I really do not have a lot to add. Like Dr. Stone, I'm not an economist; I'm a meteorologist. I'm quite willing to comment on the science, but I would not really want to comment on the economics of trying to do this, that, or the other thing. I would leave that to the economists.
The point is, though, that there is an urgency to act, and to act quickly, unless you're willing to accept the consequences of longer-term, built-in climate change going on for centuries. That may be a decision that society would want to take, but that's not for me to say. All I can say is that the science tells us that if we continue on the path we're on, there will be certain consequences.
I'm fully cognizant of the difficulty of shifting a human economy that is so energy-dependent to other sources of energy or becoming less energy-dependent. On the other hand, I'm struck by the fact that Mr. Paton mentioned that some industries have already met or exceeded the Kyoto targets. In fact, they're distressed that they're not getting credit for doing so. They're not that difficult to meet, at least in certain sectors. It's understandably difficult for Canada, as a country with a highly energy-intensive economy that is growing, to meet them. But our energy sector is not only growing, it's producing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases, and that is a major problem that has to be dealt with in this country.
Whether meeting Kyoto is a good first step or not, I'm not sure. I think we have to do far more and we have to do it more quickly. I'll leave it to others to figure out how we do it.