Okay, this will be my last example. There are a number of others that are referenced in the deck, but I think this is the most significant example.
We have two columns. The London protocol has been amended a couple of times, and we have not yet amended CEPA to keep up with the amendments in the international regime.
Another is an example that many of you would have been familiar with through the media. A private entrepreneur working through an indigenous community on the west coast wanted to basically seed the ocean. The basic theory was to encourage growth, plants, in the ocean, so they would sequester carbon. That sounds good, but we actually had no idea what the implications would be for marine life, for the way the ocean worked in terms of heating and cooling, etc. The proponent went ahead and did it, arguing that there was no prohibition. We've argued that the act is prohibitive. Indeed, the London protocol was subsequently amended to clarify that doing that is prohibited.
We're suggesting, however, that it not be left as ambiguous and that the issue be clarified in the statute.
I apologize for going on for maybe an overly long time. I'd like to suggest that the committee indulge us for a few more minutes so that my colleague can describe in a little more detail how we use the act for chemicals management.