 I'd like now to ask Friedberg Flugert to sum up what you've heard. I mean, from the Europe, I'm never sure whether you're actually, it's the European cluster or the European center. It seems to have both words on the internet. Is it the cluster for climate energy and resource security or the center? Either way, you're the expert. So, over to you. Well, that doesn't matter. Thank you, John. In your introduction, you referred to this little argument I had yesterday evening with Prime Minister Fabius. It was a very polite argument. And, well, I believe that in one basic line, he was entirely right. And that was when he said there is a huge gap between our pronouncements on more and more ambitious energy or CO2 reduction goals on the one hand and our ability to concretely deliver. And I believe that this is the most difficult thing we have to solve in the near future. I would even go further and say our, the loudness of our proclamations of ambitious goals is inversely proportional to our ability to really reduce carbon emissions. And that is a situation where you will soon see a tipping point that people either do not take these aims serious anymore or they become radicalized because they say, well, the politicians are not able to live up to their own goals and then they radicalize like we see it in some of our countries. So what can we do in this situation? I think we have embarked on a wrong path and that path is goals and government micromanagement, is forbidding certain technologies, is interfering in markets. That will not go nowhere. What we have to do is to unleash technologies and there we are. Unleash technologies, bring them to the market and trust that humans are able to live up to dangers and threats and challenges, not by forbidding anything, not by fleeing away, but by grabbing the chances. And here we saw wonderful revolutionary models. I mean, I don't know if you really got the basic message of Frank Oberst. He says climate neutral is not enough. We have to become climate negative in our thinking. We have to get the carbon again out of the atmosphere and he showed with his prototype of this a-fuel car that this is already possible with our technologies that we have and that you can use countries like Abu Dhabi or Saudi Arabia or Morocco or Australia perfectly for this to create a coal sink, a carbon sink. And that is, in my point of view, a great message that he has. And not a message for 500 years, I would never say that. I would say it's a message for the next 50 years where we really can do a huge difference. You are from Germany and Germany, famously after Fukushima, decided to end its nuclear industry. What was the message of that? In the end, you are living in the reality of a political world as well. May I say, I must admit that I was never a fan of nuclear because I never trusted the ability of mankind to store high-radiation used nuclear fuels for millions of years. But since I know, and that's the next technological revolution, since I know that it is possible to reuse these fuels, work with them in the way of transmutation and partition, reduce the radiation of them so that if you store something at the end, you only have to store it for 200, 300 years instead of a million years. That is something where I believe we should have a second look to nuclear, especially when it comes to small nuclear reactors, to a new generation of secure nuclear reactors. So I believe the German policy has a lot of sense 10, 15, 20 years ago. It doesn't make sense today where we have new technologies. And for instance, my government in Germany, they say, well, final storage in Germany will be possible. We will find the place between 2045 and 2069. Then it will need another 20 years until we have built the storage. And it will take another 20 years until all the used fuels are stored there. So at the beginning of next century, we will end this work on our nuclear heritage. This is crazy. This is a hybris. Man cannot make decisions today for 100 years. And he is much more realistic with this 2030 or 2032. And we should look to those things and not forbid them as governments in Europe, and especially in my country do. So we have so many chances and let me add one more. And that comes to this also, it could be based here. And that is synthetic fuels for airplanes, for ships, and also for the individual traffic with e-fuels, with a-fuels. That is a huge chance. And we should not say today, 35, no combustion engines anymore. We should say 35, no combustion engines which are based on fossil fuels. But if you have them with synthetic fuels, green fuels, why not then use the combustion engine? The engine that is bad. It's the fuel that is bad for the climate. So in my point of view, we have to unleash this technological revolution like the US does with the IRA. And that's my final statement. I believe that we had a lot of competition on energy sources in the past. Who has the oil? Who has the gas? In the future we will have a competition on the climate technologies who is best in producing hydrogen, who is best to distribute it, to be able to have the logistics, the storage systems. So the competition of tomorrow, today and tomorrow, is on technology. And in the moment we have understood that, that these are the solutions and not the politicians in Shamil Sheikh. That's also nice. It's not the solution. Then I think we have a great chance to fight. Thank you very much. It's a wonderful finishing comment.