I would think though that would be a fairly straightforward calculation simply because we do know what wetlands do in terms of carbon sequestration. Through aerial photography and those kinds of things we can come up with a pretty good number in terms of how many hectares of wetlands we have in this country. One of the things that have always bothered me is that our general conservation programming under the national conservation plan, such as the natural areas conservation plan, the wetlands component that I mentioned, the habitat stewardship program, and of course the largest conservation program in history, the North American waterfowl management plan, are all very important programs that are never brought into the discussion of greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is a major oversight, not by you but by everybody, in that we do know that wetlands, for example, not only sequester carbon but also have multiple benefits for society in terms of biodiversity conservation, water quality enhancement, flood protection, flood control, aquifer recharge, and so on.
I would just like a comment on why those items aren't discussed in the manner that I think they should be.