS A FANTASTIC EXPERIMENT.

I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CALCULATED ALL THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT COSTS THEM TO BUY LEATHER.

NOT JUST THE PRICE OF THE LEATHER BUT THE PRICE OF THE LAND, IF THEY HAD TO PAY FOR THE LAND AND THE WATER VALUE OF THE LAND.

SO THEY HAD TWO COLUMNS.

THEY HAD REGULAR BOOKS THEY FILED FINANCIAL RETURNS AND THEN THEY DID THESE ENVIRONMENTAL RETURNS.

AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS IF THEY HAD HAD TO PAY FOR THEM WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY ERODED THEIR PROFITS.

AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT OF RED INK OWED TO NATURE.

SO THAT ILLUMINATED FOR THEM THIS POTENTIAL COST.

NOW, IS THAT COST EVER GOING TO COME TO BEAR ON THEM THROUGH REGULATION IS SCARCITY?

YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN NO LONGER COUNT ON BEING ABLE TO GRAZE ANIMALS THEREFORE BECAUSE OF DROUGHT AND BECAUSE OF OTHER CONDITIONS OR EVEN REGULATION, THEN YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, WELL, WHERE AM I GOING TO GET THOSE MATERIALS?

SO IT BEHOOVES A COMPANY LIKE PUMA TO THINK AHEAD.

AND, YOU KNOW, ALL COMPANIES REALLY CAN START THINKING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROFIT AND LOSS.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BIT OF A LOBBYING POINT FOR ME, BUT I THINK ALL COMPANIES WOULD BE SERVED BY A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, A REGULATORY LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, AND THAT INCLUDES THE NATIONAL -- CERTAINLY THE UNITED STATES, A NATIONAL CARBON PRICE.

>> HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT A COMPANY THAT STARTS TAKING SOME STEPS IN THIS WAY ISN'T GREEN WASHING?

BY THAT I MEAN OKAY, I'M GOING TO PAY FOR THESE CARBON OUTSETS BUT IT'S BASICALLY A ROUNDING ERROR FOR US.

>> THAT'S A TRICKY ONE.

I THINK WHERE BASICALLY INSTEAD OF MAKING A REDUCTION AND PEOPLE INVEST IN SAY TREE PLANTING AND OTHER THINGS THAT CAPTURE CARBON, SEQUESTER CARBON IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I MEAN THOSE PROJECTS NEED TO BE TIED BACK TO THE DIET.

THEY NEED TO BE TIED BACK TO THE IDEA OF AN OVERALL REDUCTION.

IT'S ALSO TRUE, THOUGH, THAT CONSTANTLY REDUCING EMISSIONS EVERY YEAR ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A POWER PLANT, HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO THAT IF YOU FIX THE POWER PLANT AND IT'S GOING TO RUN FOR 20 YEARS?

WHAT OTHER FIXES CAN YOU MAKE?

SO THE OFFSET THING IS COMPLICATED BUT NOT AS CONTROVERSIAL AS SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK IT IS.

WE REALLY NEED TO BREAK OUT OF THESE THEMES THAT HAVE PLAGUED US FOR SO LONG THAT PREVENT PROGRESS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THE GOOD THING AND THEY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

AND THE ONES GREEN WASHING WILL GET CAUGHT SOONER OR LATER ESPECIALLY IF IT'S IN THEIR FINANCIAL FILING.

IF YOU LIE TO THE SEC IN THEIR FINANCIAL FILINGS IT'S A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, SO YOU GO TO JAIL FOR THAT.

THAT'S FRAUD.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS THAT WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE BEEN REALLY KIND OF ENGINEERED TO THINK ABOUT IDEAS LIKE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT AS WE HAVE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND OUR PERSONAL IMPACT COLLECTIVELY CAN ADD UP.

