Canada used procedural standards (7billion) while the USA used Cap and trade (0.9 billion) both with similar results. Why is this the case?

The use of procedural standards versus cap and trade methods to reduce emissions and improve air quality is a common debate amongst governments. Procedural standards are generally viewed as less expensive and more effective in the short-term while cap and trade is seen as more expensive, but more flexible and effective in the long-term. In the case of Canada and the US, the use of procedural standards versus cap and trade largely comes down to the level of emissions associated with the activity that is being regulated. For example, in Canada, certain industrial sectors are very large emitters and creating a cap and trade system with them would be expensive for the government and difficult to manage. By using procedural standards, the government can ensure that those emitters are regulated quickly and that their emissions will be greatly reduced in the short-term. On the other hand, in the US, the level of emissions from certain activities is much lower and thus cap and trade is a more cost-effective method for reducing them in the long-term. Cap and trade allows for incentives for businesses to reduce their emissions and for companies to trade between themselves to meet their emissions caps. This unique ability of cap and trade to provide flexibility in emissions reduction has allowed the US to achieve success in reducing emissions without spending vast amounts of government funds. Thus, while the outcomes of using procedural standards or cap and trade policies have been similar in terms of emissions reductions, the two policies have been used in Canada and