Yes, another easy question. Thank you for that.
There are, as you know, broadly two ways of addressing this issue or of thinking about this issue. One is the B.C. type of example, with the revenue-neutral approach. You raise some revenue and you return it in a way that's not correlated with how the emissions are generated, so you're not playing with the incentive system and your return. The other thing is to say that you'll use the money and then subsidize some form of investment in the area.
I guess I come at this by saying that I would argue at the outset that there is a need for the public sector, as we've all said, to invest, in some form or another, in the development of clean technologies as we go forward. I think that's a decision that is completely separate from what kind of carbon tax you want to put in place. For me, I would like to see a break between the two.
I would say, “You have to do this, fantastic, so sort out what your budget statement must look like in order to provide the kind of support that you do.” On the other hand, you have all kinds of different ways of raising revenue. You raise revenues the way you do, and if you want to target this in a different way and return the revenues to the public, then so be it.
I would not like to have an explicit tie between the two. It's too easy to manipulate if you do that. I don't deny the need for public investment, but on the other hand, I worry about the close connection between the two. I'd rather not see a connection.