Concerning Mr. Russell's question, I believe that you will sooner or later have to renew your requirement criteria. It seems that we are heading towards a form of responsible development that in and of itself is meaningless. And yet, we had already been having problems ensuring sustainable development. The process was only getting under way; we had only begun engaging in sustainable development. The path we are taking will not allow us to conduct very broad analyses, because there is no recognition of sustainable development here. This is advertising, not a way of thinking or managing a government or an organization.
Earlier, you said that you wanted to produce bulletproof information. I believe that you definitely intend to do so, that is obvious.
I would like to hear Mr. Affleck's comments on the following. When I asked a question, which comes up often, with regard to ethanol, I had the impression that the issue was dealt with in relation to the environment, in other words, in relation to climate change, not to sustainable development. If the issue were tied to sustainable development, then we would deal with the effects on farming and food, which could have potential repercussions on poverty. We would also talk about the consequences of ethanol production, increased smog and reduction in carbon sinks. Therefore, when you deal with ethanol, you are talking about life cycles, because ethanol is part of the greater life cycle.
If you only use a single aspect to assess ethanol, then how can you assess nuclear energy? Assessing nuclear production solely in relation to climate change is obviously easy to do. There are no other consequences than those related to nuclear production when an assessment is made solely in relation to the environment. However, in my opinion, findings would not be the same were an evaluation made in relation to sustainable development.