That's a big question.
On your first point, I would commend you to read the last page of our climate change lessons learned report, if you haven't already, because we do strike an optimistic note there, and we're hopeful that this can be turned around.
It's too late to stop climate change, but we can at least mitigate and reduce the magnitude of the potentially catastrophic effects. We live on a finite planet with a certain amount of carbon. We don't want to have too much of it in the upper atmosphere and too little of it in the biomass, water, soil and earth, so, yes, we have to reconcile economic development with environmental protection in the long term, because we live on a finite planet with finite resources. There has to be a sustainable approach, as opposed to looking at it as growth at the expense of the environment, because the environment ultimately provides us with the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. There needs to be more of what I would call an integrated approach—and this is reflected in the Federal Sustainable Development Act—to the environment and economy, and movement past the more old-style trade-off approach, which is that we'll protect the environment in times of luxury or when it's feasible but that economic growth takes precedence. They have to go hand in hand, and that's what I think a net-zero future looks at, a healthy environment and a healthy economy working together, as opposed to being at odds with each other.