Okay, thank you.
I am going to talk to you about what is happening south of our border in the United States.
Last month, for example, the United States Senate budget committee and House of Representatives oversight committee released a report that, broadly speaking, said that the companies' massive public campaigns depict carbon capture and storage as a viable, available solution to address the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the companies admit internally that they do not plan to deploy the technology needed to solve the global warming crisis. The report also says that the industry's real objective is to extend the use of fossil fuels unabated and perhaps indefinitely.
I would also like to tell you that on May 1, Capital Power Corporation in the United States announced that it was pulling the plug on its carbon capture and storage project, the value of which had been pegged at $2.4 billion. What justification did it give? It said the project was not economically feasible. In other words, the project would not generate profits for the investors. This is also absolutely not a good thing for achieving our targets under the Paris Accord.
So why is the financial sector supporting the proposal to include carbon capture and storage in the next taxonomy?