I'll turn to my colleagues in a bit because they were in the department at the time when some of this thinking went on.
I would note that the policy is ultimately based on recognizing that there's really not just one tool that you would use. The value of the carbon price is that it sends a market signal and it finds efficient ways to invest in those technologies. It creates an incentive for private sector investment in those technologies; therefore, they're ultimately beneficiaries of those technologies and pay for them. There's that and a combination of spending that we did to drive individual consumer behaviour, for example, with the zero-emission vehicle incentive.
The challenge on zero-emission vehicles is that, in the total cost of ownership, it's a good deal, but there's the upfront sticker shock for people to move to zero-emission vehicles because of the price spread between them and an internal combustion engine. That's an example of where there was some sense in spending money, because it encouraged consumer behaviours that they would not otherwise have taken based on existing market conditions. It's certainly not an either-or of pricing versus spending on technology; it's a combination of the two, and they're reinforcing one another.
John, you should feel free to add to that.