Sure. I think that question is for me.
I have a few points on that.
Under the Paris climate agreement, 2050 is recognized as the target for reaching zero emissions for the globe to be able to limit the global temperature increase to no greater than 1.5° Celsius. That's why there's that the target.
In terms of the technology and the economics of reaching that, I'll draw another parallel to urban transit.
In recent years it was not economic for urban public transit systems to adopt zero-emission bus technologies. The cost of batteries has come down immensely. The cost of the bus and the total cost of ownership, because of the lower operating costs of electric buses, has come down significantly, and as a result of increased leadership from the federal government through the zero emission transit fund that was announced two years ago, we're seeing a lot progress in urban transit shifting to 100% zero emissions.
It's important to note—and I think Mr. Wabinski mentioned this earlier—that transit inherently produces lower emissions than a single-passenger vehicle regardless. The near-term objective is get more people on buses in an urban context or in an inter-community context, but as we look ahead in the decades to come, I think it can be expected—and Mr. Cassidy alluded to this—that the cost of battery technology will come down and will enable longer ranges for electric buses in a intercity coach context. Then other technologies—hydrogen most promisingly, which has a big upside for the Canadian economy as Canada positions itself to be a world-leading hydrogen producer—also come into play and have particular promise in a longer-range, heavier-duty transportation context.