We're strongly supportive of the taxonomy overall. It's an incredibly important and essential tool. The provisions in the “green” part of the label that have been discussed so far, the sort of rough framework, are fairly uncontroversial and aligned well with international standards. I think we're all wondering why it hasn't been implemented yet. It's quite late in the game. We have been having these discussions for some time.
The controversial part of the taxonomy is around trying to insert a transition label. This is still an ongoing area of disagreement among experts. In principle, the idea of transition assets makes a lot of sense. Being able to finance high-carbon companies through the transition is something that we absolutely need to do, and there's a lot more work to do there. However, there's still a risk that we're also going to be allowing inappropriate activities that are not aligned with a science-based transition to receive that label, and that's where there's still quite a bit of controversy and discussion to be had. It's a fairly technical discussion, but fundamentally it comes down to the question of whether the activity aligns with an actual science-based transition on pace to zero emissions. I think that's where we're still having some discussion on the margins.
Overall, I think this is a really important thing, and I'm really glad to see that the process is going forward to get into the details and get it enacted.