Natural Resources Committee on June 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Thank you to everybody for not just being on time, but early. We can get under way.

We have four witnesses joining us today: Clean Energy Canada, represented by Dr. Mark Zacharias; Navius Research Inc., represented by Michael Wolinetz; S&T Squared Consultants Inc., represented by Don O'Connor; and the Pembina Institute, represented by Bora Plumptre.

Of course, we have Mr. Longfield appearing today, replacing Mr. Serré.

Mr. Longfield, thank you for joining us today.

A special thanks to all of our witnesses. Some of you might have done this before, but in case you haven't, the process is that each witness group will be given up to five minutes, with an emphasis on “up to”, to make opening remarks. After all of the witnesses have finished their opening remarks, I'll turn the floor over to committee members who will then be asking questions.

You have all tested your headsets and your sound devices. You have translation services available to you. You're encouraged and welcome to speak in either official language. You will be asked questions in both languages.

On that note, thank you again for coming.

I'll start with Clean Energy Canada. Dr. Zacharias.

[Dr. Mark Zacharias, Special Advisor, Clean Energy Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Mark Zacharias, and I am a special adviser to Clean Energy Canada, a climate and clean energy think tank at Simon Fraser University. I am based in Victoria, British Columbia.

I will be speaking today on how Canada can position itself to become a clean hydrogen leader through growing domestic supply and demand, which will in turn set Canada up as a clean hydrogen exporter.

Canada is already a top-10 global hydrogen producer. However, nearly all of Canada's hydrogen is produced from natural gas, whereby carbon dioxide is allowed to escape into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. This form of hydrogen production is termed “grey hydrogen”. Current emissions from global industrial hydrogen production, used mostly in refineries and the fertilizer industry, amount to 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. For comparison, Canada's entire economy emits just over 700 million tonnes annually.

In contrast, clean hydrogen is produced without, or with very few, greenhouse gas emissions, and is made in two different ways. Green hydrogen is produced from zero-emission electricity, using electrolysis. Blue hydrogen is made from natural gas, in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. Both green and blue hydrogen are valid climate solutions, and Canada is well-positioned to produce both types at scale.

Clean hydrogen has a number of unique advantages as a climate solution, particularly in sectors that are the most difficult to decarbonize and where alternatives are limited. These are often referred to as the “toughest third of emissions”. These include trucking, shipping, and the production of steel, cement and fertilizer.

Canada is among a small group of countries with the highest potential for exporting clean hydrogen, thanks to an electricity grid that is currently 83% non-emitting; sufficient access to fresh water, which is required for electrolysis; as well as abundant natural gas resources.

The International Energy Agency cites “a growing international consensus that clean hydrogen will play a key role in the world’s transition to a sustainable energy future”. BloombergNEF, meanwhile, estimates that clean hydrogen could meet up to nearly a quarter of the world's energy demand by 2050.

Canada is in the game, and last week's announcement by Air Products Canada of a $1.3 billion investment in a blue hydrogen energy complex in Alberta is an excellent start. However, Canada's long-term hydrogen advantage is most likely not production from natural gas but from zero-emission electricity. The cost of producing green hydrogen is projected to be on par with blue as early as 2030, and cheaper thereafter. Green hydrogen is expected to be cheaper than natural gas by 2050. Canada's ability to generate abundant and low-cost renewable energy is a significant competitive advantage.

What must Canada do to seize the hydrogen advantage?

First, it must replace fossil fuels with new hydrogen-based applications, particularly in sectors that are the most difficult to decarbonize and where alternatives are limited. Steel and cement manufacturing are excellent examples where hydrogen can replace fossil fuels.

Second, use clean hydrogen to decarbonize natural gas utilities, which are increasingly setting targets or facing regulations requiring that they blend increasing amounts of renewable gases, which could include biomethane and hydrogen. Currently, up to 15% to 20% of the blend can be hydrogen, with little modification to existing pipeline systems and domestic appliances.

