On the first question, in terms of anything that would be perceptible, let me be as concrete as possible. I think the two most important initiatives that you could do from a capital investment perspective are carbon capture and storage and sending up the signals on that as quickly as possible, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan; and a clean energy east-west line, getting Churchill Falls, getting Manitoba, getting clean coal out of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and starting an east-west clean energy transmission.
I think if there were some sort of commitment to begin doing that, whether through tax credits or through some program funding, leveraged through industry, provinces, and feds, that would be a significant signal that the international community would respect and we could begin tracking real changes and reductions after 2012.
The intensity question I'm extremely sympathetic to. Canada is not like other OECD countries; in fact, that was the theme of the side event that we sponsored at Nairobi. We share a uniqueness with Norway and Australia in the sense that we are energy exporters, unlike the rest of the membership of the OECD. But too often, energy intensity, as happened so often in this debate, becomes a code word, a code word for really not taking on larger reductions.
I would just note that in the notice of intent from the government, it makes it very clear that for the medium target for 2020 to 2025, the intensity targets that are set now provide a sufficiently clear signal so that a transition to an absolute target is feasible and realistic by 2020. So it needs to send a signal, in any case.