Per capita emissions mean nothing. The atmosphere only only cares about absolute emissions.
More importantly,few people care about CO2 emissions if the economy is not strong or if purchasing power decreases due to extra costs and/or higher taxes.
Nonsense again.
A LOT of Canadians have been VOLUNTARILY paying extra for products etc than are less damaging to the environment, sealong our houses, high efficiency heating, hybrid cars/EV's solar panels, etc to cut down on our own use of fossil fuels, carbon tax (without whining about it), etc.
I think maybe Conservatives always whine the most about environmental measures that cost them more, and Albertans in particular are feeling let down, defensive and cranky about that right now.
Those two factors means it makes zero sense for Canada to adopt policies that are more aggressive that the US, China or India.
Again, does not mean much. Buildings are essential and they consume energy and that is not going to change. Energy already costs money so there is already an incentive to reduce wasted energy so the scope for reducing emissions though relatively low cost efficiency improvements is minimal. Zero emission buildings are accounting fictions that manipulate numbers to ensure the emissions needed to keep the building functional are counted against someone else's ledger. Any policy on buildings needs to focused on real emission reductions through deployment cost effective technologie. Setting targets simply encourages people to play games with accounting rather than actually reducing emissions.
[/quote]
I suggest you read up on Green Party policy to understand the measures they suggest. You are absolutely wrong that we can't improve efficiency of large buildings/facilities.