Third, reduce the emissions intensity of current grey hydrogen production by making it blue through carbon capture and storage, or by replacing it with green hydrogen.

Fourth, use hydrogen to store energy. As we decarbonize our energy systems using variable sources of electricity, there is a growing need to store this clean energy for use during all hours of the day, and this is something hydrogen can be used for.

To summarize, Canada has tremendous opportunities to build and participate in the hydrogen economy.

Thank you for the invitation to speak today. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

There are two things. First, thank you very much. Second, my apologies for mispronouncing your name.

I'll move on to our next witness, from Navius Research.

Again, I'm hesitant to try to pronounce your name because I'll probably get it wrong as well.

[Michael Wolinetz, Partner and Senior Analyst, Navius Research Inc.]

There we go. I thought you'd have another go at a tricky last name.

My name is Michael Wolinetz. I am a partner, senior analyst and consultant with Navius Research. We are a Vancouver-based energy and economic consultancy. Our work primarily involves producing forward-looking analyses where we simulate how government policy, technology and energy markets and costs will affect greenhouse gas emissions and the economy in general. Our work spans all sectors of the economy, all energy consumption, all emissions sources and all potential greenhouse gas abatement actions.

I'll be speaking somewhat more briefly, focusing more on the renewable and biofuels side of things. I think there is significant opportunity for renewable low-carbon biofuels in Canada. To get there, it's critical to have policies that create long-term and durable signals for the consumption of these low-carbon and renewable fuels. In order to get to some meaningful level of production, there needs to be very large investments. These will only happen if they can be significantly de-risked by ensuring that there will be some market for the product being produced.

In terms of the cost and benefits of these fuels, our work consistently shows us that these fuels will cost more than conventional fossil fuels, but the benefit is that there are new sectors and commodities that create new economic development jobs in Canada, and there are significant opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Regarding economic activity and job creation, if we're focusing on the biofuels side of things, there is significant potential for job creation, especially in rural parts of Canada, as it may involve additional collection of forestry harvest residues or agricultural residues, as well as processing within the rural areas. That being said, from this specific green economy sector, we see a lot of jobs but not such a quantity that it would completely offset the jobs related to the current conventional fossil fuel industries.

Regarding the potential for net reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, there's substantial abatement potential from low-carbon renewable fuels, especially when we're talking about advanced biofuels produced from woody or grassy feedstocks. That being said, it's not a silver bullet. We're talking about a silver buckshot approach here, so it will have to have to occur in conjunction with numerous other abatement opportunities. That would include electrification and energy efficiency as well as other low-carbon fuels like hydrogen.

We see a pretty healthy niche that could be occupied by biofuels. We do a lot of work now forecasting how Canada's economy and energy system evolves when meeting legislated and announced targets, as well as it how it evolves as we trend towards a net-zero-emissions future. We see a persistent and ongoing demand for energy-dense fuels that could be used, notably for transportation like trucking, marine and aviation, as well as in industry.

Biofuels, notably those produced from residues that could be sustainable and also give a real greenhouse gas reduction, could occupy a healthy niche of our energy system, something on the order of 15% to 25%, depending on the extent of energy consumption and the extent of feedstock production. That being said, it requires careful management to ensure that the bioenergy system is actually giving a real and substantial net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. You need careful management to ensure that you're not depleting stocks of soil carbon—for example, not degrading soils and not resulting in additional deforestation.

As I mentioned earlier, biofuels may be complemented by hydrogen in terms of other low-carbon fuels, and certainly will act in concert with energy efficiency and electrification using renewable energy consumption. That being said, I am somewhat less optimistic and more uncertain about the future of hydrogen. I certainly see a role for it in interacting with intermittent renewable solar and wind electricity generation, and potentially blue hydrogen, although I don't necessarily see it as an outright shift to a full hydrogen economy in the future where hydrogen is cheaper than current energy sources.

