Gas War Watch: Canada Sides With California
Canada’s federal government announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding with California to further reduce vehicle emissions. It would appear that the United States’ neighbor to the north has chosen a side in the gas war — at least spiritually.
Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, along with California Governor Gavin Newsom, announced the agreement’s signing on Wednesday.
“As the world’s fifth-largest economy and a global leader in clean transportation, California is a leading example of how climate action can be good for people, the environment and the economy,” McKenna said. “We look forward to working with California to fight climate change, keep the air clean and give drivers better options for cleaner, more affordable vehicles.”
Like the United States, Canada’s federal government is supposed to be reviewing its vehicle emission’s plan right now. But, while the U.S. situation has resulted in a stalemate dictated almost entirely by political allegiances, Canada seems wholly committed toward further reducing automotive emissions.
Until recently, the nation was aligned with U.S. emission targets and adopted Obama-era fueling regulations in 2012. However, the Trump administration’s proposal of a rollback created enough hubbub for it to reconsider that position. McKenna now says that Canada will no longer seek parity with the United States and intends to back California while acknowledging that the situation was not ideal. She also referenced the possibility of California setting its own emission standards, something the U.S. federal government opposes, saying “it looks like there will be two standards in the U.S.”
Meanwhile, Governor Newsom claimed that the reduction of greenhouse gases was “essential to [California’s] economic growth and prosperity,” adding “If you want to see if climate change is real, come to California. See what we’ve just come through in the past few years … Something big is happening. Mother Nature has joined the conversation.”
Automakers have universally come out against the dual-market solution, urging all sides to compromise wherever possible. On Tuesday, four U.S. House lawmakers led by Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) once again asked California and the Trump administration to meet and try to reach an agreement that would maintain nationwide rules. Unfortunately, California and the federal government don’t seem interested in cooperating anymore.
“It’s not looking very good at the moment,” California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, who also signed the memorandum, said on a Wednesday conference call with the media. She was responding to a question as to whether or not California could find common ground with the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Obama-era rules stipulate a crawling, fleet-wide fuel efficiency average of 46.7 miles per gallon by 2026, compared with the 37 mpg freeze the Trump administration has proposed — claiming it aligns better with consumer trends and market realities.
While little more than a gentleman’s agreement, the memorandum between California and Canada seeks to go above and beyond maintaining previously established targets while publicly acknowledging their shared goals. In addition to the (presumably important) emotional support and sense of camaraderie, the pair plan to collaborate on regulations aimed at reducing emissions, the promotion zero-emission vehicles, and have promised to work together on clean-fuel alternatives.
Canada is working toward having 100 percent of all light-duty vehicles sold within its borders to qualify as “zero-emissions vehicles” by 2040. It’s also offering rebates of up to $5,000 for qualifying ZEVs and additional tax incentives for businesses that want to shift into using to zero-emission fleets. Canada is also developing a “Clean Fuel Standard” that is supposed to reduce air pollution by 30 million tons in 2030.
Meanwhile, California has set aside $238 million of its 2019 budget for incentives for the purchase of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. It’s currently receiving support from other states in the gas war and Newsom said he’s actively trying to get them to adopt California’s stricter standards.
[Image: Jim Barber/Shutterstock]
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Brett Woods 2023 Corvette base model.
- Paul Taka Hi, where can I find 1982 Honda prelude junkyards in 50 states
- Poltergeist Make sure you order the optional Dungdai fire suppression system.
- Prabirmehta I charge my EV at home 100% of the time. The EV is used for in-town driving and the gas guzzling SUV is used for out of town trips. This results in a huge cost saving and rare trips to the gas station.
- Conundrum Three cylinder Ford Escapes, Chevy whatever it is that competes, and now the Rogue. Great, ain't it? Toyota'll be next with a de-tuned GR Corolla/Yaris powerplant. It's your life getting better and better, yes indeed. A piston costs money, you know.The Rogue and Altima used to have the zero graviy foam front seats. Comfy, but the new Rogue dumps that advance. Costs money. And that color-co-ordinated gray interior, my, ain't it luvverly? Ten years after they perfected it in the first Versa to appeal to the terminally depressed, it graduates to the Rogue.There's nothing decent to buy on the market for normal money. Not a damn thing interests me at all.
@highdesertcat--Many times the best decision is to scrap. Does sound like you got a lot of use out of your motor home. I still have my 99 S-10 but it only has 119k miles which I will give to my nephew when I am finished with it. Never thought I would keep a vehicle 20 years but I don't drive as much as I use to and it has been very reliable. Here's some links to the 2007 million mile Tundra if you haven't already seen them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL7fyyUNRmA http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/project-trucks/1705-million-mile-tundra-the-tear-down/ https://www.thedrive.com/news/27730/second-toyota-tundra-pickup-hits-a-million-miles-serviced-at-same-dealer-as-the-first
@highdesertcat--You definitely got your and your father's moneys worth out of that motor home. I do understand the sentiment in keeping it--I had my mother's 84 5th Avenue for years but after 200k miles the electric windows were going along with the electrical system and the engine need an overhaul. The car itself still looked like new. It does sound like you friend needs a new vehicle and he got his money's worth out of that S-10. I understand pleasing the wife--"happy wife, happy life." I myself don't care much for the new Silverado even though I have owned GM products for years and the Tundra is a long lasting and hard to kill truck. If you looked at those links I posted about the 1 million mile Tundra that truck did not look like it had a million miles and it was far from being babied. My wife wants my neighbors 2012 Lacrosse which has 40k miles and has been well maintained (still looks brand new). The neighbor has been looking at Subaru Foresters and is about to pull the trigger but wants the Buick to go since he has 2 other vehicles. I asked for first dibs on the Lacrosse and if I get it I will give my S-10 to my nephew who is retired from the Coast Guard and wants it because it has a manual and he likes it (I more than got my money out of that S-10 and it still runs and looks like new). My nephew has a 2014 Cummins Ram Laramie dully which still looks like new. I still have regrets in selling my grandfathers 63 IH 1,000 step side pickup which I later found out my nephew wanted and he is now trying to locate to buy. I should have kept the IH and given it to him since it was all original and only 58k miles (still ran and looked good). Would have been good to keep it in the family since he now has a home on the family farm and space to keep it and the S-10.