AND I WONDER WHETHER THAT TAKES OUR EYE OFF THE BALL IN SOME WAYS FROM THE LARGE SCALE AND INSTITUTIONAL POLLUTION THAT WE COLLECTIVELY ENABLE, WHERE WE'RE NOT ASKING MORE OF OUR REGULATORS OR OUR CORPORATIONS BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, HEY, I GET TO BUY I DON'T KNOW A RIVER AND ELECTRIC CAR AND I'M DOING MY PART.

>> THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PART.

WE DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM NOW IS SUCH THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE CAN WE GET THE BIGGEST IMPACT AND EFFECT FOR OUR EFFORTS.

AND I'VE CONCLUDED THAT THE LITTLE BIT WE DO INDIVIDUALLY CAN'T HURT, BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT BRINGS IT TOGETHER AND INSTITUTIONALIZES IT AS YOU HAD.

AND ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS IS HOW YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY, WHAT YOU DO BUY BUT ALSO INVEST.

TALK TO YOUR BANK EVEN IF IT'S JUST A LITTLE CHECKING ACCOUNT, ASK THE BANK WHERE THEY'RE INVESTING.

AND GRADUALLY BE NEED TO UP THE WHOLE THING SO IT BECOMES A MATTER OF ECONOMIC SECURITY AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

WE REALLY NEED TO BUMP IT UP TO, YOU KNOW, THE TOP OF THE LINE.

>> THE BOOK IS CALLED "PRICING THE PRICELESS.

AUTHOR PAULA DiPERNA, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>>> UP NEXT WE'RE SPEAKING WITH THE STAR OF THE HIT SHOW "NEVER HAVE I EVER."

PLAYING DEBBIE, AN INDIAN AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOLER NAVIGATING LIFE, LOVE, AND LOSS WITH NONE OTHER THAN TENNIS LEGEND NAVIGATING EVERY TWIST AND TURN.

THE FINAL SEASON DROPS ON NETFLIX THIS WEEK.

>> ALL IN ALL THINGS ARE -- >> ARE THEY?

>> I'M NOT READY TO SAY GOOD-BYE YET.

I'M NOT SURE I'M GOOD ENOUGH.

>> I KNOW IT'S SCARY.

OUR LIVES ARE CHANGING, BUT CHANGE IS GOOD.

I GOT THIS.

♪♪ >> AND WE ARE THRILLED TO HAVE HER JOIN US NOW FROM NEW YORK.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

WOW, WHAT A RIDE IT HAS BEEN.

WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING YOUR CHARACTER NAVIGATE THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL FOR THREE SEASONS NOW.

THE SHOW HAS AMASSED A HUGE FOLLOWING.

WHAT IS IT LIKE FOR YOU, AND IS IT A BITTERSWEET MOMENT KNOWING THAT THIS IS THE FINAL SEASON?

>> HONESTLY, YEAH, IT'S BEEN A REAL ROLLER COASTER JOURNEY SINCE I WAS 17 BACK IN 2019 WHERE I WAS, YOU KNOW, GOING TO HOLLYWOOD TO LEARN THAT I LOVE ACTING SO MUCH AND I LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.

BUT NOW IT FEELS, YEAH, BITTERSWEET BUT HONESTLY MAINLY SWEET.

I'M SO EXCITED FOR THE FANS TO SEE SEASON 4 AND WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON.

AND I'M JUST EXCITED FOR, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE FUTURE BECAUSE ALL GOOD THINGS COME TO AN END, AND I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE WHOLE RIDE IT'S BEEN.

>> WELL, IT HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL RIDE FOR YOUR FANS.

AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU THERE ARE QUITE A FEW ON THE AMANPOUR TEAM AS WELL AND I'VE BECOME YOUR LATEST ONE BECAUSE I STARTED WATCHING THE SHOW AND I'M LIKE I'M GOING TO DO MY RESEARCH AS A JOURNALIST AND WATCH ONE OR TWO EPISODES AND OF COURSE I GET HOOKED BECAUSE IT'S ADDICTING.