Thanks for having me participate. That's all I'll say right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

We'll move on to Mr. O'Connor from S&T Squared Consultants. -

[Don O'Connor, President, S&T Squared Consultants Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Don O'Connor. I'm the president of S&T Squared Consultants.

Our client base is international, and so far this year we've had clients from Canada, the United States, Europe and Southeast Asia. Clients include investment banks, multinational refining companies, alternative fuel producers, agri-food processors, associations representing agri-food processors and biofuel producers, technology developers and some large fuel users.

I'm a mechanical engineer by training. I'm a registered professional engineer in British Columbia and Ontario, and I'm also a member of the Society of Automobile Engineers. I've co-authored seven peer-reviewed papers mostly related to greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuels, and I'm a co-inventor of seven patents, most of them related to processes for cellulosic ethanol.

I have 40 years of experience with alternative transportation fuels, first as a marketer, then as a producer, and for the past 20 years as a consultant. I've worked with many of the provinces when they introduced their renewable fuel programs between 2002 and 2012, and my experience covers ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, natural gas, methanol, propane and hydrogen.

For the past 20 years I've been the developer of the GHGenius life-cycle assessment model. This model focuses on the GHG emissions of transportation fuels. It has over 200 pathways for producing and using conventional and alternative fuels. It is specified currently in regulations in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario; and Quebec has proposed using this model for its proposed renewable fuel requirements. The model is used around the world, and through our development and use of the model we've acquired more real-world data on the performance of alternative production fuels and processes than anyone else in Canada.

Based on my experience, I'd like to make three observations for your consideration.

First, reductions in GHG emissions now are worth more than will be the reductions 10 years from now.. We should stop thinking about per cent GHG emissions reductions in 2030 or 2040, and instead focus on looking at the cumulative GHG emissions between now and 2030 or 2040. In other words, the time for action is now, not 10 years from now.

My second point is that it's a lot more complex and takes a lot longer to replace fuels and vehicles than it does just to lower the carbon intensity of fuels using existing vehicles. I saw that over and over again in the 1980s and 1990s, when the company I was working for was introducing some of these alternative fuels.

The third point is that many of the claims that companies and organizations are making about achieving net-zero emissions are being made with the focus only on making the fuels and not using the fuels. Net-zero crude oil production only addresses 10% to 15% of the life-cycle emissions of gasoline and diesel fuel. On the other hand, technology-produced net-zero renewable fuels on a full-life cycle basis are available today, and could conceivably be implemented.

I'm here to answer any questions you have in the production and use of alternative fuels and the GHG emission performance of the various alternatives.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.

Last up we have Mr. Plumptre.

[Bora Plumptre, Senior Analyst, Federal Policy, The Pembina Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak today.

My name is Bora Plumptre. I'm a senior analyst at The Pembina Institute in the federal policy program, and I'm really excited to take this opportunity to speak about the need and the opportunity to facilitate greater supplies and consumption of low-carbon and renewable fuels in Canada.

I'd also like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation, whose presence here in what is also known as Ottawa reaches far back in time.

I will focus my comments on two areas: first on the urgent necessity of accelerating a shift toward low-carbon and renewable fuels, particularly for transportation; and second on the regulatory powers of the federal government and the contribution that the judicious exercise of those powers could make toward the objective that, I would submit, unites the whole committee in conducting the present study, which is to say a vision of a net-zero society in which affordable clean fuels proliferate throughout our country's energy systems and beyond to our partners in international trade.

To me, this is a praiseworthy vision that would see us shift our energy economy into areas where investors are already going, positioning us to compete in the rapidly growing global market for clean energy and enabling us to finally meet our responsibility to eventually eliminate our ongoing contribution to the worsening effects of climate change.

Canada can and must do much more to decarbonize its transportation sector, which remains heavily reliant on petroleum-based fuels. Our emissions of greenhouse gases from mobile combustion sources remain stubbornly high, having grown 54% since 1990 and 16% since 2005, which is our base year for climate target setting.

