this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10248 readers
677 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
30
Ottawa expected to release promised EV sales regulations Tuesday (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by bzarb8ni@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sales targets meant to ensure automakers ramp up EV production to keep up with demand, says source

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Unless the regulations are about forcing automakers to release economy level cars (less than $35K) not just home-theater-on-wheeles models, this isn't going to change much.

As wages fall farther behind Canada's insane cost of living no one is going to be able to afford a new EV (or we will end up with 25 year car mortgages). So the financial elite will get their EVs while the rest of us are left to fight for a dwindling supply of used ICEs for which there will be no parts and no manufacture support.

We don't need EVs we need affordable EVs. Get rid of the fucking home theater in the dash, offer a basic interior with manual windows, locks and seats, make a car that doesn't cripple you financially.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

I'm wondering if that's what this legislation will do.

It's focused on ensuring that a target % of all cars a manufacturer sells be electric. And in order to do that, they need to get more people to choose to buy electric.

They can achieve that by raising the prices of their ICE vehicles and selling less overall volume, but the proportion of EVs would be higher. or the seemingly easier option would be to create more cheaper EV options that people are interested in buying.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Plus, making those budget cars would be a little lighter (less motors and electronics), require less precious metals (less electronics), and therefore be more a little more energy effecient as well as cheaper to maintain (less electronics to replace).

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Fewer electronics to replace doesn't matter if we have no right to third party repairs. many EVs are locked down, so they have you over a barrel on replacement part pricing.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are many models under 35k after incentive, add to that the fuel economy and if you can afford to pay 35k + gas for a car, you can afford 40k after incentive for an electric car, especially if you plan on financing it, saving 2.5k a year in gas for five years, that's 12.5k saved in total.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Most people can't afford $35K for a new car.

Fewer and fewer people can afford the lease or finance payments on a new car, period, and fewer people can afford homes where they can charge an EV, while landlords can max out the rent all they like without having to spend on frills like chargers.

Meanwhile, we're reducing taxes and shovelling grants at the rich to build housing that they won't build, that'll require people to buy cars that they can't afford because we aren't going to build that new housing in a way that's suited to public transit--which we aren't going to build anyway.

The housing/transport/fiscal-policy clusterfuck is fractally shortsighted: it looks shortsighted when you first look at, but it gets more and more shortsighted in new and interesting ways the closer you zoom in.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The fundamental problem is that battery powered EVs, or BEVs, need vast amounts of raw material when manufactured. That basically guarantees that BEVs are never going to be cost effective once you get past small and short-ranged cars. That ensures that BEVs are simply not going to be the main type of cars. They are really ideal for things like e-bikes or golf carts, not larger vehicles like SUVs or commercial vehicles.

In reality, society needs to focus on non-BEV forms of zero emissions transportation. Ideally, that means more mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. But for situations where the car is unavoidable, it is almost certain that we have to find a true replacement for conventional ICE cars. If not e-fuels, then something like hydrogen cars.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The "vast amounts of raw material" used in battery manufacturing are nothing compared to the raw petroleum required to fuel and lubricate an ICE for it's lifetime. Also the metals used in batteries can be nearly 100% recycled, forever, once an industry gets built up around it. We could do it today but the process as it is, is energy intense (solved by using renewable energy sources). If the rest of the vehicle was designed by non-shitheads it's possible to have a car that can be economically torn down and recycled in a closed loop like beer cans and bottles.

But no ethically designed car will ever be sold in Canada for the same reason that walkable cities and mass transit will never be prioritized. Crooked, ineffective politicians and a crazy vocal right wing.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

That's actually a dubious claim, given how much fossil fuels are needed in the mining and production of battery related materials. Same is true of battery recycling. It also needs significant amounts of fossil fuels.

But the main point is that the alternatives, such as e-fuels or hydrogen, require nearly zero fossil fuels or problematic raw materials. Even steel can be made from hydrogen-based reduction instead of needing fossil fuels. So it is a massive improvement over BEVs, in a way that BEVs probably can never hope to match.

The ideal solution will always be getting rid of the car entirely. We should always be pushing all alternatives. But we should not be trapped in the "EV now!" mentality for the car itself. It is not really solving any problem except for a minor reduction in oil consumption.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

CBC News has learned that Ottawa will release final regulations it says will ensure that all new passenger cars sold in Canada by 2035 are zero-emission vehicles, a senior government source said.

The source — who was not authorized to speak publicly — said the new regulations are meant to ensure that automakers produce enough affordable zero-emissions vehicles to meet the demand.

"Instead of attempting to dictate what individuals have to purchase, we suggest that the government create the right set of circumstances to stimulate demand," said Tim Reuss of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, which represents Ford, Stellantis and General Motors, said automakers are committed to electrifying their production.

According to the draft regulatory analysis, the policy will be challenging for "northern and remote communities" and it notes that the government "is continuing to evaluate measures that could help facilitate this transition."

"EVs are a big money saver for Canadian households," said Joanna Kyriazis, the director of public affairs for Clean Energy Canada.

The original article contains 893 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We've still got to contend with the horrible environmental effects of tire dust - EV or ICE.

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One crisis at a time PLEASE. Affordable EVs first, THEN flying cars.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Trains. Trains are the solution.

The answer has been right in front of us the entire time!

[–] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Why... EVs are literally green washing while also being more dangerous because of the added weight. Can't we wait for a better alternative? I think hydrogen cars are already a better looking option, they fill up quickly and they don't require a brunch of rare minerals mined by exploited children. Unless they consider hydrogen as EVs which they are...

And even there, replacing ICE cars with EV cars will not change a thing in the long run. we need to ban cars altogether to solve the real environmental problems

[–] Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes a car free society should be the end goal but this will take a lot of time. We literally CANNOT wait for a better alternative, we needed to get rid of gas ten years ago.

Daily reminder that "EVs aren't a perfect solution yet" argument is what the oil industry is pushing, so they can maximise profits for an other decade at the detriment of all of us.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago

Saying we "cannot wait" just means we have to move faster with better alternatives. We cannot just settle on a impractical and ultimately doomed idea. The oil industry is the ultimate winner if we are stuck with BEVs. It just means millions of people will have zero options for transportation, eventually leading to a political situation where governments around the world will have allow the continued existence of fossil fuel cars.