If I had talked at the policy level today I would have said there is an absolute related to Kyoto. I think Mark was sort of heading into this territory when he spoke, but I don't know if he totally got there. The first absolute is to have a full, robust policy infrastructure around climate change by the end of the Kyoto commitment period. We need to have emissions trading systems, updated building codes, and energy efficiency standards. We need to have the entire architecture, technology drivers, in place.
Aside from the reductions, we should have a commitment that if nothing else, Kyoto means we are completely ready with these. We should have auto fuel efficiency standards and they should be designed to be robust, meaning they could be pressed down over time in sensible ways as the urgency of the issue and the cost of inaction ups the premium and the value of pushing harder, which I think it's going to do.
Second, we've accepted a target and we should measure ourselves against that target. If we fail, we fail. Ontario just released its first conservation report by the chief conservation officer yesterday. They had a C minus last year, but they rose to a B plus this year because they've invested in energy efficiency, they've added up the peak reductions in kilowatt hour usage, and so on.
We need to measure ourselves against the target. Even if we're failing, there's nothing wrong with measuring against that target and using it as pressure to do better. So I would leave it in that context.