That's what's curious. At the UN level, at the United States level, when you look through these programs one of the things that you quickly come to is that they'll give you a chart that says of the program they run right now, this is the gradient of cost: this is the most expensive, this is the least expensive. Usually energy efficiency comes out quite strongly. Other newer technologies, like CCS, come out as very expensive because they've not been proven.
Along with what has been spent since 2000, will you provide at least the second and third analysis that you mentioned? I think for Canadians trying to understand this, the simple amount of money put in and the amount of carbon dioxide tonnes reduced is the most intuitively correct analysis. That's just, we put in a billion, we got out so many tonnes, and these are all the different departments and programs that achieved that.
Is that possible for you to give to the committee?