Thank you. I'll be quite brief.
I'm always making the distinction—I did in my comments—about the actions. That's our switching away from high-emission end use or production processes for any energy form that we use. That's the action. What is the policy that drives that?
We are told that we have to have carbon pricing. I say that as an economist, but actually we don't have to. We could do it entirely with regulations. We did that with ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. We could do it all with regulations.
I talked in my comments about having a rising carbon price. It will get to a point where we will be at zero emissions in both the end use and the production of anything, whether it's hydrogen, ammonia, biodiesel or whatever. But if we're going to do it with a regulation, we could do that as well. For your committee, in British Columbia, I talked about a low-carbon fuel standard that we copied from California. For more than five years now, I've been involved in the federal process of designing a clean fuel standard. I didn't like how it was initially designed. I thought it should narrow in on liquid fuels. What it does is regulate both the fuel end use, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is why I mentioned that, and the production process. It would look at the production process of hydrogen, of electricity, of biofuels. I'm simply saying do that kind of regulation if you don't want to do carbon pricing.
I'll stop there.