Actually, it's a bit difficult to call the Canadian approach much regulation. It was more "loudly sign up to Kyoto, while actually doing nothing to implement it." Good old "let's pretend." But they were being multilateral and pretending to sign up, so it doesn't matter. The Clean Air Act is, I believe, considerably tougher than corresponding Canadian measures.

Regulation tends to drive innovation in these matters as long as the regs are goal oriented rather than process oriented.

You're all talking up a farce; because it's a fraudulent comparison. Is there any chance that the reason Canadian emissions were cut by a smaller percentage _might_ be because they were starting from a lower level to begin with? They've had a somewhat higher sensitivity to the issue for a long time now, especially given the period where the U.S. was responsible for so much of their acid rain.

No. It's because we innovate faster than they can regulate.