By on June 30, 2021

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]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

106 Comments on “Canadian Government Now Wants All Vehicles Zero-Emission By 2035...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    They could just do what Norway did, where plug-ins are now 83% of sales. And yeah, it’s cold there, too.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    105 Billion GDP down the drain! Oh No! Damn those filthy tar sands.

  • avatar
    dusterdude

    Dumb move ! 2040 was plenty early . I haven’t seen a good analysis that EVs are more “environmentally friendly” on a “ cradle to grave” all in analysis- energy used , source of energy , battery production & disposal etc. Any analysis may also fit into Mark Twain’s quote “ there are lies dammed lies and statistics “

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Canada has become a cesspool of idiotic liberal ideas. The country version of California. They are still arresting people for holding a church service etc.

    Also, someone should tell these Canadian nut jobs that there is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. They have already failed.

    • 0 avatar
      MR2turbo4evr

      EBFlex, 100% agree. Moved to this shitty country 21 years ago with my family when I was 14. Liberal cesspool is a 110% accurate description. Absolutely disgusting. The political leadership is a sick joke.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @MR2turbo4evr….Today is Canada day…I don’t like the liberal government either.. However I’m a proud Canadian..

        If you find my beloved country all that $hitty then move somewhere else.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @MR2: Strange but Canada is generally less left and more right now than it was in the latter part of the 20th century. Then you had a ‘Progressive Conservative Party’ led by or influenced by people like Peter Lougheed, Bill Davis, Joe Clark, Hugh Segal and Dalton Camp. All successful Conservatives who would be considered well left of centre today.

        So it appears rather obvious that you know very little of Canadian political history.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @MR2turbo4evr – if you are so miserable here, what’s stopping you from moving to USA?

      • 0 avatar
        Archistorian

        There are many other countries. Hungary is pretty right-wing these days. Feel free to leave. Need help moving? I’m sure some nice Canadians will help you.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    I haven’t lived in Canada, specifically southern Ontario, for more than fifty years. Does Canada have an electric grid able to support a transportation system powered by electricity instead of petroleum?

    • 0 avatar
      Lightspeed

      It’s a modern country with a modern grid largely paid for by tax-payers then turned over to private-sector depending on the province. Natural gas has, or will, replace almost all coal generating by 2050 I believe. But, if you really want to make this green, you have to go nuclear and that will never happen in Canada.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Pickering is set to be used till 2024 then…?

        Pickering Nuclear provides 15% of Ontario’s *existing* electricity, though Wiki says they are building a small modular reactor at Darlington starting this year for completion in 2028. Maybe the plan is to utilize small modular reactors to replace Pickering? In any event, we’re talking about shifting production around, not adding new electric production which is what is needed in EV u/dys-topia.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        Just to set the record straight ..Darlington Nuclear is about 3 miles away from where I sit..The Pickering Nuclear is about 20 miles west.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        Green ideas are good until you run out of other people’s money.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Kendahl – that would be an area requiring investment. 66% of electricity comes from renewable resources. 15% nuclear, with the remainder from fossil fuel (coal,natural gas, diesel etc)

  • avatar
    NigelShiftright

    The push for battery-driven everything is entirely ideological, and not economic in the least. It’s not even environmental, sadly.

    And like most entirely ideological interventions in the economy, it’s going to end poorly and the extent of the damage will be exactly equal to the scale of the enterprise.

    Unfortunately, it now looks like the scale of the enterprise will be roughly equal to the Sovietization of agriculture, so we can expect roughly equal economic damage.

    And we’re the Ukrainians.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Go take a test drive in an electric vehicle, and you’ll discover how nice they are to drive.

      Sometimes a technology is just better from every perspective, and they become the dominant technology quickly. This is what’s happening with EVs, at least it’s very likely to happen over the next decade or two.

      But, seriously, go test drive an EV.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        Nice to drive? They are nothing more than cheaply built compliance vehicles.

        EVs could have their place but that will be a long time. The range and recharge times needs to match proper ICE vehicles as well as the number of charge stations. Until then EVs are a joke.

