Yes. Mr. Godfrey, I was interested in the phrase that you used, “recalibrate the targets”. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
It seems to me that thinking into the future about the use of targets, how those are going to be calibrated or recalibrated is going to depend very much on the international negotiations. So my thought about that is that we need to be much better prepared in the negotiations this time than we were in the last time around, and we need to have a much better understanding of what the economic consequences are for Canada of one target or another. The last target we picked just more or less came out of the air, frankly. So it seems to me that there will likely be a new set of targets.
There'll be some new goals set out in this second period of the Kyoto commitment, but it's impossible to state at this stage what they're likely to be. The indications are that they will be much more variable and flexible than the single aggregate lump target that was agreed to in the first commitment period under Kyoto. It seems unlikely to me that agreements will go forward unless a broader set of players is brought into the agreement, and the broader set of players are insisting on a more flexible way of expressing, calibrating, if you like, those targets, thinking of targets by sectors of the economy and things of that nature. It suggests to me that we need to think much more carefully about the economics of the targets or the calibrated targets that we are accepting.
What does this mean in the short term for the next few years, until the expiration of the first commitment phase in Kyoto? I am not sure. It presses the bounds of my expertise. I'm inclined to agree with those of my colleagues who say, let's get on with it. Let's focus on doing what we can now, practically and effectively, in the short term. We have lots of options that have been put on the table. We tend to be talking about them rather than getting on with them.
I hope that helps.