The $850 million for carbon capture doesn't mean a lot to me on its own, as a stand-alone number; it's rather in the context of the total investment portfolio. If it's $850 million being spend on carbon capture out of $900 million, I'd say that's a wrong priority. If it's $850 million being spent on the long-term development of an important technology out of $100 billion, I would say that 1% of our investment in renewable energy on carbon capture might make sense.
On April 27th, 2010. See this statement in context.