Canadian Government Now Wants All Vehicles Zero-Emission By 2035

by Matt Posky

Published: June 30th, 2021

canadian government now wants all vehicles zero emission by 2035

The Canadian government has said it wants to accelerate its self-imposed deadline to ensure the sale of all light-passenger vehicles be of the zero-emissions variety by 2040. According to statements made by Transport Minister Omar Alghabra on Tuesday, Canada’s new target should be 2035. That presumably leaves customers with a little over a decade to enjoy internal combustion engines, though the realities of transitioning into an entirely electric automotive infrastructure may push back that date substantially.Alghabra noted that the target was “ambitious, undoubtedly, but it is a must,” adding that the ruling Liberal Party believed it was possible with an elevated amount of determination, focus, and effort. He also stated that more funding will be required to meet the new goal, coordinated with additional government regulations. While hardly what one would consider a free-market approach, Canada’s Liberal government has pledged to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. That date remains in place. However, the updated automotive timeline is likely to affect interim targets and necessitate new restrictions to have any hope of being met. Currently, zero-emission vehicles account for somewhere between three and four percent of new vehicle registrations in Canada under the most generous of estimates. But the plan calls for that share to rise to ten percent by an ambitious 2025 before the revised objectives can be taken into account.The Global Automakers of Canada (GAC) suggested that it agreed with the decision in principle but expressed concerns about the logistical issues associated with transitioning entirely to battery electric vehicles in just 14 years. That means they don’t think it’s all that realistic and it’s a take we’re inclined to agree with in one of those rare instances we find ourselves taking the side of lobbying groups.“We share the government’s ultimate objective of carbon elimination but find today’s announcement lacking in the details that will be required for Canada to successfully make the transition to 100 percent ZEV sales by 2035,” GAC President David Adams said in a prepared statement. “We look forward to further consultations with the government to elaborate on Canada’s plan for infrastructure investment, enhancement of manufacturing supply chains and coordinated federal and provincial policies which will facilitate the transition to carbon neutral mobility in Canada.”GAC alleges that the global automotive industry has already committed to investing over $330 billion ($267 billion USD) to bring ZEVs to market, adding that a minimum of 125 new models are planned for Canada by 2025.According to Automotive News, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) also had its say on the matter — stating that light-duty automobiles would all need to be converted to ZEV products (likely EVs) by 2035 to create a zero-emissions global society by 2050. Though we’ve no idea how they can assume the former is even possible when manufacturing and shipping goods are bound to require energy and produce pollution, regardless of whether or not we’re using battery power.From AN:According to the IEA, more than 20 countries to date have announced the full phase-out of internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales over the next 10-30 years. Moreover, more than 120 countries have announced economy-wide net-zero emissions pledges that aim to reach net zero in the coming few decades.Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said with the tougher goal the country would work with the U.S. on fuel efficiency and consult with stakeholders on new regulatory measures.He said harmonized rules would drive more accelerated ZEV deployment in the two countries.“We are not alone in committing to 2035. This is absolutely where the world is going. This where the world needs to go,” Wilkinson said. “We must reduce our emissions.”Technically speaking, we already have. Overall U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (which are often used as a general representation of environmental progress) have declined substantially since 2007, with some of the largest decreases taking place after 2017. By contrast, Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions are substantially lower overall but have remained relatively flat since their gradual rise in the 1990s. Canadian per capita CO2 emissions have fallen by meaningful amounts, however, mimicking the overall trajectory and timeline of the United States.[Image: Imagenet/Shutterstock]

#BatteryElectricVehicles #BEVs #Canada #Canadian #CanadianGovernment #ElectricCars #ElectricVehicles #EVs #Government #InternalCombustion #Regulation #LiberalParty

Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments

Join the conversation

11 of 106 comments

Ecomaster on Jul 06, 2021

Lou start with the beginning. Look at the models of climate change which you rely upon, they are misspecified. Any undergraduate in statistics can see the holes. You understand specification error? I can explain it to you simply, relevant variables are excluded from the model and some of their impact is attributed incorrectly to included variables. A common problem in statistical models and climate models. I can give you several major recent studies showing the significance of solar variables (solar variables are excluded from the CO2 models). Linkages do not seem to carry on this site, but try this, which shows that CO2 concentrations are not related to global temperature change. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76 There are many other research projects which support this work. Global greening related to higher levels of CO2, try this for a start, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/eabb1981 Read and learn.

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- Lou_BC on Jul 06, 2021
  
  I did my research. The sun was on a "cool down" cycle therefore less planetary heating but the earth still warmed. There are flaws in any model but overall, the majority of scientists believe in the science anthropogenic climate change. You didn't cover my other questions. What about pH? Faster plant growth is just a sideshow distraction.
  
  Like
- Lou_BC on Jul 06, 2021
  
  @Lou_BC We can play dueling studies but here is a term that deniers hate: Consensus. What does the majority of scientists believe is the correct answer based upon all of the information available? "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus generally implies agreement of the supermajority, though not necessarily unanimity." The consensus is......
  
