I think the crucial thing, and the lesson from other regulatory regimes, is you need a regulation simple enough that it gets through to the engineers in a company, not the lawyers—and no offence to lawyers, as I love them. But the advantage of something that sets a clear carbon price—a tax, or a really unequivocal cap and trade—is that people stop lawyering and the engineers in the company actually start thinking about how to reduce their operating costs, which is what they're trained to do, and they do that under a carbon price.
There's enormous evidence from the U.S. NOx market of that success. We previously had a command and control regulation, and after the NOx price mechanism was introduced, people found all of these other reductions they had never looked for before, because the guy in the central office would phone up the power plant manager and say, this NOx is costing us, and people would actually think about how to do adjustments to reduce it.
So my overwhelming thing is that we must set a real price.
I guess the other issue is to set a target. We need to set a target that begins to bend the curve of emissions growth down pretty dramatically, because I think the rest of the world will, and should, move quite quickly towards managing this problem. Canada needs to do its part, and in some ways more than its part, to really manage the climate problem.
But I think the issue with Kyoto is that it involves grandstanding on the television everyday, which goes on here and everywhere else. We need to get beyond arguing about Kyoto in this country and argue about what we're actually going to do to cut emissions.