That's a fair comment, and I completely acknowledge your concern. I think what you're saying is that greenhouse gases are an issue that has to be addressed, but we don't want to address this issue at economic peril if we don't have to.
Like you, we would be searching for a way to try to achieve real greenhouse gas reduction, while maintaining a robust economy at the same time. I think everybody in this room would have that exact same goal. At least I hope they would, because that certainly is in our interest.
I have been following the reports on the challenges right now with different industries and how they want to achieve the potential targets for reduction in different industries. I can't claim to be an expert in that, except to say that we would support any target the federal government wanted to lay out in terms of trying to address greenhouse gases in a measured and real way.
In terms of the analogy that I would use, I would draw upon the analogy of the cod fisheries out east, which we saw go through a very horrible situation and a moratorium. If that situation had been addressed at an earlier stage, in a real and less painful way, then perhaps we wouldn't have seen the graphic problem at the end.