Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose. But to say they left power in 2006 doesn't really explain why it wasn't put in place between 1997 and 2006--unless, of course, we want to blame the Russians.
I want to clarify one point about the phrase in your report regarding the Kyoto Protocol time period of 2008 to 2012. Looking at that with fresh eyes and knowing nothing about it could lead to the interpretation that that's when the emission reductions were supposed to occur, but in fact that Kyoto timeframe of 2008 to 2012 actually isn't when the emission reductions were to occur; they were to have been completed at some point during that timeframe. Is that correct?