Today, transportation is our second-highest-emitting economic sector, responsible for one quarter of our national GHG emissions. In most provinces and in all territories, it is the highest emitting sector. These figures are drawn from the federal Department of the Environment, and what they tell us is that right now, despite recent policy innovations, on a biophysical level, we're not headed in the right direction.

Whether in pursuit of our nearer-term emissions reduction target for 2030 or in pursuit of our longer-term aspiration to build a net-zero society, the decarbonization of fuels must be a key element of our strategy for transportation. Vehicle-focused policies are necessary too, but they are not sufficient to decarbonize the whole system. Government must pay attention to the core energetic component of mobility, namely fuels.

How do we do this? Electrification appears increasingly likely to solve the problem of emissions from passenger road transport, but given the deep uncertainty about which fuelling solutions will propel medium and heavy duty freight vehicles in the long term, we still need to approach this challenge in a way that provides a clear investment signal while remaining technology neutral.

Thankfully, we have a policy coming into place in the form of the clean fuel regulations, sometimes still called the “clean fuel standard”, which will fundamentally reorient the regulatory paradigm for the fuel market across Canada around the criterion of life-cycle carbon intensity. This reorientation is long overdue, and I was really pleased to see this type of policy approach, a low-carbon fuel standard, also recently endorsed by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

This is an important contribution because it helps provide certainty about the path forward for both the obligated and voluntary participants in the market this policy will create. Certainty and risk minimization for investors are essential to making progress on both technology and deployment, and the best way to minimize risk is by means of a regulatory program such as the clean fuel regulations, which act effectively as a non-subsidy transfer from high-carbon to low-carbon fuel producers. In other words, without resorting to public spending, the policy will shift capital flows on an ongoing basis to companies that can accelerate our transition to net zero. Subsidies, by contrast, of course have a habit of going away.

Another essential virtue of the clean fuel regulations is that they enable a portfolio-based approach to decarbonizing the national fuel supply. Many models have attempted to project what the energy system might look like by mid-century, and many scenarios of our energy future remain possible, but where the models converge is on the basic finding that we will need a portfolio of cleaner fuel options in order to achieve our climate goals. Increasingly stringent clean fuel regulations will enable the cost effective build out of this diverse portfolio without government having to pick winners.

Whether your interests—or, perhaps more properly, those of your constituents—are to promote one type of low-carbon fuel or another, the most important aspect from both a business and a climate perspective is to ensure a stable investment environment for projects to get done. There is a virtuous circle to enable between financial dependability and emissions reductions. A properly administered clean fuel regulation will provide the financial architecture for accelerating direct investments in the market-ready solutions and promote innovation in the more expensive, earlier-stage technologies that need to be scaled up.

Thank you. I'll stop there, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Plumptre.

I think this is an all-time first. We started the meeting early and every witness came in under time. It bodes well for the rest of the meeting.

Let's move into the first round of questions of six minutes, starting with Mr. Patzer, who I believe is in the committee room.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to start with the Pembina Institute.

Any kind of natural resource project is intimately connected with the environment. We all know that managing our environmental impacts can be complex if we're trying to make sure that our actions result in a net benefit—again, no matter what kind of project we're pursuing, whether it's an alternative or conventional form of energy.

I'm just wondering if you share the concern we've heard from others about land use when it comes to an increased demand for biofuels.

[Bora Plumptre]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Patzer.

I certainly do believe we need to take sustainability considerations into account when it comes to biofuel production. Mr. O'Connor would be able to speak to that in depth, I'm sure.

I would agree with what Mr. Wolinetz said in his comments that there is a true opportunity for Canada to take advantage of the fact that we have a natural resource base and a plethora of potential feedstocks for different biofuel production processes that we are not yet fully taking advantage of. This can be something that Canada can pursue in a sustainable way.

I do believe the Department of the Environment is taking steps to ensure that this type of approach is being hard-wired into the regulation.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm going to go to Mr. O'Connor, then. Do you want to answer that as well?

