 I am personally sympathetic to the idea because I think that cutting material forests for wood energy is a no-no, transporting wood pellets or wood chips across the Atlantic is a no-no also. But I am personally not willing to sign because I also think that there is some good climate change gain to have in replacing coal by properly used wood energy. And they don't look, I would say, at the process, at the complete process on an evidence base. So that's why as a scientist I'm not willing to sign. And the other problem I have is that it just sends sort of an overall message that wood energy is bad. Well in fact it's based on a very specific example and I don't think it's true. When you burn wood, because it comes from renewable resources, it's the trees that are fixing carbon into their trunk, leaves, branch, then in fact you are not adding carbon to the atmosphere. And people say, okay, as such it is carbon neutral. You have two main problems with that. One is the fact that you need to emit greenhouse gases to cut the wood, to transform it. Even with residues, some studies, depending on the processing chain you use, show that you can be 83% below the greenhouse gases emission of coal or 72% above with the same residues from the same forest depending on how you treat them, how you transport them or you dry them. So even with the residues it's not that simple. And the second point is the time issue. If you cut the standing tree you will have a time, a death. So it may be that it will become carbon neutral but in 100 years from now. So you are suddenly adding a huge amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that will eventually be recovered by the growth of the vegetation. But it's 100 years from now. So if we are changing the climate now, it is not going to happen, it's going to be too late. So that's the sort of the main issue. Then there is another one, which I find for me totally unacceptable. It is the fact that we are transporting with pellets from the US to the UK. And people will tell you what, this is economically viable because shipping is so efficient. In fact it costs less money to ship pellets from the US to the UK than to transport them by road for 50 or 80 kilometers. So you save money but you don't take into account all the externalities, all the carbon embedded in your transportation. So what would be the proper way I think is that the directive provides some framework to ensure that if we use wood energy, this wood energy is sustainable and effectively ends up emitting less greenhouse gases than carbon with a very defined time span. For me it belongs much more in this case advocacy than really science because the science is not that clear. And that's the issue I have and I think that's what we need to have is a proper study and not done by the completely conservation oriented agenda and not done by the wood industry agenda but done by a neutral agency. For me the way forward will really be to have a proper study of the various chains and this one but other and then to have a true discussion between the science and the policy maker to make a better directive.