I didn't comment generally on the state of the economy. I'll note a couple of things on that discussion, and also coming back to the B.C. example. Sometimes we conflate the overall state of economies with one policy decision or market issue, such as the price on pollution. When we talk about the overall cost of living, or the rate of homelessness, or other socio-economic factors, and relate those to one aspect of markets or policies, that's a misrepresentation of what the causal factors actually are.
Over the 45 jurisdictions that do have a price on carbon, whether it's an ETS or a carbon tax, for the jurisdictions where we actually worked to help introduce those prices—in Latin America, Europe, and Australia—for the economies in general, in terms of the influence the carbon tax could have on them, it's tough to say. If you look at the Australian economy and the downturn, that's really related to the resources sector and commodity prices—of iron ore in particular but also of other commodities. Relating that to any issue around a carbon pricing scheme, or the ETS system there, is conflating two very different variables.
If you look at a jurisdiction like Colombia, which has a price on carbon under President Santos' regime—we worked in alignment with President Santos and his team—the economy in Colombia is advancing. But it's due to different factors, including the peace process that was signed, so it's conflating issues to say that that's based on a $3 per ton price on carbon in Colombia. I think it's difficult to make that assessment unless you do a deep economic analysis.