[Don O'Connor]

Sure.

I think there's no question that agriculture in Canada is quite sustainable. Canada has been tracking a number of sustainability metrics related to agriculture since the 1980s, and every five years Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada puts out a comprehensive report on the environmental performance. You can't find a report of that quality anywhere else in the world.

One of the things that has happened is that we've seen increasing yields of crops, particularly those that are used for biofuels. At the same time, we see stagnant or declining demand for some of these crops from some other traditional uses, so the feed going into livestock is lower today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm going to elaborate on that a little bit, because other stakeholders I've been meeting with and hearing from as well are talking about sensitive grasslands being broken up. We're also seeing ranchland being lost and converted for people to chase this $20 to $22 canola.

We know that price may or may not hold. The markets are always up and down. There's the volatility associated with it. However, either way, people are busting up grasslands in order to try to grow some of these biofuel stocks.

I'm just curious to know whether you have any reports or have done any looking at research into the effects this may or may not have in the long term.

[Don O'Connor]

The information that Canada has and reports in its national inventory report shows no change in grasslands. However, they do admit that Canada does not have a perfect system for monitoring changes in grasslands.

However, overall, the cropland in Canada has been declining for the last 15 or 20 years, similar to the declines in agricultural land that we see in the rest of the developed world.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I've seen a lot of people where I come from who get out of ranching and go into farming instead. We're looking at the sequestering power of ranch land and the long-term benefits it has. I would say it's a bit of a shame that this is happening. We've seen documentaries, such as Guardians Of The Grasslands, outline very clearly the benefits of our grasslands.

I'm going to move on to another point.

I have a question for Clean Energy Canada. As I was saying to you, Mr. O'Connor, I've seen some concerning numbers about how, if we aren't careful and strategic with an energy transition and how we grow new industries, we will see other types of damage done.

As of 2019, the International Renewable Energy Agency calculated that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Agreement will result in old-panel disposal more than doubling the tonnage of global plastic waste. The IRENA—the same agency—also forecast massive jumps in mining for minerals that are in higher demand. Silver would jump by 250% and indium by 1,200%.

I also read another report that states, “Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic.”

When we look at the disposal and what they're doing with that, quite frankly, it's just ending up buried in the ground. There are lots of examples above and beyond that, as well.

I'm curious to know about the following, because we were talking a lot about how we're going to electrify as a way of getting zero-emission fuel sources or energy to be able to create fuel sources. Have we looked, though, at the unintended consequences of burying wind turbine blades in the ground, with the amount of steel and concrete that go into these products? We were also looking at GHG life cycles. Are we looking at that? What are we doing with this?

[Dr. Mark Zacharias]

It's a good question. I'll go first.

Yes, the transition to a net-zero world is going to require massive increases in the metals, minerals and materials to build all of the infrastructure required. What happens when that infrastructure gets to the end of its life and its end-of-life cycle? Again, because it's a fairly new industry and it's scaled up so quickly, these questions are just being tackled.

For example, there is now a company in Texas that recycles wind turbine blades and reuses them back into materials. Both California and B.C. are looking at extended producer responsibilities for solar panels. A number of countries in Europe are looking at end-of-life considerations around all of the assets and infrastructure required for solar, wind and other types of generations.

Absolutely, Canada is a leader in sustainable mining through IRMA and some of the other processes, in trying to export them globally as sustainable sources of mining.

There is some catch-up necessary, but I would think Canada and particularly a lot of the provinces are already on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We will move on now to Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today and for the breadth of knowledge they bring to the discussion and the study we're doing.

My first question will be for Clean Energy Canada. In your remarks, and also in your report on “How Hydrogen can Deliver Climate Solutions and Clean Energy Competitiveness for Canada”, you noted that studies indicate that the cost of green hydrogen is going to drop by 64% by 2040 while blue hydrogen is going to rise by almost that same amount, mostly due to changing natural gas prices. You mentioned that as a result, green hydrogen could be cost-competitive within a decade.

