Yes, as a company we've been a strong supporter of emissions trading for a long time as the least cost means of addressing that regulatory need. So in principle we're in agreement. We are totally opposed to things like Russian hot air, which is not emissions trading but a transfer of AAUs or credits between Russia and Canada, or Russia and some other country.
A domestic emissions trading system keeps the money within the country and would spur the development of new bioenergy, wind, and a variety of other renewable sources right now. An emissions trading system can be carefully calculated to provide benefits for Canadian consumers, even in instances where we have some recourse to the international market as a safety valve in terms of a price rise.
I'd just like to give you one very hard example of that. Our company has in fact invested in a CDM project in Chile. We did that because from January 1, 2005, our company had to meet CO2 regulatory requirements in Alberta for new power plants. There was no Canadian policy in place and no way we could get appropriate Canadian credits in order to meet those regulatory obligations, so we had to go to the international market.
So we like to use the words “safety valve” in terms of the international market, and we're totally opposed to the kinds of credits from Russian hot air.