Canada Adopts CAFE 2025-Based Fuel Economy Standards

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

Canada’s government is seen as reluctant to tackle the issue of climate change. Concerned Canadians have even taken to discussing how putting a Canadian flag on one’s backpack may be dangerous because our lack of environmental leadership has diminished our standing in places like Europe. Or at least that’s what one eco-conscious party guest told me, in between agitating for more bike lanes and asking for a lift home.

Since motorists and drivers are low-hanging fruit without any kind of organized lobby, our Conservative government has decided to offer up the automobile as a sacrificial lamb in the PR temple by implementing CAFE-style standards on Canadian vehicles. As we all know, CAFE is a deeply flawed system that rewards the bad guys. So why would Canada, a land of small cars and high gas prices, do this?

The official answer, beyond all the environmental posturing, is for the sake of harmonizing Canadian and American regulations. Canada’s Environment Minister, Peter Kent, made this clear in a speech announcing the regulations on Wednesday

Given the integrated nature of the North American automotive industry, it makes sense for us to cooperate closely with the United States on regulations. Our approach is consistent with the overall goal of the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council, which aims to achieve greater alignment and reliance on each other’s regulatory system.

As the race for better fuel efficiency continues to drive increased global competition in the auto sector, Canada and the United States have worked together so that North America can have a common long-term approach. This is consistent with the overall goal of the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council, which aims to achieve greater alignment and reliance on each other’s regulatory system.

Now, this is understandable in light of our geographic proximity with the US, and Canada’s Motor Vehicle Standards, which are broadly in line with America’s FMVSS. But a background document reveals another interesting tidbit that won’t surprise anyone familiar with CAFE, even if it may hold a clue as to why Canada chose to adopt it, rather than more stringent standards.

As light trucks are typically used by farmers and construction workers, it is equally important that these vehicles can perform the work they are required to do. To that end, the proposed regulations provide short-term relief in the form of less-aggressive annual reductions. Consequently, light trucks will be required to achieve, on average, 3.5% annual GHG emission reductions from model year 2017 to 2021 and 5% reductions from 2022 to 2025. This will give time for companies to find technological solutions that lead to reduced emissions without affecting the utility of their trucks.

Despite loving small cars, Canadians love trucks even more. The Ford F-Series and RAM 1500 are Canada’s first and second best-selling vehicles respectively. A tailpipe emissions based standard like Euro VI would make these cars horribly unaffordable for the average Canadian, to the point where they would become toys for the rich.

Consumers would cry foul over having their choice in vehicle being regulated out their budget, thanks to punitive carbon taxes or the inability to comply with the standard, and the Detroit Three would cry foul, faced with the prospect of having a 33 million-strong market for their most profitable vehicles at risk of drying up. It’s true that many full-size pickups are used for work related purposes, but the vast majority aren’t. The rest of the world manages to do just fine with the global mid-size pickups offered by a variety of auto makers, so why not Canada? Would harsh emissions regulations that hurt full-size pickups be a good pretext for the D3 to leave the country? With the strong Canadian dollar and the tough negotiating tactics of the CAW, it might be the perfect excuse to pack up and move to Mexico.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 50 comments
  • Wmba Wmba on Nov 30, 2012

    Well it's one thing to clone CAFE and call it good. It's quite another to allow manufacturers to quote highway mileage figures based on the old EPA system the Americans booted out 5 model years ago. Consequently, we have the Ford Focus, the Dodge Dart and god knows who else advertising 59 mpg highway, the Dodge RAM truck going for 36 , and similar horse-manure claims. Sure, our gallon is amost exactly 20% bigger than the tiddly US one, but that translates into 48mpg US for a Focus, and near infinite for an Elantra. Ludicrous. Nobody gets this kind of fuel economy. Not one Soul. Since Hyundai is regurgitating money for miffed US customers upset with poor economy, I'd suggest that the appropriate rebate for Canadian customers is a free car each for the outlandish exaggerations we get dished up with a straight face, along with contaminated beef. But the real problem is our government allowing these claims. Apparently the 9 member staff running the entire DOT outfit responsible for vehicle certification is overstaffed. Budget cuts will follow. What a simpleton outfit our federal government has turned into. Snide, vicious, small-minded politicos with a agenda that makes no sense to me at all. I used to think I was a conservative in the Canadian context, but I demand clarity of purpose, and right now, that's a secret, just like everything this government does. What a shambles this country is in.

  • RobertRyan RobertRyan on Nov 30, 2012

    "Despite loving small cars, Canadians love trucks even more. The Ford F-Series and RAM 1500 are Canada’s first and second best-selling vehicles respectively. A tailpipe emissions based standard like Euro VI would make these cars horribly unaffordable for the average Canadian, to the point where they would become toys for the rich." We have a lot and a growing number SUV's and Pickups in Australia and we will have Euro V. I do not see the implication of the standard changing our tastes in vehicles. Changing tastes has more to do with Lifestyle changes and your needs and wants.

  • SCE to AUX Range only matters if you need more of it - just like towing capacity in trucks.I have a short-range EV and still manage to put 1000 miles/month on it, because the car is perfectly suited to my use case.There is no such thing as one-size-fits all with vehicles.
  • Doug brockman There will be many many people living in apartments without dedicated charging facilities in future who will need personal vehicles to get to work and school and for whom mass transit will be an annoying inconvenience
  • Jeff Self driving cars are not ready for prime time.
  • Lichtronamo Watch as the non-us based automakers shift more production to Mexico in the future.
  • 28-Cars-Later " Electrek recently dug around in Tesla’s online parts catalog and found that the windshield costs a whopping $1,900 to replace.To be fair, that’s around what a Mercedes S-Class or Rivian windshield costs, but the Tesla’s glass is unique because of its shape. It’s also worth noting that most insurance plans have glass replacement options that can make the repair a low- or zero-cost issue. "Now I understand why my insurance is so high despite no claims for years and about 7,500 annual miles between three cars.
Next