I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Regan.
Thank you for the publicity, Minister.
I find the problem with the scenario you have presented us in your plan is that it is completely unbelievable because it starts with false assumptions.
We cannot get to the 2020 target of minus 20% for the following reasons.
Take the first year you speak of, which is 2010. In your plan—and this was agreed to by your departmental officials—where you indicate that you expect reductions of 49 megatonnes, if you go to page 13 of your plan, you can get rid of that obligation. You have to subtract 34 of those megatonnes because you can pay up to 70% of your obligation in the first year into a technology fund. You can then subtract another 5 megatonnes because you get special credit in an R and D fund. You can then subtract another 5 megatonnes for early action. So from a projection of a 49-megatonne reduction, which you've talked about, you're now down to a residual of 5 megatonnes. When I asked your officials, was this a credible scenario, an alternative scenario, they agreed.
If you then use the same calculations for 2011 and 2012 and do the math, you say that you can be at a 161-megatonne reduction. Under your own plan, on pages 13 and 16, you could be as low as 27 megatonnes. That's the base on which you're building.
If the opening years are that bad in terms of the real way of the loopholes to avoid your obligations, why should we trust your figure for 2020?