Perhaps I have three answers to your questions.
First, what we have learned in the EU is that differentiating the targets is a worthwhile exercise. Originally, not everybody in the EU was convinced we had to do that, but if we had not done that, a cost-effective reaching of the Kyoto targets would not have been possible. Differentiating according to the different member states and their energy structures and economic structures is something I would assume is very much present in Canada as well. You have a vast country, and the provinces and their economic structures are very different.
The second element that I think is very important in any set-up, apart from cost-effectiveness, is simplicity. That's why in Europe we have gone for cap and trade—absolute caps, as they are sometimes called. We were a little bit afraid that intensity targets would unnecessarily complicate the system. Though they could provide some flexibility, at the same time, they could create complexities, and we would have less clarity and hence the risk of less certainty on the market.
The third element of low-hanging fruit is certainly available, with a lot of tools and appliances available today. We had a recent discussion on cars, for example. In most cases, we know which cars are more attractive than other cars in the context of climate change and mitigation, so the technologies are mostly there. If we take the first bite of the cherry, the first 10% or 20% of every single measure, we are probably dealing here with low-hanging fruit—and we need the right incentives in place.
These replies are a first shot at your three questions.
Thank you.