this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023

414 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

59708 readers

1960 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

414

Canada to announce all new cars must be zero emissions by 2035 (www.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canada to announce all new cars must be zero emissions by 2035::Canada expects to announce this week that all new cars will have to be zero emissions by 2035, a senior government source said, as Ottawa is set to unveil new regulations in the latest example of countries around the world pushing for electrification.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 55 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Hope Canada has the political will to make this an actual reality.

I don't think these kill all internal combustion engine by a set date policies are going to really work out. We're still in the "incentivize people stage" of switching not the "kill it off internal combustion engine completely stage". Most people don't buy new cars cuz they're just too expensive and there aren't a lot of used EV's that are affordable out there currently.

And before anyone says I don't get the whole thing. I own an EV, I think there's quite a long way to actually convince people to get them as a replacement.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago (3 children)

We're talking about 11 years in the future, and there's a ramp up included in the legislation. That's a long time, 11 years ago Tesla started selling the Model S, basically kicking off the current EV industry.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Definitely. A country who does this will be like Cuba is with all the old vehicles, and people doing everything they can to maintain them.

[–] azertyfun 8 points 11 months ago

That's a good thing in many ways. Environmentally a huge chunk of the problem lies in the manufacturing of new cars, and it's even worse with electric ones. Current ICE should be kept running for decades, not replaced at all costs.

Now of course you then get into spikier debates when you look at who actually bears the cost of the transition. When poor people with street parking end up subsidizing rich people's electric cars (as is currently the case where I live), we have a problem IMO. Not a new one; people who don't drive have been getting shafted for decades. But now it's getting worse!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think that really depends where you are. If you're in the US, sure. The US is far behind on infrastructure. If you're in Europe, it's much more viable. They have a lot more infrastructure (including much better public transportation) and EVs are actually viable as a replacement.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Policies like this are not to help the consumer but to push the manufacturers. A typical major redesign is every 5-6 years so this gives them about 2 generations for each model. It gives them some time to ramp up but no more excuses. Most importantly, if that’s all they’re allowed to sell then they need to figure out how to make them sellable.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 11 months ago

Love this, but fucking hate having to deal with all the push back from Polievre, the Conservatives, Alberta, etc. Just hate seeing political ads masquerading as polls, or oil and gas companies trying to greenwash themselves, or the endless amount of idiotic comments from people who still don't believe in climate change.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Yah, this is something conceived in a urban environment with high population density, and relatively warm weather, like Vancouver and Toronto.

It ignores about 95% of the country that has no mass transit and hits -20 and lower for 6 months of the year. There will need to be absolutely massive investments in technology for cold weather EV and power infrastructure to deliver a huge uptick in charging power across a massively spread out country. And our sources for renewable energy are pretty much used up, hydro hasn't got a lot of possibilities left. Solar is awesome, but not a great producer this far north. Wind is only viable in a few localized spots and then you hae to get the power to the users from there.

Typical virtue signalling bullshit that's not even vaguely realistic.

I have 27kW of solar panels , 5 days of battery storage on my house, extremely low energy usage (10kWh/day), and I still have to fire up the genny this time of year about once a week. And I don't have to charge an EV.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

The reason you know nothing will be done about this is that they didn't set a small goal for the next few years, it's another one of those multi-decade lofty goals towards which nothing will be done and at the end will be said it's unrealistic. Like when Germany said the same.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Technically, with HVO, diesel engines can run without emissions. So "EV only" is not necessarily what this means...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

If they set a 10 year goal it may take 20 years to hit 80% of goals, if they set a 20 year goal it'll take 40 years to hit 50%, if they set a 50 year goal...

Nobody thinks this is a realistic goal, but the target gives a concrete number to set a mandate on which actually pragmatic policies, funding projects, and incentives can hang their hat on to keep the ball rolling.

With big infrastructure developments, nobody wants to buy into realistic goals, it's too costly, and there's never enough political will. You set overly ambitious goals so you can get people to buy in and then the project is too big to fail, so you end up paying what it actually costs, and you try to mitigate waste, unanticipated problems, corruption, and poor management along the way.

[–] themelm 3 points 11 months ago

We'll just have to carry gas generators on our electric trucks to drive to work in the bush I guess.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’d like to say better late than never, but in this case late may end up with the same result as never. Once the ice caps have melted, they can’t melt any further.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Sure they can. Look at Venus.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Does break dust count as an emission?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

*brake

And it should, it's fairly toxic. Fortunately EV's primarily and almost exclusively use regen.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Then there's tire and road wear, which increase substantially with the heavier weight of EVs.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Not if we implement a weight tax on trucks and SUVs

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I've commented on this before, though I couldn't find it to plagiarise myself.

Ford puma ICE: 1280KG
Nissan leaf BEV: 1580KG
Ford F150: 2134 KG
Range Rover: 2513KG

Honestly, tax weight and emissions. Emissions tax the energy put in the vehicle, and charge extra for high emissions in dense areas.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It’s really not as much as people make it out to be. I read something estimating an equivalent EV should be 20% heavier at our current technology, although some vehicles are much less efficiently designed and you have the monstrosity that is the Hummer

My Tesla seems like it’s about that although there’s really no ICE vehicle to directly compare to. However the important thing is it weighs much less than the pickups and full sized SUVs that all too many people drive. Feel free to advocate for taxes or fees based on weight and I’ll agree, secure in knowing my EV is lighter than half the population’s ICE cars and that it’s fair. The tendency (at least in US) is more of a problem than the extra weight of an EV.

If we consider the specific problem of road wear, it’s also a much smaller to non-existent problem than people think. Yes, road wear is relative to weight but cars are on the flat part of the curve where a few hundred pounds makes no real difference compared to road wear dominated by big trucks

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Of the direct operational sources of pollution:

co2 - none
ozone and exhaust particulates - none
brake dust - almost none
oil and fuel leaks - none
tire dust - 20% more

EVs may not be perfect but they’re a HUGE improvement.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Even the 20% more tyre wear... That should mean I need to replace tyres faster. I've had one new set in 5 years on my EV (at about year 4). My old car was every other year. Sure compounds change, but I'm just not seeing more tyre wear.