On the first question, the main weakness we had when we started our pilot period in 2005 was that we did not have a solid database on the greenhouse gas emissions plant by plant of 11,000 installations. So we had to build that up and we had to do some well-informed guesswork, but it was well-informed guesswork, and now we have that database. Since April 1, 2006, we have had that on the table just for implementing the emissions trading scheme and all the provisions related to that.
So that question is now out of the way, and what we are now concentrating on is extending the system to incorporate more sectors. For example, the aluminum sector is not covered, and some parts of the chemical sector are not covered, so we want to extend the system.
On the second part of your question, the U.S. argument related to China, I think we have that argument very much in Europe. It doesn't point primarily to China, but it does point primarily to the U.S. So the same economic argument is directed first to the U.S. and then to China. So we are having a very intensive public debate that does not underestimate the importance of having China on board, but when we have to put the emphasis right, we first put the emphasis on the United States. So the same reasoning that is present with our friends in the United States is the one that we turn against them, so to speak, and that is why we are putting a lot of effort and my commissioner is just now getting on a plane, going to the White House, going to Capitol Hill to deepen our understanding of the issues being debated, the new committee on Capitol Hill.
I mentioned our work with the California Air Resources Board. I mentioned also our contacts with the northeastern states. So it's very important that the U.S.--and, it goes without saying, Canada--joins those implementing the Kyoto Protocol to have a good argument vis-à-vis the Chinese.
Thank you.