  Like
Ecomaster on Jul 06, 2021

No, Lou, you did not read the study, obviously, the relationship between solar variables and global warming/cooling is a solid 97%, several orders higher than the flawed CO2 models you rely on. No scientists have offered a critique of these new solar models, that is just your wishful fantasy. Here is another correlation study by prominent scientists on the solar variable/global temperature relationship, please read it, if you want to learn something, https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76 You asked for studies, I gave them to you, now you have nothing to say...just as I expected. I am giving you the current state of the science on this. I showed you from the other study that higher CO2 is related to increased global greening and that means higher agricultural productivity. Take away CO2 and you would get famines and reduced world population. The hard way. There is no evidence showing pH levels reducing fish populations, you are the one promoting that idea, you show us the evidence.

Like Reply
- See 6 previous
- Lou_BC on Jul 07, 2021
  
  LOL. I've read several critiques. Consensus? It is that solar variables do not account for increasing temperatures. Ironic that you crawled out of woodwork. I've never seen your name before. Smart Slavuto, is that you? ROTFLMFAO Go rile up some MAGA Hat types. I'm not buying what you are selling. What's the Consensus? Bye bye bozo.
  
  Like
- Ecomaster on Jul 08, 2021
  
  @Lou_BC No, there is no consensus in the science, but the new school of solar variables has completely discredited the CO2 school. The CO2 guys are not even bothering to challenge the recent studies on solar variables. That is where the science is. But I can see that you are not even trying to read and understand this material, which is typical of the politically inclined non-informed liberal agitators. I get that, you have made it clear. Let me know when you are interested in a serious scientific discussion. I will catch a few winks waiting for you to read up.
  
  Like
- CammerLens on Jul 08, 2021
  
  @Ecomaster What I never see anyone bring up is that even if we were somehow able to stop carbon emissions on a dime, there’s no guarantee that the climate would obligingly revert to a previous state. It’s an inherently chaotic system that doesn’t march in lockstep with any single component such as CO2 concentration. Or “solar variables.”
  
  Like
- Lou_BC on Jul 08, 2021
  
  @Ecomaster "there is no consensus in the science" LOL What next? You gonna go on about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? Scientific consensus is very real and I see it in my professional life rather frequently. Try Forbs, "What Does 'Scientific Consensus' Mean? Ethan Siegel Senior Contributor" "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. ... Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review." It doesn't mean a theory is engraved in stone never to be questioned. There is currently consensus on "The Big Bang" or "Relativity" but scientists still try to find better theories. I'll use a more workable example, if you develope a localized gastrointestinal cancer, a consensus exists upon the most effective treatment based upon current knowledge, medications,and surgical options. Would you trust what 97% of the experts say is the best set of options or run with the 3% prescribing chaga tea and cannabis oil?
  
  Like
- Lou_BC on Jul 08, 2021
  
  @Ecomaster "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature." "The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980." "Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result." "The only conclusion can be that changes in solar irradiance cannot have contributed to recent warming in the last half century. With regard to CO2: I think you are not completely aware of the exact concept of the natural greenhouse effect, the enhanced greenhouse effect and most important of all radiative forcing. I am not an expert on the exact chemistry of all the trace gases and how that works, so I cannot judge your comments on the exact emissivity (though my gut feeling hints at the missing of the immediate re-emittance of longwave IR-radiation while you seem to be talking only about the independent emittance of the absorbed heat). I do know the following though: the absolute value of carbon dioxide (whether expressed in ppm or Pp) is not relevant when it comes to the increase or decrease of the Earth's surface temperature. Changes in the exact amount of each gas are what is important. The reason for this is that such changes will cause changes in radiative fluxes and, as a part of the total atmospheric adjustment for these radiative inbalances, the earth's surface cools or warms. Now given that carbon dioxide concentrations have risen at least 35% since 1900, there surely must have been some warming due to carbon dioxide (though not due to the existance of the gas in the first place, but because of the increase in its concentration). I am more at home in meteorology, so some rough calculations about that: the upward surface flux of the earth is around 390 W/m² (sigma T^4 = 5,6704x10^-8 * 288^4 ~ 390) and the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere is (1-a)S/4 where a ~ 0.3 (the global, terrestial albedo of the atmosphere) so this flux comes down to about 240 W/m². Now you can easily see that a large amount of longwave radiation must have been absorbed by the atmosphere, roughly 150 W/m². We know that water vapour is by far the primary absorber and carbon dioxide relatively weak (that is what you have showed, I think). Then comes radiative forcing: this can be understood simply by looking at toy models, which show that if the solar input or emissivity of the earth or the atmosphere (e.g. the greenhouse gasses) changes, the Earth's surface temperature changes. " Consensus is that solar radiation has had a nominal affect on global temperatures. Eco..."master" indeed. LOL You must be running out of material to cite from the Rush Limbaugh wing of the Saint Petersburg troll farm library.
  
  Like
- Ecomaster on Jul 17, 2021
  
  @Lou_BC I gave you links to the new school of global warming/cooling based on solar variables, Lou. Read and learn. There are no sacred cows in science, Lou. The only thing that counts is which model best explains the evidence. The CO2 models get a fail for excluding solar variables, and using misspecified models, that is a basic scientific error. The solar models provide an explanatory power of 97%, that is a genuine number, not some made-up "survey".
  
  Like
- Ecomaster on Jul 17, 2021
  
  @Lou_BC You have not identified your source here, Lou. I gave you links to scientific articles, which you chose to ignore. You are treating the CO2 model as if it were a sacred cow. There are no sacred cows in science, Lou.
  
  Like