Thank you for the question.
Maybe I'll provide a bit more detail around the transition category. This tries to acknowledge that we need to address high-emitting GHG activities. To qualify for the transition label, a project must meet three strict criteria that are aligned with science for a 1.5°C scenario—significant emission reductions; limited lifespan aligned with a net-zero pathway; and avoiding what's known or referred to as carbon lock-in, so preventing other investments. Any project that supports the expansion of oil or gas via new extraction projects was seen as not viable due to the multiple climate scenarios out there that do not align with that. The thresholds for this transition category will evolve over time, so what's acceptable in 2025 will not necessarily be acceptable in 2035.
If we take items like CCUS, the taxonomy is meant to be applied on a project-by-project basis, not as a red or green light for a whole category of activities. If a CCUS project can meet those three strict criteria that are developed by the custodian and approved by the council, then it will be included. If it cannot, it will not.
I think the upshot also is that it sends a very clear message to the industry and the markets about what truly is a transitional CCUS project. I think there's a vast amount of lack of clarity in this area, and taxonomy can bring the clarity it needs. I would also note that in the IEA report, one of the top five emission reduction items for 2050 includes CCUS.