 Well, having watched the disaster at Copenhagen, there's no conference that's ever too big to fail. But I am reasonably optimistic we will get a result in Paris. I think the real issue is not whether we get a quote success or not, but how much content there is in it. Quite clearly, the idea that we're going to have a complete international new comprehensive agreement in Paris that covers all the issues is simply not even remotely possible because there are still five years left before it has to come into effect. The key thing is that we get the framework decided. We get some sensible decisions taken on some of the key architectural issues around, for example, legal form and then build on that. And I think particularly since China has essentially come on board mitigation and therefore is invested in the political success of Paris, I will be very surprised if we don't have a success. But to sum up, the key thing is how big a success rather than whether it be a complete failure or a complete success. I'm extremely dissatisfied with how agriculture is treated. As I've argued continually, the existing approach is completely derived from the Kyoto approach. It is elegant, it is sophisticated, and it is logical in terms of industrial countries and industrial emissions for whom agriculture emissions are a relatively minor issue. Obviously, there are a few outliers even in the European Union. Ireland is the most important of those outliers with what is it something like 30% of your emissions coming from agriculture. And in our case, it's 49.4% for my last inventory. So if you're the United States, which I believe is not only the world's largest agricultural exporter, but the second largest emitter of agriculturally derived greenhouse gases, is it a problem that you use this model that just puts all agricultural emissions together with industrial emissions? Not at all, because in the case of the United States, I think it's around 7% of their total emissions. So what's the practical impact of this? Well, the practical impact of it is that the major industrial countries do anything about agriculture emissions because they can afford to ignore it in their overall responsibility target. Now, this is a fundamental problem for a country like New Zealand with nearly 50% of its emissions and for Ireland and to a significant part of France. The thing I've tried to get people to understand so far with a stunning lack of success is that the new climate change agreement, if it is to have any merit from a climate change point of view, has got to have the participation of non-annex one, which is jargon for developing countries on board and for a very large number of developing countries. This is a massive obstacle to their taking an economy-wide responsibility at some point in the future development strategy. So I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, it is no longer just a New Zealand problem. I think the fundamental problem here is that people just throw numbers around out of context. So the reality is that the worse you were in 1990, the base year, the easier it is to come up with a lovely, sexy number. The large proportion of reductions in the major European industrial economies, of course, were achieved long before the ETS came into effect, have absolutely nothing to do with climate change policies whatsoever. But in the case of the United Kingdom, I think it's true that in 1990, for example, only 1% of their electricity came from renewable energy. 1%, I think, is the figure or thereabouts. Now, when you're sitting in New Zealand's case with 80% already renewable, when you have 70% of your gross emissions coming from agriculture emissions and we are the most carbon-efficient agricultural country in the world, followed, I think, by Ireland, and when 20% of your emissions are coming from transport and you're a technology importer, I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, there ain't no low-hanging fruit. We've got to get on a very strong, high ladder to pick the fruit up off the top of the tree. If you look at the cost of abatement, our economists calculated that an equivalent target for New Zealand compared with the European Union's cost of abatement would have been to put it in a plus 12% figure, not a minus 11% on a 1990 or we've used a 205 base for a minus 30. So people are just throwing numbers around for political purposes because they don't have to reconcile that with national development priorities. The reality is that the Irish government and the New Zealand government have got to walk and chew government at the same time. We're not capable of adopting a fancy number that doesn't take account of the economic needs of our people and maintain a politically sustainable climate change policy. So I have very little time for those criticisms.