        An F150 with a 300 mile range is great for people who can’t think beyond a dishonest headline, but when you consider that the range of that non-truck will fall to about 75 miles when doing actual truck stuff you quickly realize that EVs have a very long way to go before they are even a mediocre substitute for ICE vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        tedward

        They are nice, but kind of one note so far. Fast and quiet is the ev trump card, but they don’t do power modulation (sporty as opposed to fast driving) and the range issue under load makes them totally inapplicable for work use outside of mega fleets. The idea that they can replace the ice engines wholesale is a the auto equivalent to let them eat cake.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          “they don’t do power modulation”

          Who told you that? EVs have a throttle, you know.

          They modulate better than ICEs because you’re not dealing with transmission gear changes under varying loads and speeds.

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            Thats definitely an experience based opinion btw, nobody “told me that.” The single gear ratio is a hugely limiting factor for ev’s and metering power delivery, in a similar way to cvt’s that aren’t set-up to mimic stepped ratios. Both are hugely efficient at acceleration, but at the cost of providing the driver with fewer options and feedback regarding rate of power delivery and wheel slippage. I don’t hate the things but they also are a far way away from taking any crowns (given my priorities of course).

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            Sce…but I’d give the cruising win to ev’s, hands down, no contest. Cruising and straight line performance of course. I don’t think the ice advantage for engagement etc will last forever or is insurmountable either. It just is for now, which makes sense given the decades of incremental improvement work done there that doesn’t translate over.

      • 0 avatar
        NigelShiftright

        I don’t recall any time in the early 1900’s when the government prohibited the sale of horses, do you?

        Take away the bans on ICE and the subsidies for EVs, and let freedom of choice rule.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        The nice to drive part isn’t the problem with EVs, it’s price, range, recharge times, a lack of a common charging standard, and lack of enough chargers in non-urban areas and secondary highways. Otherwise, they’re great.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        I have. EVs do have a nice ride. I’m a car enthusiast, however. I like taking an active role in driving with active safety (relying on my driving skills) rather than the nanny-state of passive safety (in an automotive equivalent of Sominex) – which has an over-reliance on chips. And recent history has shown that something as “trivial” as a chip shortage can cause major disruptions in the automotive industry

        My vehicles: “Chip Shortage? LOL!”

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    OECD says Canada’s most important export is now virtue-signalling.

  • avatar
    Tele Vision

    Every time our Dear Potato opens his mouth he screws something else up – never in Quebec, though. Those ‘Distinct Society’ types will get some sort of allowance for ICE vehicles, I’m sure, because that province was recently recognized as some sort of separate nation of Canada by said Dear Potato.

    Check out the Canadian Transfer Payments to see where that idiot places his true allegiance.

    • 0 avatar
      Lynchenstein

      As much as I dislike said prime tuber, and the province of his father’s birth, he hasn’t really had anything to do with the federal transfer payments, has he?

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @EBFlex

    LOL..

    Where to start??

    Arrests for holding church services: Healthcare and COVID-19 restrictions are a provincial jurisdiction. The arrests you mention occurred in Alberta which is governed by a Conservative Government. Conservatives passed the laws leading to arrests

    “there is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle”
    That’s incorrect or misleading.
    Replace “emission” with “environmental impact”. It then becomes an assessment of harm reduction or “lesser of 2 evils”. Is mining battery materials better for the planet than burning fossil fuels?
    Using fossil fuels to generate electricity is less polluting than in ICE vehicles.

    “Canada has become a cesspool of idiotic liberal ideas.”
    Canada does not engage in gerrymandering or voter suppression. Canada does not have an electoral college. Far right ideology therefore struggles to take firm root in federal politics. Like most democratic countries, the majority of people are ideologically centrist moderates. Liberals beliefs are the majority.

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      It’s widely known that Trudeau used his previous majority to appoint an elections “tsar” who has embedded party activists three layers deep.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Pig_Iron – that’s all bullsh!t. The Prime Minister can make an appointment but the head of Elections Canada answers to Parliament not the PM.

        Electoral districts are laid out only by population numbers not political ideology. Gerrymandering is a USA thing and virtually impossible in Canada.

        Your claim was making the rounds in the right-wing nutjob fringes.

    • 0 avatar
      NigelShiftright

      “Is mining battery materials better for the planet than burning fossil fuels?”

      It’s a helluva lot tougher on the young miners, that’s for sure. Although I doubt if they count for as much on the virtue balance as polar bears do.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      @ Lou.. Well said !