YOU HAVE A WAY OF CONNECTING NOT ONLY WITH YOUR CHARACTER BUT ALSO SOME OF THE MAIN THEMES HIGH SCHOOLERS ARE DEALING WITH AND YOUNG GIRLS ARE DEALING WITH IN THE COUNTRY.

HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO REALLY CONNECT WITH YOUR CHARACTER THAT WAY?

>> WELL, I THINK -- IN ALL HONESTLY I THINK THAT THE CHARACTER AND ACTUALLY ALL THE CHARACTERS ARE DEALING WITH THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY UNIVERSAL NOT JUST FOR YOUNG GIRLS AND NOT JUST FOR YOUNG TEENS.

THEY'RE DEALING WITH SUCH HUMAN REALITIES OF INSECURITY, SELF-CONFIDENCE, SELF-LOVE AND ALL THOSE JOURNEYS THAT COME WITH THAT, AND THAT IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF CAN SEE THEMSELVES IN THE CHARACTER THAT YOU FIND IN "NEVER HAVE I EVER."

ANYONE, YOU KNOW, IN HER FAMILY AND I THINK THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF WHAT MAKES THE SHOW WHAT IT IS.

>> AND IT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT SO MANY PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT CULTURAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS CAN NOTIFY AS WELL BECAUSE YOU TOUCH ON ISSUES THAT IMPACT ALL OF US AND ALL TEENAGERS, BUT YOU TALK ABOUT THE CULTURAL ASPECT OF IT AS WELL.

I'M AN IMMIGRANT MYSELF.

I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES IN YOUR YOUTH WHEN YOU'RE A LITTLE EMBARRASSED OR YOU JUST WANT TO FIT IN OR BLEND IN WITH EVERYONE ELSE.

LET'S SHOW OUR VIEWERS A CLIP OF JUST ONE OF THOSE CULTURAL MOMENTS SHE EXPERIENCES.

>> FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING CARE OF MY DAD AND MAKING SURE SHE HUSBAND ESPN UP IN HEAVEN.

IT MEANS A LOT TO US.

ALSO IF YOU HAVE THE TIME TO PLEASE BLESS MY COLLEGE APPLICATION, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

>> DR. KEYS IS WILLING TO WRITE YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

>> I'M ON IT, MOM.

I'M GOING TO ASK HER FIRST 'ing AP LIT.

A REF FROM DR. KEYS WOULD BE THICK BUT ALSO WOULD LOVE A NEW PHONE.

THE FRONT OF MINE GOT CRACKED AM I THREW IT AT A SPIDER.

>> OKAY, I'M NOT SANTA CLAUS.

>> HOW DID YOUR CULTURE PLAY IN THIS SERIES AND WHAT BACK STORY DID YOU BRING WITH YOU?

>> MEAN MY OWN CULTURE IS ALSO BEING -- THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE LIVED MY ENTIRE LIFE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING I NECESSARILY DELIBERATELY BRING IN ANY PARTICULAR WAY OTHER THAN JUST BEING MYSELF, BUT IT IS STILL AMAZING TO HAVE THAT IN A SHOW REPRESENTED.

WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN EVERY SINGLE ASPECT, AND WE'RE NOT A DOCUMENTARY.

WE'RE A HALF HOUR COMEDY THAT AIMS TO BE FUNNY.

THAT IS "NEVER HAVE I EVER" GOAL.

BUT JUST BY EXISTING IN THE SHOW WE ARE ABLE TO SHOW REPRESENTATION OF DIFFERENT CULTURES AND HAS A SPECIFICITY THAT COMES WITH I RESONATE WITH.

>> AS WE MENTION THE SHOW WAS CREATED BY LINDA KALEY AND LUCY AND HER LIFE AS WELL.

AND THIS ISN'T THE REPRESENTATION OF THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE THAT WAS AS PREVALENT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO AND A DECADE AGO OR SO OR MORE.

WE'RE SEEING MORE OF THAT NOW, THANKFULLY.

