What a coincidence.
What I wanted to pursue, because we haven't had a lot of presentations from environmentalists before our committee, was one of the things that surprised me about Professor Lijphart's research in a book called Patterns of Democracy.
Just to give you a quick precis, he studied 36 democracies and looked to see if there were any patterns between those that he clustered as majoritarian oppositional voting—the first past the post and alternative vote—versus consensus-based voting, as he describes proportional representation, and I wasn't surprised that there were patterns of higher voter turnout, more women in Parliament, and a more civil discourse, with people trying to find middle ground.
However, I was surprised by two things: one was that there was a better macroeconomic performance, and the other was that there was stronger environmental protection. That was an empirical finding. I hope I'm not putting you on the spot, because I don't know if you've thought about this, but given your experience—and I think from your evidence off the cuff, you certainly have thought about it—can you think of any reasons that countries that use proportional representation would tend to have a statistically proven increased level of environmental protection over those countries that use first past the post?