Well, we have been discussing at length any voluntary schemes in the field of the environment, not just greenhouse gas and climate change. Our experience has been much less convincing compared to what we had hoped for.
The latest one--and perhaps you have seen this in some European newspapers--is the voluntary agreement we signed with the car industry, which was a commitment made by the car industry vis-à-vis the European Commission to improve by 25% in one decade the fuel efficiency of cars.
We are a bit stuck halfway. A voluntary system, in our history at least, has very few or weak compliance provisions. And now that we are stuck halfway, public opinion is very much disappointed.
In the European Parliament people are now looking for a mandatory scheme, legislation that would put a very clear-cut obligation that has to be delivered by everybody. Otherwise, there is very weak discipline. Some are doing it; some others are not doing it. And too many are sitting on the fence.
So our experience with voluntary schemes is a mixed blessing, so to speak, and that is now a very widespread feeling that we have here.
Now, on the mandatory, when it comes to trading I think you need both buyers and sellers, and you have to have fair rules on how to distribute the allocations before the trading period starts. But you need both of them. And what is most important is that we need to bring down the emissions to have the real reductions implemented.
The question is that those that have the cheapest emission reduction opportunities can earn money by doing more than what they otherwise would be forced to do, and they can make money on top of that. And if the global or the overall emission reduction is cleared, then the environmental constituency is happy because the emission reductions are there. The economic constituency finds it acceptable because the least-cost options are being used and not the other ones.
Thank you.