    • 0 avatar
      Ecomaster

      “Less polluting”? Hardly, because the generation of electricity to power EV’s is largely generated by coal burning facilities. That makes a joke of CO2 reduction.
      CO2 is not a pollutant anyway, it is essential to human life. Agricultural productivity depends on CO2. Without CO2 billions would die of starvation.
      The recent climate science also discredits the idea that CO2 is responsible for global warming or cooling. Just when the science changes, Canada signs on to an outdated version of climate change. Just what I would expect of the normal functioning of government.

      • 0 avatar
        conundrum

        Yeah, you sound like you’re up on the latest, Ecomaster. Pure fantasy, that is. Carbon dioxide is essential, sure, just not in overabundance. When I was a kid it was 280 ppm in the atmosphere, now it’s 420. If ypu like sweating and no food from parched California, things are ripping along nicely for you.

        Where does this endless supply of pure doltery come from? I presume from people who cannot bear to think the Earth is changing, then go looking on the internet for similar wackjobs who’ve thought of a million excuses that things are just 100% dandy, and then repeat the rubbish to us. Just what I need, uneducated nitwits preaching at me. Same crowd that won’t get vaccinated, I’d wager. People living inside their heads, not in the real world.

        70% of Canadian electricity is hydro power. But being as this is a huge country, the hydro resources aren’t where the people are most concentrated, which amounts to Ontario, the most populous province. So instead of shipping the excess to Ontario, we flog it to Americans for real money. No prob keeping EVS going — we’ll just pull the plug on you guys and uae it ourselves.

        Posky postulates: “Canadian per capita CO2 emissions have fallen by meaningful amounts, however, mimicking the overall trajectory and timeline of the United States.”

        Per capita doesn’t matter. There is not a pot to share, merely one global one to reduce. Of all the G7 countries, Canada is the only one to have increased absolute carbon emissions. And by 21% over the baseline. Alberta produces the world’s dirtiest carbon-intensive ersatz oil from bitumen tarsands in the world, and ships over 2 million bpd to the US. Production is up over 50% since 2016. We’re such little goody two-shoes here. Talk the big game and do the opposite. Of course, how many Americans know 7% of their oil comes from Russia? Nobody in power wants to bring up that factoid.

        So far as some minor Canadian federal cabinet minister going on that we’ll be all new EVs by 2035, it’s BS. We have an election coming. The governing Liberals are almost as neoliberal capitalist as the opposition Conservatives. If that latter load of basketcase global warming deniers gets in, it’ll be full speed ahead on “oil”, while we swelter, and a speedier resolution to complete climate breakdown. Neither party can be trusted. In fact there isn’t a decent federal party in Canada at the moment. They all suck.

        Last I checked, British Columbia is engulfed by wildfires, and the temperature’s so hot, there’s floodwatch on major rivers. The ice and snow on the Rockies and other mountain ranges is melting fast, hence the flood watch. It’s disaster unfolding in real time.

        But I’d bet if I checked back here in a year to the expert parade of nonentities that proclaim, despite California being burned out, the water table there nonexistent leading to no produce farming, everywhere West parched and baked, the same halfwits would still deny global warming. None of my hidden store of canned baked beans for you guys! Fend for yourselves.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Lytton, BC set 3 temperature records in a row then burned to the ground in 30 minutes due to wildfire. One of those temperature records beat Reno, Nevada’s hottest day on record.

        • 0 avatar
          Ecomaster

          Conundrum, I am not excited about the political parties, either, but from a different perspective. The actual science of global warming has moved on from CO2 as an explanatory factor. There is a new school of research involving scientists in Britain, Japan, and California who have solid evidence that solar variables are responsible for over 95% of global temperature warming/cooling, the links are readily available online. Nothing we can do about solar variables unless you can get to the Sun and change how it works. The older CO2 studies have been discredited for using misspecified models, a common error in statistical research. It takes time for this new research to enter public view and challenge the CO2 panic which grips many governments. But that will happen in a fairly short time, the predictions of the two types of model are radically different. And don’t give up on the political system, it does work, but usually with a substantial lag time.

        • 0 avatar
          Ecomaster

          Just to respond to your point above, world coal production is now ramping up, apparently to provide electricity for the new EVs entering the market. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48436

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Ecomaster – the ol’ “CO2 is not a pollutant trope”

        LOL

        Too much of anything turns it into a pollutant. Go out and drink 10 gallons of water a day for a few weeks or lock yourself in an enclosed space with and idling vehicle and have your estate call me about the outcome.