DO YOU FEEL A CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITY TO THE INDIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY HERE IN YOUR PORTRAYAL OF DAVIE?

>> I THINK HONESTLY FIRST OF ALL NOT JUST INDIANS BUT RATHER SOUTH ASIANS AS A WHOLE THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT PEOPLE DEFINITELY BUNDLE UP SOUTH ASIANS INTO A BIG UMBRELLA AND WE DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION YET.

AND IT IS ALSO A HUGE PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I DO, AND I KNOW THAT ONLY COMES WITH ME BEING ABLE TO REPRESENT THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY I CAN, WHICH IS BY BEING MYSELF.

AND I CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH SO I TRY TO KEEP MY EXPECTATIONS REALISTIC OF WHAT I'M ABLE TO DO.

BUT THERE IS A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT MINDY HAS BEEN HOLDING ONTO HER SHOULDER FOR A LONG TIME AND MANY BEFORE MYSELF, SO IT'S NOT JUST ME.

>> YOU DO IT MASTERFULLY I HAVE TO SAY.

AND ON TOP OF THAT YOUR INNER MONOLOGUE, JOHN MACKADROW.

IT WORKED SO WELL.

>> IT DOES.

>> CHRISTIANE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER.

I WANT TO PLAY FOR OUR VIEWERS WHAT HE SAYS.

>> WHEN I READ IT I WAS LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, I'M SUPPOSED TO BE THE NARRATOR FOR THIS HIGH SCHOOL GIRL, INDIAN AMERICAN GIRL WHO'S TRYING TO GROW UP AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH HER FRIENDS AND FRIENDSHIPS AND RELATIONSHIPS?

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

THIS IS CRAZY.

AND I SAW PRESS WHO SAID THIS IS CRAZY BUT CRAZY AND MAYBE IT WOULD WORK.

IT TURNS OUT LONG STORY SHORT MINDY'S FATHER WAS A BIG FAN IN INDIA, SHE'S A FIRST GENERATION INDIAN AMERICAN OBVIOUSLY COMING TO THE STATES.

HER DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT WAS LIKE FOR HER GROWING UP, BUT THE GIRL HAD A TEMPER SO IT WAS LIKE, AH, WHO ELSE HAS A TEMPER?

>> OH, I GREW UP WATCHING HIM.

I KNEW ALL ABOUT THAT TEMPER, AND I HAVE TO SAY HE WAS A JOY TO WATCH.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS?

AND WHAT'S INTERESTING THIS REALLY WORKED WITH YOUR CHARACTER.

DID THE TWO OF YOU INTERACT AT ALL?

WHAT WAS THAT RELATIONSHIP LIKE?

>> I DID GET TO, OF COURSE, MEET HIM ON SET IN SEASON 1.

HE DOES MAKE AN APPEARANCE, WHICH IS SUPER COOL.

WE GET TO SEE HIM IN THE FLESH INSTEAD OF NAR ASIAN.

BUT I GOT TO MEET HIM MULTIPLE TIMES IN DIFFERENT TABLE READS, WHICH IS SUPER COOL.

YEAH, HE'S SUCH A GOOD SPORT ABOUT IT ALL.

HE NAILS HIS NARRATION, AND IT TRULY IS SUCH A GREAT FIT FOR DAVY'S CHARACTER.

I MEAN THEY'RE BOTH HOT HEADS, BUT PEOPLE STILL BOTH ROOT FOR BOTH OF THEM.

WE'RE ROOTING FOR HIM ON THE COURT AND ROOTING FOR DAVIE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL OF SHERMAN OAKS.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR ANTICIPATION WHEN YOU READ HE'D BE PARTICIPATING IN THIS SERIES AS YOUR INNER MONOLOGUE.

>> >> IN ALL SERIOUSNESS I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS AT FIRST.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THAT.

>> I FIGURED.

BUT, NO, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE AND HE KNOWS IT HIMSELF, I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT A BIG SPORT HEAD.

