That is a fundamental question. Let me give you the Conference Board's and my own perspective on this.
We are in a period of globalization and integration of value chains. Intellectual property is created where the value of the assembly is created. The iPod is a very good example of this. Nearly half of the iPod's value is created in the United States, but it is considered an import from China, even though just 1% of the iPod's value is created in China. I would say the same logic applies here. With the integration of value chains, I would not look at countries in the industry as competitors, but rather as players with whom we can create partnerships.
You are absolutely right about China. For political reasons, we have to work towards the objective of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, but for China, it is a matter of survival. Pollution is so bad there that China does not have a choice. China wants to be “green” because it has no other choice. Coal is still the greatest source of electricity generation in China.
We can use the solutions coming out of China; we can collaborate. I see this more as a potential opportunity for international trade and international investment.
We have not talked about this here yet, but at the time of Rio and Kyoto, there was talk of joint ventures, with Canada investing abroad. Since climate change is a global problem, if Canada were able to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere, that could be credited towards its objectives. There is major stocktaking involved, which is complex, but the idea of encouraging trade and contributing to Canadian solutions aborad is an essential part of the conversation. If you pursue this argument, you will see that this is probably where Canada has the most to gain.