The European Union has created an allowance market that is separate from the Kyoto market, but slightly linked. Between 2008 and 2012, overall, it's fair to suggest that when they come into compliance with their domestic EU cap-and-trade rule, most European countries will cut emissions a further 5% to 7% from what they were in about 2004. It's also true that what I call the European trading zone's Kyoto quota supply exceeds Europe's existing emissions by about 11%. So domestically, Europe is creating a market that is driving emissions down, but how you deal with that is completely different from your question of what the Kyoto market means to you. Those are two different stories, two different discussions.
Going back to the domestic European market, which is valid--I'm not saying this is wrong--most of the countries have shorted the allowance allocation to electricity generators in the order of 30% and then issued business-as-usual allowances to everybody else that's a major emitter. If Canada were to then jump into that market, there would be implications for our doing a domestic allocation that's not the same as theirs. However valid that allocation is for Europe, and I agree it's valid, it's not a valid allocation for Canada; so there's a dilemma here. I'm saying that's one of about ten reasons for us to think more along the lines of the California model than the European model. It's not a criticism of the European model. Circumstances are different.