I did read part of that report, and of course there was a lot of discussion in that report on whether or not some of these foundations were working well. The general consensus from that report was that the previous government was not any closer to implementing Kyoto than it had been when it signed on.
I'm just wondering if in the broader spectrum we can actually consider value for money if in fact we were never any closer to reaching that larger objective. As a matter of fact, the report said we were further away than we had been when we signed on to the treaty.
So in the broader scheme, is there any way to find out if there's actually value for money if in fact we're further away from the broader idea?