Thank you.
In terms of aggressive transition plans, our perspective is that we need to act, and the data shows that we need to act. We think it's important to be very clear on having objectives that will collectively get us to net zero and to drop emissions.
We could put a target of 20/80 instead of 20/40. Certainly, when that is the case, people tend to work to that target. Our view is to bring it in and to do everything we can to meet that. The view is it's based on data and trying to achieve that.
With respect to green projects and how we look at terms and conditions, or pricing, again, we typically price for risk. As was said, I believe, in the previous panel, it's difficult to look forward for risks that we don't fully understand versus looking back at traditional risks that we are used to.
We haven't officially landed to say if we do this new product we will definitely drop a price or term by a certain amount, because we are still trying to understand what those broad risks are, but we are trying to make it helpful to members, because they do want to take these actions. We are working with them to understand what levers actually matter to them the most. It may or may not be pricing. It may be something else.
That's how we respond to our membership. We want to understand what levers we can pull ultimately to see more of these green projects or financing get in place.