What I'd like to say in that regard is, again, that chemistry is probably one of the largest globally traded commodities. It's a trillion-dollar industry.
The reality is that the pathway to manufacture these chemistries in Canada is a little bit different from what it is in China, in Asia or in the Middle East. In Canada, we use low-carbon natural gas. It is the most emission-efficient pathway to manufacture these chemicals, compared to coal to olefins, which you would see in China, or crude oil naphtha to chemicals, which you would see in Europe and some parts of Asia. We're competing against higher carbon-intensity products. The reality is that those commodities are not traded globally based on their carbon intensity, but if a time comes when there actually is a premium placed on commodities that are of a lower carbon intensity, then there will be some value and benefit to chemistry produced in Canada.
I always comment a little bit that there's this notion that when Canada moves natural gas via LNG to Asia, it will generate some benefit through Article 6 in terms of avoided emissions in other jurisdictions. The reality is that chemistry is a proxy for energy. The lowest-carbon pathway to manufacture these chemistries is here in Canada. We should be exporting these products globally and securing emission benefits through that.
That was a roundabout way of answering your question. The reality is that there is no premium for what we do here in Canada. With carbon pricing and regulations around reducing the carbon intensity, when you're exporting 80% of what you produce, there's no way to get a return on those costs.