Let me get this straight.
Canada won't commit to binding targets on reducing greenhouse gases. Its not worth doing if other countries do not do the same.
However, reducing GHGs is a worthy aspirational goal.
How does that man reconcile this logic? Either something is worth doing or it isn't. If its worth doing, its worth doing right, i.e. mandatory reductions to meet specific levels. This letting individuals and corporations decide how much and when on an individual basis won't accomplish anything.
Put it this way, if aspirational goals work so well, lets reform the tax system to use that logic. Instead of the hard percentages we all have to pay in income tax, we get to aspire to how much we would like to pay. No hard goals necessary, its the thought that counts.