Well, we always have to be very careful with the word “reduction” because a reduction is always a reduction below something. The kinds of reductions often talked about are reductions that are only in a very relative sense below some future projection of rapidly increasing emissions. I would say they very often do not represent reductions in common-sense understanding.
The Alberta target is an interesting one to pursue for a moment. It is a target to reduce the emissions intensity of the Alberta economy by 50% over 30 years, from 1990 to 2020. We calculated that if the Alberta economy continued to grow in the present decade and in the next decade at the same rate that it grew in the 1990s, Alberta would meet the target of reducing intensity by 50%, while actual emissions would grow somewhere between 65% and 85%. I think it's a pretty clear illustration that we're not getting to the kinds of destinations the scientists say we need to get to with that approach.
When the Alberta target was announced, the government created the impression in the media coverage following the announcement that somehow this was simply a delay of Kyoto targets and it was in fact going to be much better than Kyoto, only delayed by 10 years. The reality is obviously very different.
It's an example of the abuse of intensity targets. For honesty's sake and for transparency's sake, I think we need to have targets expressed in terms of actual emissions that everyone can understand.