There are a couple of points that I just want to make about two energy crises that occurred in South America in the last few years. One was in Brazil, where they had a drought, and the country relies 100% on hydro. They had a drought, they realized they were going to run out of electricity, and the President of Brazil said everybody must use 20% less electricity than last year or they would be disconnected. At the same time, they had a tremendous energy conservation campaign and they actually made it a lot of fun. And the amazing thing is that within six weeks, the whole country of Brazil reduced its electricity use by 20% and the consumers actually never saw a price increase. Nobody got disconnected and the economy continued.
That's one example. So it doesn't always have to be a price signal to persuade people to move on. California had the same sort of thing.
Meanwhile, in Chile, they had an oil crisis--and it's still under way--because they were not getting enough natural gas from their neighbours in Argentina. They said they were going to raise the price of fuel, natural gas, and electricity in their country and keep that price very high, but they would use the social support services to refund and make sure that all the poor people are kept whole. They would see a higher price for fuel, but they would see greater subsidies elsewhere, so that the poor people never suffered an absolute loss in support. In those cases you could still drive your pickup and still see the high prices, but because of other reductions in costs elsewhere, you would have no change in your net income.