Ultimately, there isn't a no-cost way to reduce greenhouse gases, so an economic burden will have to be borne. Our industry supports reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We have been undertaking a lot of efforts over the years to increase our energy efficiency because of the high cost of natural gas in the past.
Regardless of what kind of regime is imposed, whether it's the emission intensity system that had been proposed by the Conservative government in the past or a shift to a cap and trade system, or even a pure carbon tax, I think there has to be a way in that system to allow flexibility for industries that are strategic, energy intensive, and also trade dependent, in order for them to remain internationally competitive, particularly during the period of transition when some countries are going to have more aggressive programs than others.
The Europeans have certainly taken steps to reduce the impact of their systems on fertilizer in Europe. As for the Americans, certainly in the United States there's a lot of consideration being given to this. They view fertilizer and the food supply to be a very strategic commodity and almost a national security issue.
Certainly this government, in the “Turning the Corner” document, indicated that there would have to be some special consideration for the fertilizer industry because of its situation in terms of high use of natural gas and also the intense global competition.