It's so difficult being the first one with this panel because I have so many different directions I'd like to take this in. The first one points to what Mr. Balasubramanian talked about, that the price on pollution really can be an economic driver for many countries. We saw in Australia, for example, that when they had their price on pollution, their GHG emissions did drop substantially.
I know you said the change that happened after that was with a $2.5 billion investment. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. They could have kept the price on pollution and continued to see that downward pressure while making the investment that was actually going to reap greater gains for them financially in the long run, and probably accelerate their GHG emission drops at that time.
Would you agree with that?