        Only a small portion of Canada’s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. 7% from coal.

        • 0 avatar
          Ecomaster

          Too much of a good thing is not a bad thing…do not follow your logic. You need to examine the roots of carbo-hatred and see what makes those “CO2” models tick, or rather not tick. Science moves on and waits for no one.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Ecomaster – “what makes those “CO2” models tick, or rather not tick”

            Well then….what?

            Do explain.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Ecomaster – in Canada the majority (70) of our electricity comes from renewable energy. Around 7% coal. That renders your one statement false.

            CO2 is a pollutant if there is too much of it.
            It’s a BS argument to say that agriculture depends on C02. Plants don’t grow twice as fast if you double CO2. No one is saying to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere.
            If one puts climate science and CO2 as a greenhouse gas aside, we already see the damage caused by EXCESS C02 elsewhere. Oceans and other bodies of water are becoming increasingly acidic.

        • 0 avatar
          Ecomaster

          Lou, worldwide coal production has increased to meet the electricity needs of EVs. Agricultural productivity is higher now due to higher CO2 levels, and reducing CO2 would cause lower productivity and famines. The world is a balanced ecosystem, trying to upset that balance invites trouble. There is no evidence that acidity levels have increased to the point of harming fisheries. Weak excuses for banning oil and gas and coal, which constitute over 80% of world energy supply. The evidence on climate warming/cooling is already in, CO2 is not the cause of temperature change, solar variables account for 97% of global warming/cooling. It is time to face the realities.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @ecomaster –

            Please explain the correlation between C02 levels and increased plant growth?

            What are the negative effects on plants?

            What are the affects of high C02 on the rest of the ecosystem?

            What are the effects of elevated C02 on pH?

            What are the effects of elevated C02 on temperature?

            “The evidence on climate warming/cooling is already in, CO2 is not the cause of temperature change, solar variables account for 97% of global warming/cooling.”

            Citations required!
            Please explain your evidence and post links to sources backing your explanation.

            “worldwide coal production has increased to meet the electricity needs of EVs.”

            There are multiple reasons for increased coal consumption globally.

            EV’s are a small portion…
            Please list most common reasons. What percentage is due to EV’s?

            Cheeto POTUS talked about clean coal, what is that specifically?

            Oh, we are talking about Canada but if you want to broaden the playing field, that’s fine with me.

            You want to debate me, then you can’t be lazy.

            Regurgitating scripted rhetoric isn’t a debate.

            I’m awaiting your brilliant rebuttal. (Stavuto tried this same line of rhetoric a while back… )

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @ecomaster – Where’s your rebuttal? Where’s your evidence?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @ecomaster – what a BS name. Waiting for your answer.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @ecomaster – just what I thought. When challenged with logic, you got nothing. You and slavuto have the same employer?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Lou:

            Guy weighs 350 and smokes like a fiend, and walks into his doc’s office for a physical. Doc says, “hey, Joe, if you insist on weighing 350 and smoking like a fiend, I’d suggest you get your affairs in order by age 50 or so.”

            Joe shoots back, “prove to me that if I keep this up, I’m going to die in my 50s, Doc.” Of course, the doctor is honest and says, “I can’t prove it conclusively, Joe, but that’s what the science suggests. Keep living like this and you’re going to die earlier than you would otherwise.”

            So off goes Joe, who lights up an unfiltered Pall Mall on his way to pick up a super-sized value meal at McDs.

            The deniers are Joe, basically.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @FreedMike – and they cling tenaciously to a few studies out of thousands that support their views.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            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.”

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    don’t forget to trot out the old myths that Canada’s medical system is killing people and that they are jealous of our “system”

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      American healthcare IS better – if you can pay for it. If you can’t, the system can be an absolute horror show.

      As I understand it, the Canadian system is great for things like emergencies and life threatening illnesses; in those cases, you get cared for, and you don’t go bankrupt paying for it. It’s the elective and non-emergency stuff that Canadians end up coming to America for because it’s rationed. That, I suppose, is the tradeoff.

      Speaking of bankruptcy…you don’t even get to do that anymore, apparently. My brother had lousy insurance and came down with (and eventually died of) esophageal cancer a few years back. The second surgeon he contacted (more on the first one in a moment) was going to force him to sign a waiver of his right to declare bankruptcy if the bill remained unpaid.

