The Energy Chat Treaty is a multilateral agreement that was adopted in the late 1990s, 1998 for most of the EU countries. And the aim of the treaty is to protect foreign investment in the energy supply and the protection is done through by giving foreign investors the possibility to sue governments in private arbitrations and to claim up to billions of Euros in case you change anything in your law. It's definitely threat to the ecological transition and beyond the ecological transition it's threat for the climate justice. Because we have cases, for example, in the Eastern European countries where investors have sued governments there because they made changes in the law as part of alleviating energy poverty, for example. So if you make any change, the basic rule is that you are government, you are party to this treaty, you make any changes in your law. If foreign investors based in your country can sue you, it does not matter what is the reason behind your changes because investors do not take into account that you need to make changes for environmental reason or for social reason. We already have the case, for example, in France. When the government in 2017 tried what we call the famous Nicolas Lolo to stop and exploration of fossil fuel exploration and Canadian company Vermillon send the letter through the law, of course, to the French government reminding the French government that the obligation of the French government based on the energy that it treaty because this company has several licenses to explore in France fossil fuels. And based on this, it seems that the government has changed water down the law. Things like that that did happen, maybe in the past it was not happening that much. In the future it would happen more and more because putting in place the climate neutrality target requires changing our laws everywhere in the world, especially in Europe because we are leading in climate neutrality for the time being. So what is going to happen is that we will need to stop anyway the use of fossil fuels, exploration, the production, etc. And what it means is that because we are parties to this treaty we will be sued. Our government will be sued. When I say we, it's because it's taxpayers who pays. Billion of euros paid, billion of euros paid by taxpayers' money. This is why it's really bad. Now, I think those who say this, they do not understand how the treaty functions. They don't understand the governance of the treaty. To make in theory you can amend the treaty and you exclude all fossil fuels because making is a treaty. Paris compatible means you exclude all fossil fuels. All of them right now. Achieving this is not possible because to do that you need unanimity vote. And unanimity vote means that all the 53 parties to the treaty will vote yes for excluding fossil fuels. We have in this treaty some parties who are making income out of fossil fuels. So these countries, some countries it's up to 15% of their GDP that comes from fossil fuels revenues. So why a country would vote something against its own revenues? And especially given taking to account that these countries are developing countries. They are not rich countries. I think in 2018 they did not realize that we were party, what being party to this treaty means for climate neutrality target. Now they know. And now they are locked in their own contradictions. And the only way forward is what the French government did is to really be clear about the fact that modernizing the treaty, making this treaty Paris compatible means no fossil fuel anymore protected right now. And we end the protection of the previous fossil fuels. What was protected before modernization. But this is not what the commission did come up with. And we don't yet have the EU proposal. The deadline to submit the EU proposal is February 15. So we look forward to that. And I hope they will not contradict themselves. I'm not the enemy of the organization. That's the first thing. And I'm not the enemy of anything. I just think I'm just consistent with what I do. I understand very well what are the implications of the Paris Agreement for the fossil fuel industry. Their time is over. It's an over-era. And you cannot at the same time be one of the IPCC authors. You cannot at the same time understand the implication of the Paris Agreement for the fossil fuel industry and work on protecting fossil fuels. It's just, well, my brain cannot capture the tool. I don't know if there are braids who can, but mine cannot. There is no protection. If there is no protection because when the EU question, your question about is the European Union, hypocrite, etc. So basically when you share two people that, hey, look, guys, you cannot at the same time talk about climate neutrality and be in the treaty. These are just facts. Showing some facts, people do not like the truth. Some people do not like the truth. People have built a coalition with other EU countries to work on the withdrawal because this is the only option forward.