Again, obviously in terms of emissions trading, I support market measures, and we should get started right away. The one thing I would throw out there is that if we're running a refinery or an electricity generation unit, and we have to comply with NOx and SOx and fine particulate standards, 80% of our immediate least-cost solutions to those challenges are solutions that drive up our greenhouse gases.
In greenhouse gases, it's the opposite. If I have to drive down my greenhouse gases, 80% of the first measures that I'm going to do to drive down my greenhouse gases will also drive down the other measures. I strongly believe in a multi-pollutant approach, but if you're going to get something right, get the greenhouse gas side right, because you're getting a side benefit in the reduction in pollutants to the extent that you're keeping your money at home, whereas when you're working really hard on short-term objectives for NOx and SOx and PM10, you could be driving greenhouse gas emissions up.
The other thing I would say is this. While I have concerns about the CDM market, I'm a strong advocate of international trading. We should absolutely have the right to employ in Canada reductions that originate in plants that would have been legal to build and operate and to make products that are legal to sell in Canada. It's an easy criterion to build into a domestic rule for international credits. When you do that, I think you'll find that at least most provinces will overlay a discriminatory provincial regulation over any rule the federal government writes, because a dollar we send offshore is minus a dollar out of our GDP, and a dollar we spend at home gets us a local air quality improvement and it has a $2.50 multiple.
So any government acting prudently will have favour keeping the money at home. That's not opposing international trading entirely. It's just having a rule that discriminates to some extent.