That's right. I have more here.
There is a good dose of science and policy in here. It's a microcosm of climate change as a much bigger issue. We have used science and the convention protocol process marvellously well; we have used caps and targets and so on in the process. There is a meeting and a sequencing as to how policy gets done--and the interplay with the science. I would encourage you to read this, even the science parts, because they were written to convey that we have solved other problems by using these approaches.
There are specific meanings to this whole process of conventions and protocols, which Canada literally invented around the acid rain issue internationally. I think it is very important to understand how we have solved problems in the past.
Having worked in policy and written cabinet documents and all that sort of thing for a few years...you need something if you're the policy person who is writing for cabinet. You need a target. You need something to work against. It has to be specific. You can't go to cabinet with a goodwill list of ideas. You have to have something you're pushing back on. We do need to get targets or caps or whatever we call them--I don't really care. But you do need a policy framework; you do need some targets, some science, and a process on top of that.