BUT ONCE I FOUND OUT I WAS LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S COOL, HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE.

IT WAS HONESTLY KIND OF CHILL FOR ME, BUT I JUST APPRECIATED IT AS A CREATIVE AND AS A FAN OF THE SHOW OF "NEVER HAVE I EVER" HOW SMART THE DECISION WAS ON SO MANY LEVELS FOR DAVY'S CHARACTER.

>> EXTREMELY CREATIVE AS WELL.

SO, LISTEN, WE'VE WATCHED YOU FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS.

YOU'VE GOT A BRIGHT FUTURE AHEAD OF YOU.

WHAT IS NEXT?

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING OF DOING?

>> PROBABLY JUST, YOU KNOW, LIVING -- LIVING A LITTLE.

I'VE KIND OF WORKED REALLY HARD SINCE I WAS 17 THESE PAST FOUR YEARS THROUGH THE PANDEMIC, SO I'M KIND OF EXCITED TO JUST, YEAH, BE A REAL HUMAN BEING.

>> DOES THAT MEAN A BREAK, A BREAK FROM HOLLYWOOD FOR A BIT?

>> OH, I'M STILL GOING TO WORK.

I'M STILL GOING TO, YOU KNOW, LIVE MY LIFE AS A VERY DETERMINED ACTRESS WHO UNDERSTANDS SHE HAS TO RUN TEN TIMES FASTER AS SOME PEOPLE BEING A BROWN WOMAN, BUT THAT ALSO MEANS I CAN RESPECT, YOU KNOW, MY TIME AS A PERSON WHO NEEDS TO KNOW HOW TO HAVE FUN AND LIVE AND EMBRACE LIFE.

>> SO FOR YOUR FANS OUT THERE THAT ARE SAD TO SEE THIS SHOW COME TO AN END, WHAT ARE SOME PARTING WORDS YOU HAVE FOR THEM?

>> FANS THAT ARE SAD, I WILL SAY I THINK THIS SEASON IS THE BEST SEASON.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY, VERY HAPPY WITH IT.

IF THEY'RE NOT, I MEAN IT'S THE LAST ONE, SO I WOULD REALLY STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE HAPPY WITH IT.

>> I THINK EVERYONE IS PRETTY HAPPY WITH IT FROM SOME OF THE REVIEWS I'VE READ, WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

IT IS A REALLY FUN SHOW AND IT IS REALLY EXCITING TO WATCH YOU ON THE SCREEN.

CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT'S NEXT FOR YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> AND FINALLY, TODAY MARKED 79 YEARS SINCE D-DAY, THE INVASION THAT CHANGED THE COURSE OF WORLD WAR II.

PRESIDENT MACRON AND MILITARY OFFICIALS WELCOMED VETERANS TO NORMANDY WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.

AMONG THEM IS 100-YEAR-OLD JAKE LARSON, THE LAST SURVIVING MEMBER OF A UNIT THAT STORMED OMAHA BEACH BACK IN 1944.

AND HE SHARED HIS MEMORIES OF THAT DAY WITH CHRISTIANE.

TAKE A LISTEN.

>> I REMEMBER WHEN I HIT THE BEACH MACHINE GUNS WERE OPENING UP AND FIRING UP AT ME.

AND I FOUND THIS LITTLE WHAT I CALLED A BERM, A SAND, KIND OF LIMESTONE THAT SITS IN A POWDER, AND IT WAS ABOUT 6 TO 8 INCHES HIGH.

AND IT WAS A PROTECTION FROM THOSE MACHINE GUNS.

AND SO I LAID BEHIND IT THINKING HOW AM I GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS THING WITHOUT BEING SHOT AT ME.

>> AN IMPORTANT REMINDER THERE OF THE BRAVERY AND SACRIFICE OF ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THE D-DAY LANDINGS.

WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE.

>>> AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING ON THE SHOW EACH NIGHT SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR & CO." ON PBS.

JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.