Thank you very much.
This is a very important issue indeed, and with hindsight I think at the European Union we thought that this differentiation was necessary in order to cater to the very different circumstances in the member states in climatic conditions, but also in economic conditions. We have very different energy structures, for example. We have member states that are relying heavily on nuclear power--France or Belgium, for example--while we have member states that rely very heavily on coal-fired power stations and things like that.
It was not possible for the EU, given that we are dealing with a large number of relatively small member states, to deal with one single number that we would impose on each of them. Some have very many cost-effective reduction possibilities, others do not have that. But together, we can sort it out. That's why, while today we have a commitment of minus 8%, together for the EU it's 15%, because we have to take the historical conditions of the EU into consideration. Today we are at minus 1%, so we still have 7% to go. It's not because we have the luxury, so to speak, of the joint approach that we are not having very intensive discussions of how to economically cope with emission reductions, because emission reductions do not fall out of heaven. We have to invest in it; we have to spend money on this. We are doing it together. But one lesson we have learned in this entire debate, and certainly after a couple of years of intensive implementation, is that cost-effectiveness really does matter a lot. That is one way.
Sectorally, we differentiate, but also according to member state we differentiate. But after all it is the result that matters. We are going to deliver the minus 8%; we are on our way to doing that. Cost-effectiveness has been the issue that brings us to where we are today, and that is going to bring us to the minus 8% by 2012.