When it comes to greenwashing, we need to set things straight regarding certain terms. As I pointed out earlier, we don't use the term “green aluminum”. In fact, we've never really used it. Governments have. It's easier for governments, in terms of public perception, to use the wording “green aluminum” or “our green aluminum” than for the industry to talk about green aluminum, because what that means to us is highly relative.
The Middle East can say that its aluminum is green because it uses natural gas, not coal, and so on. It's too relative a term. What bothers us is that foreign competitors can make claims against which authorities in Canada would have very little recourse, whereas, conversely, those same foreign competitors would be allowed to impose countervailing measures if we used the same language.
The ability to apply these new parameters is very relative, especially since we have to refer to internationally recognized methodologies. That's the main problem with this new regulatory environment.
We'll see how things pan out. Our sector's way of doing things will stay the same because our positions and claims have always been very well documented.
The second part of your question was about the challenge we face in meeting our 2050 targets. We have to develop and deploy disruptive technologies, such as the use of inert anodes or the ELYSIS project in Saguenay, or try to adopt other technologies that weren't developed for our sector. I'm thinking, for example, of carbon capture and sequestration.