      The first practice he contacted wouldn’t take his case – not because his insurance wouldn’t pay, but because they wouldn’t pay enough. He then said, “you don’t get it…I’m going to die without the surgery,” and the office hung up on him. Looked up the surgeon and he lives in a 6,000-square-foot, $2 million home in the nicest neighborhood in St. Louis. You know what? I hope he goes to hell for being greedy, right after his dick stops working permanently.

      The irony? He was 1,000% opposed to socialized medicine. So were my mom and other brother, until this happened.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @freedMike – the USA system does well with high volume low risk procedures. That’s typically elective like hip and knee replacements. It’s a major surgery but it’s in and out in 3 days if no complications.
        The Canadian system is much better at chronic long term illness management. It’s expensive with poor profit margins.

  • avatar

    How Canada on the one hand wants to send dirty oil down to USA and on the other hand does not want to consume it inside Canada itself. What they consider US as dumping ground?

    • 0 avatar
      Lynchenstein

      If you don’t want the oil to flow South, then stop buying Hemis, Raptors and F150 Super Duties to get groceries, and then there will be a much smaller market for all that sweet sweet maple-syrup flavoured gas-o-line.

      • 0 avatar

        I do not know where you get that info but I never bought any Hemi or pickup. Regarding importing oil – Saudi oil is of much higher quality. But I thought that US is self-sufficient regarding oil and gas and if dynamics change oil consumption is going to go only down not up.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ If you don’t want the oil to flow South, then stop buying Hemis, Raptors and F150 Super Duties to get groceries, and then there will be a much smaller market for all that sweet sweet maple-syrup flavoured gas-o-line.”

        Or…how about:

        We buy what we want because in this country we can buy what we want? Who cares if someone wants to buy a “F150 Super Duty” to get groceries? I have a V8 powered SUV to tow my V8 powered boat. I’m going to be towing it 260 miles to my cabin on July 3rd. What else should I use to accomplish that? A garbage EV that will give me a 75-100 mile range and a trip that takes 12-24 hours versus 4?

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Canadian people wants new government by 2025.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @28 – conservatives get into power in Canada when they get their sh!t together and the left vote gets scattered between the 3 parties (New Democrats, Liberals, and Greens) Trudeau Junior is a performing arts clown. This “green” declaration is an attempt to “out-green” the Greens and “out-socialize” the NDP. It might just work.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    ““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.”

    Mr. Wilkinson the world is not “going” in this direction, there is only failure to be found in jack booted diktats. If anyone really cared about emissions (they don’t) the excess population needs to be remediated. Whether this is being addressed or not remains to be seen, but hopefully in a year we’ll have an indication. My only fear is the remediation technique will only be used in the West when such things are sorely needed in the Third World.

  • avatar
    Urlik

    Residents of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are shooting them the bird I’m sure.

  • avatar
    Alex Mackinnon

    And yet there’s an election in the air, polls are expecting a Liberal majority. Huh.

  • avatar
    frank908

    I mean, the total population is less than California. Don’t see why it should be that big of an issue to force that amount of people to follow this ideology.

  • avatar
    mikey

    frank908 …..”force that amount of people “….Dude… that’s a slippery slope ..
    Just saying

  • avatar
    detlump

    Not sure where all the electricity will come from, for a start. It won’t be cheap. According to my relatives in the Windsor area, “hydro” or electricity to Americans is quite expensive already. This despite the boondoggle of windmills dotting SW Ontario.

    The govt dumped a ton of money into CS Wind, including opening a plant in Windsor to great fanfare: Jobs galore! However, that plant is now shuttered:
    https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/cs-wind-stops-producing-wind-turbines-in-windsor

    It seems both the federal and provincial govts in Canada exist to stick it to Canadians. Unnecessarily high gas taxes, carbon offsets, etc. Canada has 10% or so of the US population over a much larger footprint. How much pollution could Canada be responsible for compared to the US?

    Perhaps the only thing moving along that makes sense (finally) is the new Gordie Howe bridge. But of course, to make that happen Canada fronted the money.

    I am craving a Coffee Crisp now and a Harvey’s burger with everything.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    So many issues and misunderstandings.

    Eastern Canada generates a surplus of electricity. Electrical generation is provincial jurisdiction not federal Unfortunately due to bad contracts often the electricity is sold to American states for less than it is ‘sold’ to the local population. The Conservative government in Ontario under Mike Harris made a particularly egregious error in splitting up Ontario Hydro and then attempting partially privatize it.

