That's probably a very good lead-in, as it's driven by resource scarcity and the price for energy. How they get there is quite interesting. In Europe, they actually design the buildings, the building envelope, way better than we do in North America. They spend a lot of time, a lot of effort, to design very substantial envelopes, with triple-cased windows and.... In Canada, which is a cold-climate country, you see top-to-floor glazing in office buildings. You can only achieve so much energy efficiency with those types of buildings. They are using more punch-out windows, and the envelopes are way better.
So they invest in the envelopes; we don't invest as much in envelopes. We invest more in our technology, in heating and cooling ventilation, and in renewable energy. So there's a bit of a difference in how they design.
As to cost, I was just in Europe and I've seen buildings that are designed to what they call passive house standards—they do it for houses and for commercial and institutional buildings. I've seen buildings that use 28 kilowatt hours per square meter per year, and they're constructed at a cost of €1,000 per square meter; that's $1,300 per square meter, or $130 dollars per square foot.
So it is possible, and everybody accepts it, because there's an EU directive, and of course there are the lifecycle savings on the energy.