- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
Canada to announce all new cars must be zero emissions by 2035::Canada expects to announce this week that all new cars will have to be zero emissions by 2035, a senior government source said, as Ottawa is set to unveil new regulations in the latest example of countries around the world pushing for electrification.
You must log in or register to comment.
Hope Canada has the political will to make this an actual reality.
I don’t think these kill all internal combustion engine by a set date policies are going to really work out. We’re still in the “incentivize people stage” of switching not the “kill it off internal combustion engine completely stage”. Most people don’t buy new cars cuz they’re just too expensive and there aren’t a lot of used EV’s that are affordable out there currently.
And before anyone says I don’t get the whole thing. I own an EV, I think there’s quite a long way to actually convince people to get them as a replacement.
We’re talking about 11 years in the future, and there’s a ramp up included in the legislation. That’s a long time, 11 years ago Tesla started selling the Model S, basically kicking off the current EV industry.
Eleven years is no time at all.
EV simply will not be ready by then.
I’d say they are mostly ready now except for a few very specific use cases.
Yes, batteries charging times should be shorter and have a longer range, but they are already acceptable for daily usage.
What we need is to wait while old vehicles are being phased out so people replace them with electric cars. Most people aren’t going to replace their perfectly working gasoline car with an electric just because it’s greener.
Once there are more readily available cheap models and second hand ones, it’ll probably be a smooth transition. I think it’s reasonable to stop selling consumer gasoline cars in a decade.
350 mile range and a lot more charging infrastructure are what’s needed. The range is practically there already. This is fully achievable if we don’t sit on our ass. Forcing us not to sit on our ass is the point of setting goals 11 years out.
Definitely. A country who does this will be like Cuba is with all the old vehicles, and people doing everything they can to maintain them.
That’s a good thing in many ways. Environmentally a huge chunk of the problem lies in the manufacturing of new cars, and it’s even worse with electric ones. Current ICE should be kept running for decades, not replaced at all costs.
Now of course you then get into spikier debates when you look at who actually bears the cost of the transition. When poor people with street parking end up subsidizing rich people’s electric cars (as is currently the case where I live), we have a problem IMO. Not a new one; people who don’t drive have been getting shafted for decades. But now it’s getting worse!
I think that really depends where you are. If you’re in the US, sure. The US is far behind on infrastructure. If you’re in Europe, it’s much more viable. They have a lot more infrastructure (including much better public transportation) and EVs are actually viable as a replacement.
It’s fine for 90% of what people do with cars in the US. People in the US seem to like roadtrips a lot more than Europeans, though, and that’s where infrastructure needs to improve.
Right. You can easily take a long roadtrip in an EV in Europe. Not so much in the US. At least not yet.
Policies like this are not to help the consumer but to push the manufacturers. A typical major redesign is every 5-6 years so this gives them about 2 generations for each model. It gives them some time to ramp up but no more excuses. Most importantly, if that’s all they’re allowed to sell then they need to figure out how to make them sellable.
Love this, but fucking hate having to deal with all the push back from Polievre, the Conservatives, Alberta, etc. Just hate seeing political ads masquerading as polls, or oil and gas companies trying to greenwash themselves, or the endless amount of idiotic comments from people who still don’t believe in climate change.
Yah, this is something conceived in a urban environment with high population density, and relatively warm weather, like Vancouver and Toronto.
It ignores about 95% of the country that has no mass transit and hits -20 and lower for 6 months of the year. There will need to be absolutely massive investments in technology for cold weather EV and power infrastructure to deliver a huge uptick in charging power across a massively spread out country. And our sources for renewable energy are pretty much used up, hydro hasn’t got a lot of possibilities left. Solar is awesome, but not a great producer this far north. Wind is only viable in a few localized spots and then you hae to get the power to the users from there.
Typical virtue signalling bullshit that’s not even vaguely realistic.
I have 27kW of solar panels , 5 days of battery storage on my house, extremely low energy usage (10kWh/day), and I still have to fire up the genny this time of year about once a week. And I don’t have to charge an EV.
The reason you know nothing will be done about this is that they didn’t set a small goal for the next few years, it’s another one of those multi-decade lofty goals towards which nothing will be done and at the end will be said it’s unrealistic. Like when Germany said the same.
Technically, with HVO, diesel engines can run without emissions. So “EV only” is not necessarily what this means…
If they set a 10 year goal it may take 20 years to hit 80% of goals, if they set a 20 year goal it’ll take 40 years to hit 50%, if they set a 50 year goal…
Nobody thinks this is a realistic goal, but the target gives a concrete number to set a mandate on which actually pragmatic policies, funding projects, and incentives can hang their hat on to keep the ball rolling.
With big infrastructure developments, nobody wants to buy into realistic goals, it’s too costly, and there’s never enough political will. You set overly ambitious goals so you can get people to buy in and then the project is too big to fail, so you end up paying what it actually costs, and you try to mitigate waste, unanticipated problems, corruption, and poor management along the way.
We’ll just have to carry gas generators on our electric trucks to drive to work in the bush I guess.
Too late anyways. Bottoms up.
I’d like to say better late than never, but in this case late may end up with the same result as never. Once the ice caps have melted, they can’t melt any further.
Sure they can. Look at Venus.
And if you read about Venus you’ll understand the greenhouse effect as observed on Venus isn’t applicable to earth.
Greenhouse Effect is a political football with no meaning.
deleted by creator
Does break dust count as an emission?
*brake
And it should, it’s fairly toxic. Fortunately EV’s primarily and almost exclusively use regen.
Then there’s tire and road wear, which increase substantially with the heavier weight of EVs.
Not if we implement a weight tax on trucks and SUVs
I’ve commented on this before, though I couldn’t find it to plagiarise myself.
Ford puma ICE: 1280KG
Nissan leaf BEV: 1580KG
Ford F150: 2134 KG
Range Rover: 2513KGHonestly, tax weight and emissions. Emissions tax the energy put in the vehicle, and charge extra for high emissions in dense areas.
I also advocate for smaller cars, but batteries are heavy as fuck. The same car just swapping the motor with a battery will be considerably heavier.
Battery technology is impoving everyday, newer cars could easily have smaller batteries
And they will. Why have a 600 mile battery? Your bladder won’t last that long on the highway. Have a 300-400 mile battery and cut the weight.
Non-sequiter.
The spelling is non-sequitur. And it’s not that, the idea is that vehicles are already much heavier than they should be by use. For example a Tesla Model 3 is much lighter than the two most popular car models being sold in Canada, despite being an EV.
By the way, the biggest contributors to road and tire wear are heavy freight trucks, so instead of jerking off about EVs vs non-EVs, maybe building a decent railway infrastructure would actually help on that front, while also removing some cars on long road trips from the roads.
It’s really not as much as people make it out to be. I read something estimating an equivalent EV should be 20% heavier at our current technology, although some vehicles are much less efficiently designed and you have the monstrosity that is the Hummer
My Tesla seems like it’s about that although there’s really no ICE vehicle to directly compare to. However the important thing is it weighs much less than the pickups and full sized SUVs that all too many people drive. Feel free to advocate for taxes or fees based on weight and I’ll agree, secure in knowing my EV is lighter than half the population’s ICE cars and that it’s fair. The tendency (at least in US) is more of a problem than the extra weight of an EV.
If we consider the specific problem of road wear, it’s also a much smaller to non-existent problem than people think. Yes, road wear is relative to weight but cars are on the flat part of the curve where a few hundred pounds makes no real difference compared to road wear dominated by big trucks
Tire and road wear are not “as bad as exhaust” like some people suggest, but weight significantly increases road wear per the Fourth Power Law. So even 20% more isn’t great.
And as pretty much everyone transitions to EVs, I expect the ratio of trucks in EVs to come up to the same as with ICEV. I know some people have come down to the decision “Do I buy an EV car or an ICEV truck?” but as more EV trucks come on the market, I expect the size of vehicles to continue to grow.
I’m just trying to point out that EVs aren’t purely good and we as a society should be reducing our car usage in general. If alternative transportation (walking, biking, public transport) is possible, we should be facilitating and encouraging it.
Living in a city with an effective transit system, such as Boston or NYC, gives so much freedom to go anywhere anytime that you just can’t do with cars. It’s definitely something we need to work toward, and imagine how much better a good transit system would be.
The same with intercity rail: it’s so much faster and easier traveling Boston —> NYC with Acela than by driving or flying, and there’s no reason we can’t have similar serving most of the population (not area, but population)! Or imagine leveling up to high speed rail!
But some locations and usages will always be best served by personal vehicles , and transit will take decades, even if our politicians start funding it adequately
SUVs are by far the biggest factor that has driven vehicle weight.
Cars getting fatter has been an increasing issue for decades. Some of the people responsible for that are some of the same people now using tire and road wear as a talking point against EVs.
At least with EVs, there’s a path to getting it back down. The primary weight is the battery. Instead of having a 600 mile range EV (which is pointless), have a 300-400 mile range and cut the battery weight down accordingly.
What EV has a 600 mile range?
None, which is the number it should stay at.
deleted by creator
Of the direct operational sources of pollution:
- co2 - none
- ozone and exhaust particulates - none
- brake dust - almost none
- oil and fuel leaks - none
- tire dust - 20% more
EVs may not be perfect but they’re a HUGE improvement.
Even the 20% more tyre wear… That should mean I need to replace tyres faster. I’ve had one new set in 5 years on my EV (at about year 4). My old car was every other year. Sure compounds change, but I’m just not seeing more tyre wear.
In the new euro 7 emission standard it does
You mean the brakes that, if driven properly, are hardly ever used in an EV, and may last the life of the vehicle?
Don’t look at what powers the power plants. Just sit back and think you’re enjoying your zero emissions cars
Perfect is the enemy of good.
How many cars are affordable at this point which offer 0 emissions?
Affordable to them.
Depends on what’s affordable for you, but by 2035, probably quite a lot more.
You don’t have to buy a new car.
Do tire particles emitted from wheels count as emissions?
deleted by creator
Looks like Canada’s grid has damn close to 0% coal and rapidly being phased out
Quebec is almost entirely hydro, Ontario is primarily nuclear and hydro, there are no operating coal plants in Ontario last I checked, just some gas plants. Those 2 provinces alone are just over 60% of the country, looking at the latest energy future report something like 81% of Canada’s power capacity is from renewables and nuclear, 61% being hydro.
Huh, here in Massachusetts, we’re trying to push through some long distance power lines so we can buy some of that sweet Canadian hydro.
I’ve got a TOPSECRIT Kickstarter project going that uses (shhhh!) sails on cars. ZERO emissions, baby. Come sign up !
Is that no emissions at all along the cars life from production to scrap? Cus EVs today are in large just virtue vehicles.
Interested to see where that data comes from, as looking at the lifetime emissions of an EV vs an ICE vehicle inclusive of fuel EVs are generally significantly lower emissions. If you’re only considering the emissions associated with the manufacture of the vehicles, EVs do result in more GHG, but very quickly once both vehicles are actually in use the benefits of EVs become apparent.
While somewhat misguided, they do still kinda have a point: Car centric culture really does have a high environmental cost regardless of power source. Switching from ICE to EV is a good start, but we also need to address urban sprawl, and push for better mass transit as well as cycling infrastructure.
Interested to see where that data comes from, as looking at the lifetime emissions of an EV vs an ICE vehicle inclusive of fuel EVs are generally significantly lower emissions.
I’m working from memory, but I think I have heard their claim before, and the data it is based on is probably 20 years out of date. The proportion of electricity produced by methods like solar and wind did not used to be what it is today, and the production method of electricity plays a significant role in lifecycle analysis of electric vehicles.
The Cambridge link you provided notes that electric vehicles are not better for the environment in Poland because most of their electricity is produced by burning coal. It also compares France and the UK, and notes the difference between emissions because of the different production mix of electricity.
Under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional petrol cars in 95% of the world, the study finds.
The only exceptions are places like Poland, where electricity generation is still mostly based on coal.
Average lifetime emissions from electric cars are up to 70% lower than petrol cars in countries like Sweden and France (which get most of their electricity from renewables and nuclear), and around 30% lower in the UK.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/electric-cars-better-for-climate-in-95-of-the-world
I believe I saw similar comparing US states, but do not have a link. The numbers I remember is 1-2 years in states with more natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy, up to 14 years for West Virginia and Wyoming as still mostly coal
IIRC, if you pick the worst state for power sources (W. Virginia) and the worst EV (the Hummer), you end up with a pathological combination that emits more CO2 than any ICE over its lifetime. Literally any other combination, and it’s better.
Are you saying that the emission resulting from an EVs production is the same as the emission from and olds car production and lifetime of fuel usage combined?
Production of batteries, handling discarded batteries, breaking of minerals FOR the batteries, and producing the electricity have all been shown to be worse for the environment than than the entire life of a traditional car
No calculation I hage ever read has ever shown that. There is an initial increase of emission from the new cars production, which is why there are discussion about retrofitting existing cars, but even if we never improve our battery technology there is a dramatic gain in lowered emissions.
Dependable and available public transit is the answer to our transportation needs with electric vehicles substituted in areas where public transit presents implementation challenges.
Electric cars cannot be the backbone of our system if we look to reduce emissions and environmental hazards to a level that allows us to continue existence as we know it.
In Canada?
Obviously the metro areas and immediate surrounding suburbs can improve, but it’s a huge country
I dunno some intercity buses and trains would be nice… Like unless you can fly or rent a car I don’t know how you get to most of the country without your own car.
You mean like where 80% of our population is?
I do mean that. Where did I suggest otherwise? Is Canada big a huge country?
Hahahaha public transit.
Have you looked at the energy/environmental costs of trains or busses?
Hint: they both consume the same energy fully loaded or empty, as a start.
And train infrastructure is a massive user of concrete, steel, copper, etc.
Per capita it’s insanely lower than the personal cost alternative.
Why would you measure per capita? Not everyone will use it. How about per passenger?
Carbon tax deals with industries that creates emissions by taxing the fuels that cause the emissions. All businesses involved in making EVs and EV parts can choose between using taxed GhG-emitting fuels, or non-taxed cheaper renewable sources. Free markets will pick the winner, but at least all winners will be producing EVs only.
What makes you say that?
