Quite often, and you can see this in our education system, engineers will come up with a different solution than a biologist. I'm an applied biologist. It means if I want to deal with, say, emissions coming out of a smokestack, I can put in a scrubber and clean up all the emissions, or I could plant more trees. I can plant trees probably for about $5 a tonne CO2e. Our carbon capture and storage project is north of $120 a tonne CO2e. As a society we have to make that difficult decision about how we best allocate our scarce dollars to get to a solution.
I'm arguing that too often we've been striving with this climate change issue to just find engineering solutions and not looking at how the natural environment—forest, agriculture, and wetlands—play a pivotal role, especially in a vast country like Canada. We can't ignore it because if we find all the engineering solutions and reduce emissions to zero, our natural ecosystems are going to emit as much as we do as humans in our economic activity.
That's what I mean. We have to address biological solutions in concert with engineering solutions.