We have that solution in place with our output-based, heavy-emitter fund. They pay into a tech fund and then they're able to access those dollars for investments in innovation. Like I said, they're going far above accessing just that fund for investments and innovation. They're making their own.
I haven't put forward any arguments. I've put forward facts. When it comes to buying something globally, you'll have an ingredients list on the side of the box and you'll have a price tag on it. I would say to put a carbon content piece on that box as well.
When you are purchasing oil that might be made in Saskatchewan from your fuel pump, you should know that, since 2015, we've reduced the emissions by 65%. That's very real. If the rest of the world did that, global emissions would be down 25% overnight. If you're producing a granola bar, a wheat product or a canola oil product, there's 64% less carbon in a Saskatchewan-produced product versus somewhere else in the world. By buying that product, you are making the environmentally sustainable decision of buying a lower-carbon product.
The same is true when you buy potash fertilizer made in Saskatchewan. I would not only say that it is very arguably more ethical than other places in the world, but that it's half the carbon content per tonne. You are doing right by providing that fertilizer for your farmers. You are doing right because it's cost competitive and it's a high-grade quality, but it's the most sustainable product that you can buy in the world.
If you truly care about the environment, you should buy your products from Saskatchewan. I would say, equally, you should buy them from Canada as well, because we are doing the right thing. Whether it be in industries, whether it be in families or whether it be in communities, we are making every effort to reduce our footprint, and we're doing it and can do it without a federally imposed carbon tax.