We definitely are. There are a couple of things there.
One, I disagree with the notion that we need to think globally and act locally. We need to think everywhere and act everywhere, because we're getting to the point that it's a critical issue.
I do agree that we need to think about our electricity distribution and the emission factors of the energy we're using at a local level. There are good examples of how that has fluctuated in other jurisdictions. We work a lot in Chile. The connection of the northern and southern grids has changed the emission factor of the industrial and mining operations in the north. However, combined with that, a mass investment in solar infrastructure in the driest, brightest desert in the world has also contributed to that reduction in emissions. Entering new renewable sources of energy into the grid is also reducing the emission factor drastically.
In terms of the investment side in technologies, I definitely agree. BlackRock estimated last year that global infrastructure investment by 2030 is going to be up to $96 trillion. We have a very strong position that a large portion of that has to be for green infrastructure.
I heard from my colleague who was talking about the scale of investment potentially in adaptation versus mitigation, and that's very true. Historically, we've invested more in mitigation, because we thought we could address the problem head-on. The reality is that we're going to need to adapt regardless. There's going to be a huge global spend with large dollar values and project finance on coastal infrastructure, and green infrastructure development. I think countries, companies and individuals that get ahead of the game are going to be in a future-positive climate position but also in a well-placed economic position.