Thank you very much for that question.
I would repeat, as I said earlier, that the 20% reduction from 2006 by 2020 is seriously more onerous and aggressive than the U.S. target of a similar amount because of our underlying trend in emissions. So the effort we have to make is not from history, it's from where we would otherwise be. So our business as usual down to that target is much bigger in proportionate terms than is a comparable target for the U.S. To go even further away implies that you're willing to just shovel money over the border somehow to make up for that kind of difference.
The idea of a comparable policy to that of the U.S. is important. Exactly how we align with the U.S., though, is an important question, in my mind. One thing that economists have pointed out is that all the benefits, in terms of getting efficient reductions in both countries, come from having the same carbon price, if we're talking about carbon pricing policy. There are no extra benefits that come from cross-border credit trading. If we put in the same price here as there, then we will get the same kinds of reductions going on in both countries and there's no necessity of having credits flow back and forth across the border. If you link up two countries in a cap and trade system, with very different targets of business as usual, then you set up a situation where you generate a steady-stream cashflow from the more onerous targets to the less onerous one. That's my concern about being fully integrated with the U.S. anytime soon.
So I think we need to align with the U.S. We need to have comparable burdens on our industry, we need to set a comparable price on carbon, and we could even tie our price to the U.S. price, but going further and linking up would create a serious flow of cash to the U.S. If we took on a target like the 25% below 1990, it would be just enormous flows of cash from Canada to the U.S.