All right, I think that part of the answer is to link it to the broad question of your meeting.
A moment ago, I think that Mr. Tombe said that risks to pipeline utilization lie in the future, and one would be, in effect, I would suggest, the level of global oil demand. If we see a drop in global oil demand in line with the IEA 1.5°C scenario, or indeed the Canada Energy Regulator's global net-zero scenario, global demand will drop dramatically between 2030 and 2040. Exactly how that translates into the utilization of the TMX pipeline and the valuation of it, I'm not in a position to answer, but it would seem to me that it is an extraordinarily dramatic change in circumstances.
For that reason, when I began my submission, I commented that I did not think that the existing legal framework is adequate to address the extreme gravity of the challenges we face. I'm looking at two challenges. One is the climate challenge and the requirement for very dramatic action in the very short term, and the other challenge is the economic challenge, because, if we respond to that, it will have a dramatic effect on many, many aspects of the Canadian economy and the oil and gas industry. I don't discount the seriousness of those impacts, so I'm saying that we should have our eyes fully open to at least consider the possibility that the world will respond within time to the crushing impacts of climate change that are coming upon us.
To conclude my answer to you, the global carbon budget for 1.5°C is about 207 billion to 270 billion tonnes of carbon. That's all that's remaining to allow us to stay within 1.5°C, and that will be exhausted within the next seven years. After that, all emissions from global fossil fuel production will go into the atmosphere. I mean, it will go on after 2030 at some rate, some level, even declining. All of that's going into the atmosphere, and it will all be driving the temperature above 1.5°C, which means that, if we ever want to get back to a safe level of warming in the world, we will have to have massive capacity to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Essentially what we're doing at the moment is deferring the cost and possibilities of that to our children and grandchildren. After 2050, they will pay the cost if it's feasible.
It seems to me that a true economic analysis would take these two problems and look at them together to truly understand what it means if we keep producing more oil.
I hope that's answered your question.