One imagines that if the government says it's going to initiate so many megawatts of wind power or if one imagines the government incentivizing the auto industry to make low-emission cars, industry is quite capable of talking about the projected economic benefits of any particular government subsidy or tax measure. We do this all the time, do we not? I mean, we do this with the oil sands. The accelerated capital cost was meant to derive a certain amount of economic benefit, and the government makes that choice based upon some projections.
I'm not understanding why we remain in the framing of this issue as the economic costs of doing something about climate change.