In this study so far, we've heard almost unanimous feedback that Canada should be focusing on blue and green hydrogen production at the same time in order to build out some of the common infrastructure that's going to be needed sooner, particularly with where the prices are right now, relatively, with those two.

If these market projections hold true going forward, how should Canada be approaching its strategy on hydrogen today?

[Dr. Mark Zacharias]

It should be looking at both. Blue hydrogen, obviously, is more cost-competitive and will likely be cost-competitive for at least another decade.

Having said that, when you look at the recent announcement by the Biden administration in the U.S., they're looking at green hydrogen at about $1.50 U.S. a kilogram within the next decade. That would out-compete blue hydrogen as it's currently costed in Canada.

I think there's a two-path track here. One is that where we do have natural gas processing assets and we have uses for natural gas that are near natural gas sources, we should be scaling up blue hydrogen, but also be looking at the long term. Western Australia, to give you an example, has a hydrogen minister, and they're looking at 100 gigawatts of production of clean hydrogen—that's green hydrogen—which already has contracts for sale in Japan right now. That's within the next 10 years. One hundred gigawatts is basically 100 site Cs. That's the scale of hydrogen that's coming on stream.

Germany has allocated $13 billion Canadian to its hydrogen strategy, Portugal $10 billion and France $7 billion. There is going to be an enormous competition for clean hydrogen.

Again, Canada does have an advantage in the short term because of our ability to produce blue hydrogen. Also, we have a lot of industries that actually use hydrogen, and it could be cleaned up. We have a very large fertilizer industry, a very large chemical industry, and we do also develop steel and cement.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thanks for that. We've talked about a few of the key overarching mechanisms we have—the price on pollution, the clean-fuel standard—as ways of having that certainty for business and not necessarily picking winners. It does seem that many of these other countries that you're mentioning are trying to pick hydrogen as a winner in the low-carbon fuel space of the future.

We do have a $1.5 billion fund for these types of fuels, but what more would you say is necessary on top of the structures that we already have in place and the strategy in that fund to really allow Canada to be able to fully take advantage of some of the economic opportunities in hydrogen going forward?

[Dr. Mark Zacharias]

I think Canada is on the right track. It has done the right thing in identifying hubs because what will be appropriate for Alberta and Saskatchewan to feed their industries will be different for Quebec. Quebec, with its large hydro capacity, will have cheap electricity and the ability to produce green hydrogen, which could in turn be exported to Europe. Western Canada might be a little bit different, so I think that's been good.

There is a Canadian hydrogen strategy. However, it is basically 141 pages, and it's full of recommendations rather than concrete actions. Those concrete actions actually have to be attached to funding. The $1.5 billion is for a whole suite of low-carbon fuels. That needs to be ramped up if we are going to be competitive with other jurisdictions, including Europe, Asia and the States. That's what's missing on the Canadian national stage.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

In regard to the same report I mentioned earlier, you also noted the potential of synthetic fuels in which hydrogen could be blended or combined with carbon-based fuels to create new fuels. One of the examples that you mentioned in the report is Carbon Engineering, which happens to be a company based in my riding that unfortunately I don't think we're going to have time to welcome to this committee before we rise for the summer.

What role do you see synthetic fuels playing in Canada's low-carbon future, as well as fuels directly produced through direct air capture?

[Dr. Mark Zacharias]

I think that's going to be a little ways out, and it's going to be a much more risky venture than other low-carbon fuels that we've talked about on this call today. It may come to fruition at some point in the next year, but it really will depend on the price of electricity and the availability of electricity for direct air capture.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

Next, I want to go to Mr. O'Connor for a question. In your third observation, you mentioned that many of the claims for net zero are only looking at the production side, not the scope 3 side, which of course is very important. You mentioned that net-zero life-cycle fuels are available now. Which of those net-zero life-cycle fuels right now do you see that we should focus most on in terms of short-term measures?