Now, when it comes to climate change—and she did say that she doesn't want me to talk about urgency, but I'm afraid if she asks the question she's going to need to tolerate my answer, which is that climate change does actually have a time frame on it. If you read the science, what it suggests is that globally carbon dioxide emissions need to fall by approximately 50 percent in the next 10 years in order for us to stay within the 1.5 degree threshold of global warming. Now, every year that we defer action—because carbon dioxide is a stop gas and stays up there and it accumulates—means that we're imposing additional cost the following year, because you not only need to do that year's action, you need to do this year's that you've given up as well. We have been doing that for 30 years—we've been putting off action. What that means is we are now at the point when we're out of time and the cost that previous Governments have imposed on us by kicking the can down the road is so much higher. It is much more expensive and much more difficult to do the longer you leave it. So that's why we're in the position that we are in of having to take action now because action wasn't taken 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago.