This reminds me very much of hearing from auditors after they've gone through the books of an Enron type of company and they've said that what was an actual credit on the books versus an actual amount of money was indecisive or uncertain or just not true; companies were taking credit for money they didn't have or assets they didn't have, and the books get cooked.
I'm looking at this. You mentioned earlier that the government is taking credit for something versus the actual reductions, which is cooking the books. It's trying to get to a number of reductions without being able to verify those numbers with a straight face. This is a great concern as we head into Copenhagen, when our government has to negotiate with the world as to what our commitments will be, if at the present time the government does not seem to be committed to being straightforward and forthright with what their own plans to this point are.
A 50% or some half amount overstatement is enormous, is it not? I'm trying to find the scale and scope of these things. We understand that you can be a little bit off. Some of these things are hard to measure, as you've said, but they're not that hard to measure. To be so dramatically wrong, it's almost like the deficit numbers this government runs. They seem to miss by a lot, and that's a concern to me.