I think there has to be a valuation of carbon. How that is structured really depends. Number one is to recognize that when we talk about wood, really the only commercial technology is combined heat and power. My Ph.D. is actually on liquid biofuels from wood, but we have been trying this for about 50 years. It's just not carbon-efficient, and the capital costs are very high.
We propose focusing on this bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. For half the emissions in the world, it is actually of lower cost to continue business as usual and to remove those emissions after the fact using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in western Canada. For half the emissions of the world, it is of lower cost to avoid the emissions, with fuel switching, etc. We have to understand that there are two sides to the carbon equation. We have to live in economic reality, which means that in aviation, for instance, it is of much lower cost to continue using Jet-A1, or conventional jet fuel from kerosene, and to remove the emissions after the fact using BECCS, than it is to fuel-switch to avoid the emissions.
This has to be considered in all of Canada's climate plans, because the reality is that the lower the cost for fossil fuels, the higher the cost it is to fuel-switch away from that fuel. If you have natural gas at five dollars a gigajoule and you switch to wood, the implied carbon cost is lower than if the natural gas was one dollar a gigajoule.
Your question related to carbon pricing, but fundamentally I would say it's about carbon valuation. This is where the federal government can play a very critical role. Its jurisdiction generally does not extend into electricity systems, but it can be the primary offtaker for carbon dioxide removals. This is what we see in Sweden, for example. The Swedish government has allocated $5 billion Canadian to purchasing BECCS CDRs. We fundamentally believe it is also a key component of what should serve as the Government of Canada's backstop on industrial carbon.