 I understand there are some questions regarding the Trump administration, but we'll discuss that later on in the discussion. Maybe what I'd like to say as a start for us as a company, I represent Total, is there, as you mentioned, many uncertainties. We don't know what the price of oil is going to be tomorrow. We don't know how electrical vehicles are going to develop. We don't know how people are going to behave in the future in terms of mobility. Actually, there are many things we do not know, that's for sure, and it's difficult for companies like us to invest for the very long term in oil and gas and in renewable without knowing basics. Okay. At the same time, there is something that we do know. And what we know is that energy demand is going to increase in the future. Energy demand is going to increase because population is increasing, because population from low-developed country is going to increase, and energy is needed, especially when you get out of poverty. It's true that for people having already three cars, they don't care that much about having an additional car. For people having no access to mobility, when they get out of poverty, yes, there is a demand for energy. And our responsibility, at least as a corporate as we see it, is to provide and to supply enough energy to people requesting it. And we have to provide reliable, of course, affordable and clean energy. And the difficulty for us as corporate is how are we going to supply this energy while at the same time we have to decrease the carbon footprint that energy is going, of course, to have as an impact? And so that's really the combination. And I would like, in the discussion, in my view, to discuss there are four elements that seem very important for us. In order to be in a position to have this kind of paradox to supply energy while decreasing the footprint. And I would say the first one is we need to get organized, meaning we need to get prepared in order actually to do that. Then we need to take actions, meaning we need to make decisions. And I will give some examples, for instance, a company like ours decided to get out of the coal business. And Olivier mentioned, what about coal? Well, there are some decisions that you have to make. And of course, it's easier maybe for us than for some countries. But it's interesting to see what are really the levers. Thirdly, I think we need to advocate. We need to take positions on CO2 pricing, on CCUS, on different things in order to make things happen. And at the end, we need to report. We need to be transparent. We need to explain what we're doing. Because companies like ours, in the oil and gas business, people are going to say, okay, we cannot trust you really because, you know, how can we? And so if we don't report, if we don't explain, if we're not transparent, it will not work. So that's the four levers I'd like to come back to. Thank you very much, Radicalas. Yeah, I free agree with your final point that kind of transparency to the market, the message is very important. Everywhere now, the ESG environment, social and corporate governance investment is happening. So they are certainly ranking the companies of their efforts by many indexes. So without clear, you would say, messages and transparency policies of the company, the report really, I mean, the financial sector cannot really evaluate properly of what corporations doing. So that is an interesting point, and especially for the total, I think you have the internal carbon pricing, right, at certain level. Yes, you're right to mention that. Internally, even though the carbon pricing system in Europe, at least, is not working very fine. We know that we are, I don't know, maybe five, seven euros per tonne of CO2 in the ETS system. We consider that first, we advocate for carbon price, actually, at the level of 20 euros per tonne to apply in order also to create business models. And already, since quite some years, we have in all the decisions we make in the projects that we sanction, we take into account a carbon price between $30 and $40 per tonne, depending on the assumption that we have for the oil price itself. And we have that included and embedded in our analysis, economic analysis, so that we can rank projects one against the other and make decisions assuming that over the long run we'll have a carbon price, even though we don't have one today. That is very interesting point that maybe one of the conclusion which I want to draw is the need for the internal carbon pricing for any big or even small corporations to make financial sector has enough kind of impact to make a difference. Well communities in climate mitigation failed, unfortunately, more than decades of creating carbon pricing mechanism as such, or carbon taxation, because harmonization of these systems is very difficult. Yes, European experiment of ETS is very interesting one, but still it's not really working. So the corporate decision of making that kind of internal pricing is probably more pragmatic way to make the difference, that is my view. But anyway, unfortunately in Japan, well we could ask Masuda-san, but there's almost no company with internal carbon pricing. I found recently only one impact started internal carbon pricing, but otherwise there's none. I mean Japan is lagged behind in this exercise.