I can give a couple of comments around that.
In terms of what is required going forward, we at NOVA Chemicals would be very pleased to work with the government to figure out what would be required. As we go forward, there is still a lot of uncertainty as to what these projects are going to cost. You heard a lot of people talk here today about the amount of capital that is going to be required, but there's also a great deal of uncertainty.
So without understanding to a great degree what it's going to require to technically separate the combustion sources...and I don't disagree with David; there are technologies out there today that do work. But whether they're going to work on combustion sources, whether they're going to work at a cost that is economic--those are the types of questions we need to look at. As well, what does it cost to transport it and so on?
The point is that there's a lot of uncertainty, so it's hard to come here at this point and say here's exactly what we need. What we do say is that it's so capital intensive, certainly a first step would be to look at the capital cost allowance and accelerate that.
You also raised a question around the proposed regulations that are on the books right now. I have just a couple of comments around that.
One, I think the government has set very tough-to-achieve targets. They're probably tougher than what we were hoping to see three or four months ago. I think they've also set an aggressive timeline in terms of this policy. At the same time, they're trying to walk a tightrope, perhaps, balancing between improving the environment and at the same time trying to make sure the economic growth in this country continues.
My last comment is that I like the fact that there is within that bill a focus on technology, because I still believe that is going to be one of the keys to moving forward.