I may not fully understand you. I think those are pretty separate questions.
The Kyoto Protocol leaves lots of room for countries to figure out inside their borders how they want to regulate emissions. In fact, sometimes people's claims about how you need it made in Canada as opposed to Kyoto aren't really fair, because you can make your own rules under Kyoto quite substantially. There's no big collision with intensity-based targets that I'm aware of.
I think there are many weaknesses of Kyoto, but one of them is the inclusion of the clean development mechanism credits, which are facility-based credits where you get a credit for the difference between what your emissions were at some facility, say, in China and what you say they would have been had you not got some lump of money in a certificate 10 or 15 years down the road. The fact is that is fundamentally private information, and I don't believe we can build an accounting system that is able to manage that. I think letting that into the protocol represents letting in a kind of fuzzy math accounting that will not serve us well in the long run.
The framework convention, the overarching convention on which Kyoto was negotiated, is more likely to stand the long-run test of time. But currently—maybe it's because I don't focus myself on the international negotiations that much—I don't think it matters that much. I think what matters is what we actually do, and what we do for ourselves in North America, because of the importance of the U.S.
I think the U.S. is quite likely to act very seriously in regulating carbon dioxide, probably more seriously than Canada or Europe. The U.S. has been the leader in most environmental regulations since the Second World War, and if you go to Washington today—I was there yesterday—you can smell that it is close to a deal on this topic, a deal that will probably make what we're doing look not so serious. And the U.S. will not rejoin Kyoto. If I'm right and the U.S. ends up regulating carbon dioxide emissions and doing it outside Kyoto, then Kyoto will have simply become not very relevant to the problem.
The problem will go on, international negotiations will go on, but whether the Kyoto Protocol ends up being an important tool for harmonizing international action on this is, I think, an open question. There are other tools out there, such as the WTO.