I think the cost of inaction is going to be too much. We see increasingly every year the insurance companies are coming out and saying this is billions of dollars. I think last year it was $3 billion of climate-related insurance impact.
If you want to talk investment, why aren't we, when we flow dollars, looking at those investments with a climate lens? I would say if you want to talk nature agreements, health agreements with provinces and municipalities or a green municipal fund, those should all be with a freshwater and a climate lens to maximize those benefits and maximize those investments and be more efficient with our use.
Insurance companies have also said they won't insure houses built on flood plains. Why are provinces or federal governments supporting rebuilds on flood plains? We need to be looking through those lenses or we're wasting that money. Nobody wants, in this economy, to see a waste of money. I would just say we can no longer ignore nature and the needs of nature. There are tons of ways to increase those investments to benefit both communities and nature at this point.