That's correct. We also do toxic use reduction. They all intertwine. If you reduce the toxic, you need less ventilation, so you need less energy. They're all together. We don't try to pry them apart. We assess them all together. It's the most efficient way to go about it. There are no programs that are designed around that. We just cobble together what we can as programs come and go.
I would encourage you, when you're doing your programs, to think of conservation. Each of those 50 factories will save $350 for every tonne of carbon they avoid. That's without a carbon tax. That would be on top of that. When you look at your scales, it's plus 100 to minus 100 on the marginal abatement for carbon. The food loss is $350 avoided per tonne of savings. These are the most lucrative things these factories can do, and they then protect those factories' jobs.
On meals, we pitched to do 150 factories across Canada in all the sectors—baking, protein, primary agriculture, vegetables and whatnot—and there would be enough savings to give two meals to every homeless person in Canada for 20 years. That's the projected savings based on scaling that we did conservatively, assuming we get half as much savings as we did for the first 50. The federal government would get $25 of taxes for every dollar it spent on that program. The participating industries would get $19 of additional revenue for every dollar they spent on implementing those things, based on what we've already done at the first 50.
I'd really encourage you: Don't delay. We're doing it in the States also. We just did a protein company in Kansas where we cut the total food loss by 30%. That's great. It makes them more efficient. Why can't we invest in this in Canada?