Of course. I'm not trying to argue with you. But I think that for consumers driving a car or heating a house, it might be less good. I think we were never really challenged on that front.
Incentives are good to get people over the hump, to say that there are opportunities to increase energy efficiency or reduce water use, and that once people use it on a large scale, the costs will come down.
To give an example that Andrew had, when waterless urinals first came on the market, they were exorbitantly expensive. Now you find them in a lot of buildings, because many have been bought and they're coming into the marketplace as competition and are priced in such a way that many building owners can afford them now.
I see this with other technologies as well; it's the economies of scale. The government can play a role to incentivize us so that we get over the hump, first of people finding these technologies and using them more frequently, so that we have experience with them, and then also, as more people use them—and word of mouth, I would say, is always the best promotion—more and more people use them.
It's not something that should go on forever. It's something that should incentivize people for a certain amount of time, to get them over the hump into using those technologies and then benefiting from them.