    Yes the majority of Canadians live in cities and close to the American border. However a significant number do not. And live in particularly cold climates. And Canadians drive/commute farther than the populations of just about any other nation. So EV distance is a concern, as is cold weather performance.

    Decreasing world wide consumption of petroleum is a ‘good’ thing. It will deprive some rather ‘unfriendly’ and/or undemocratic nations of much of their revenue and therefore decrease their power and influence. Petroleum is yesterday’s fuel. All electric may not be the way of the future for vehicles but the benefits they provide regarding maintenance, simplicity, performance, etc are objectively apparent.

    The current PM’s father instituted a National Energy Program that would have to a degree ‘nationalized’ all petroleum exploration, mining, refining, distribution and sales. It would have made Canada totally independent of any imported petroleum. Those producing/mining petroleum would receive a guaranteed amount ensuring a profit. Pipelines would have been built to eastern Canada. New refineries would have been constructed. Instead those in particularly Alberta railed against this. They wanted to be able to sell their petroleum ‘on the open market’ rather than at a fixed priced to Eastern Canadians. They got their way. Now most of the petroleum exxploration/mining is controlled by foreign interests. Alberta’s economy is again ‘boom or bust’ based on petroleum prices. And they are ‘crying’ for a pipeline to be built to the east. Proving once again that conservative ‘free market advocates’ see only the short term, like the market when it is in their favour and go cap in hand to the government for artificial interventions when the market is against them.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Arthur Dailey – Under conservative Peter Loughheed, Alberta started the Heritage Fund.30% of oil revenue was to go into it. Subsequent governments (all conservative) drained the fund based on political expediency and did not use oil riches to benefit the populace. It’s resource wealth was drained by foreign multinationals. The oil economy crashed and now they blame Federal Liberals. Alberta could have been like Norway.

  • avatar
    stuki

    The Canadian Government is a government. They want to stay in power. While remaining useless, dumb, self promoting and clueless. So, they do their best to appeal to those even more so. Which requires them to babble on endlessly on how they’re going to ban, tax, mandate and otherwise harass the dwindling few who are not.

    It’s not as if any of them even have enough fingers to figure out how may years into the future 2035 is. Much less enough grey matter to have even the remotest idea about then.

    Those who can, do. Without any further ado. While those who can’t, babble child brained nonsense about all the things they are going to force and mandate other people’s children do sometime fr out in the future. And those too incompetent to even do that, uncritically pump their fists in support of the latter. Hence, the Canadian, as well as near any other as of now, Government.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Without charging infrastructure, less expensive and longer range batteries, and more nuclear power the charge to all EVs will not be practical for most. I don’t have as much objection to EVs as I do to having them forced on you without any plans to expand the charging infrastructure and expanding the power generating capacity and the power grid. Economies move on having reliable and affordable transportation and once you don’t have that you have an economy that does not grow. This applies to any country. Just mandating EVs without planning for infrastructure will not work. If we outlaw the sale and production of ICE without infrastructure for EVs then we will be like Cuba fixing up our aging ICE vehicles and driving them forever.

  • avatar
    Archistorian

    Hadn’t visited The Truth About Cars comments in a while. I have been coming here since 2007 for enlightened discussions about cars and just fun. I now find that the comment section has turned into a “cesspool” (to quote one of the commentators above) of right-wing nastiness. This shouldn’t be a place for politics, especially the nasty, divisive type. The comment section is in need of moderation.

  • avatar
    Ecomaster

    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.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      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.

      • 0 avatar
        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……

  • avatar
    Ecomaster

    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.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      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.

      • 0 avatar
        Ecomaster

        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.

        • 0 avatar
          CammerLens

          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.”

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “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?

          • 0 avatar
            Ecomaster

            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”.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “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 = 5,6704×10^-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.

          • 0 avatar
            Ecomaster

            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.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • dantes_inferno: Ban cows
  • dal20402: KBB had it in the high 18s at the beginning of the year and now in the 22s. I’m sure part of that is...
  • probert: The government should protect them – regulating predatory practices is something government should do....
  • 28-Cars-Later: Then get one more year out of it before something expensive breaks.
  • 28-Cars-Later: Your Bolt? Carvana has them listed out your way for 21,9-22,9, were they retailing for much less?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber