Federal Government & Politics II

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are thousands of charging stations already installed in apartments and condos, and every new apartment parking garage has some, and in some municipalities, all the stalls equipped with chargers. Office building parkades have chargers. Public parking garages are installing chargers. Gas stations are installing chargers. In parts of Europe, and the UK where ev sales have taken off, public charging stations have become a stand-alone business.

Norway has gone from under 200,000 EVs in the country in 2018, to 600,000 last year (which is already over 20% of passenger vehicles on the road). Last year EVs were 88% of all vehicle sales in the country.

Yes, isn’t it amazing what Norway can do by giving incentives to EV buyers thanks to the wealth they rack up by peddling oil. #hypocrites

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, isn’t it amazing what Norway can do by giving incentives to EV buyers thanks to the wealth they rack up by peddling oil. #hypocrites

Aren't we doing the same thing in a roundabout way?

Indeed, our approach is substantially more frugal. None of the generous incentives in Norway or extremely high taxes for gas cars. Just a mandate on OEMs to deliver.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

It is odd how the naysayers all seem to forget how much ICE vehicles have evolved and improved, not just since their introduction, but even in the last decade - as if EVs would somehow be exempt from this same process of refinement.

You don't even have to look at ICEVs. Just look at EVs. We're 12 years away from 2035. The best selling EV 12 years ago was the Nissan Leaf. The popular eco-car was the Prius. Given the investments now pouring into R&D and manufacturing, just imagine where we'll be in 2035.

But of course, people just want to complain. Driven by motivations that are anything but concern about the tech. Usually:

1) Hatred of the Liberals. So all Liberal policy is automatically bad. No coherent and informed criticism needed.

2) Climate denialism. This ranges from the borderline flat earther type of "More CO2 is good for plants!" to the soft denial type, "It's real and we should do exactly nothing about it."

Meanwhile, politics aside, it's a pretty moderate policy given the inclusion of plug-ins and given that the country is already on track to meet it. It's also a target shared with states making close to half the auto market in the US.

Honestly, I despair with discussions like this. It's also the same lot who think we used to be able to do big things as a country before. How do they think we did those things?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

2) Climate denialism. This ranges from the borderline flat earther type of "More CO2 is good for plants!" to the soft denial type, "It's real and we should do exactly nothing about it."

Or "we're only 2% of global emissions it makes no difference."

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Aren't we doing the same thing in a roundabout way?

Indeed, our approach is substantially more frugal. None of the generous incentives in Norway or extremely high taxes for gas cars. Just a mandate on OEMs to deliver.

True but Norway is really more dependent on oil than Canada, hence the hypocrisy. Herring only buys you so many EVs.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Docere

Or "we're only 2% of global emissions it makes no difference."

Yeah and India and China increase their emissions by more than our total each year. Most years by a lot.

We are like Pembroke taking turns to flush our toilets while Ottawa dumps their raw sewage into the river totally untreated and we think the beaches will be better for swimming if we just make more sacrifices.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

True but Norway is really more dependent on oil than Canada, hence the hypocrisy. Herring only buys you so many EVs.

Norway is investing wisely in a future that doesn't rely on oil, and the amount of oil produced has fallen by 40% over 20 years. Canada has doubled production in the same 20 years - we now put over three times as much oil into the world to burn as Norway. (Canada's commercial fisheries are worth more than Norway's too).

[Docere]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah and India and China increase their emissions by more than our total each year. Most years by a lot.

We are like Pembroke taking turns to flush our toilets while Ottawa dumps their raw sewage into the river totally untreated and we think the beaches will be better for swimming if we just make more sacrifices.

Is this supposed to be a clever rejoinder?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Norway is investing wisely in a future that doesn't rely on oil, and the amount of oil produced has fallen by 40% over 20 years. Canada has doubled production in the same 20 years - we now put over three times as much oil into the world to burn as Norway. (Canada's commercial fisheries are worth more than Norway's too).

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...23-2022-10-06/

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Docere

Is this supposed to be a clever rejoinder?

No it's an analogy to show how ridiculous our climate change policy is.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...23-2022-10-06/

https://www.reuters.com/markets/comm...rs-2023-08-23/

[Build.It]

One of the things Poilievre said in his interview with Rex Murphy which made a lot of sense is that Canada should be focusing its efforts on building nuclear plants here and across the rest of the rest of the world. Apparently Canada has some of the highest concentrations of nuclear engineers in the world. Additionally we should be developing our natural gas production and exporting it to countries which currwntly use coal fired plants. This would make a much more significant global impact to reduce carbon emissions than to tax our own citizens to death. The goal should be to use what we have to help other much higher emitting countries reduce their emissions.

Not saying we shouldnt reduce our own emissions as well, but lets be real... we could drop our emmissions to 0 and it wouldn't make a dent. One additional year of China's industrialization will undo anything we do.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Build.It

One of the things Poilievre said in his interview with Rex Murphy which made a lot of sense is that Canada should be focusing its efforts on building nuclear plants here and across the rest of the rest of the world. Apparently Canada has some of the highest concentrations of nuclear engineers in the world. Additionally we should be developing our natural gas production and exporting it to countries which currwntly use coal fired plants. This would make a much more significant global impact to reduce carbon emissions than to tax our own citizens to death. The goal should be to use what we have to help other much higher emitting countries reduce their emissions.

Not saying we shouldnt reduce our own emissions as well, but lets be real... we could drop our emmissions to 0 and it wouldn't make a dent. One additional year of China's industrialization will undo anything we do.

Building alternatives to any form of burning stuff is a great idea. The entire world needs to stop burning coal, oil, gas, hydrogen, and anything else that creates more CO2. Building more net zero energy production, and the related infrastructure, is critical. Solar and wind can be built in far less time than nuclear, or hydro, and these days more cheaply too, so they should be encouraged (and not 'paused', or prevented).

Unless there's genuine, measurable and scaleable carbon capture technology, (which there isn't any sign of yet), China has to stop burning stuff as soon as possible. But so does Canada, and we need to stop exporting stuff that others burn too.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Building alternatives to any form of burning stuff is a great idea. The entire world needs to stop burning coal, oil, gas, hydrogen, and anything else that creates more CO2. Building more net zero energy production, and the related infrastructure, is critical. Solar and wind can be built in far less time than nuclear, or hydro, and these days more cheaply too, so they should be encouraged (and not 'paused', or prevented).

Unless there's genuine, measurable and scaleable carbon capture technology, (which there isn't any sign of yet), China has to stop burning stuff as soon as possible. But so does Canada, and we need to stop exporting stuff that others burn too.

For a middle income country currently burning coal, replacing their coal plants with natural gas is a great step in right direction, and much more affordable than nuclear, for example. The end goal is net zero, but that doesn't happen overnight. There are steps in between.

The goal is to reduce emmissions. Natural gas has a role to play in that equation. In Canada it would be a step ba kwards, but for South Africa it would be an improvement.

When people talk about a climate plan, the only way to measure should be how much did country X help reduce global emissions. Climate change is a global issue, not a Canadian one, and also not a political one. Government intervention isn't what's going to solve it. Engineering and technology will. Government has gotten in the way of that for the most part.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Build.It

For a middle income country currently burning coal, replacing their coal plants with natural gas is a great step in right direction, and much more affordable than nuclear, for example. The end goal is net zero, but that doesn't happen overnight. There are steps in between.

The goal is to reduce emmissions. Natural gas has a role to play in that equation. In Canada it would be a step ba kwards, but for South Africa it would be an improvement.

When people talk about a climate plan, the only way to measure should be how much did country X help reduce global emissions. Climate change is a global issue, not a Canadian one, and also not a political one. Government intervention isn't what's going to solve it. Engineering and technology will. Government has gotten in the way of that for the most part.

I take it you've never heard of universities or basic research (or the Pentagon).

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Don't count out the idea of an ongoing travel log being used with automatic transmission to either Revenue Canada or the provincial MOT. This provides far more granular data, and could be used for such things as automatic collection of bridge/road tolls and congestion fees as well.

Also, law enforcement would love to see exactly when and where your car has been travelling when conducting criminal investigations.

One can never be too paranoid when it comes to the government.

And don't carry a smartphone hehe.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Government intervention isn't what's going to solve it. Engineering and technology will. Government has gotten in the way of that for the most part.

In a lot of domains we don't have a technology problem. We have an adoption problem. And government intervention absolutely helps.

90% of the public doesn't need full size gas/diesel pickups and SUVs to get groceries from Costco every weekend. But automakers sell them those vehicles because those are the most profitable products for automakers. Tell the automakers they have to sell 20% of their customers BEVs and PHEVs and either they'll market some customers towards BEV/PHEV cars to keep sales up or they'll accept lower margins and make EV pickups and SUVs.

And given that this mandate lines up with the timelines of nine large American states that are close to half the US auto market, this intervention is effectively market making for EVs that speeds adoption along and pushes further cost declines. But of course, absolutists as usual will fight and fearmonger on each every regulation cause it's not about tech or climate change anymore. But apparently all about culture wars.

Honestly, as an engineer who has actually taken some cleantech courses at the graduate level, half the time when I hear, "We need better tech...", I know what will follow is technologically illiterate politically motivated screed. Most people have no idea how far along the tech is, how much is being built and deployed, and that the big issues are usually scalability and markets (which drive reinforcing cycles), not the tech itself. "We need better tech," is just a stalling tactic now. And not one that anybody with the slightest amount of knowledge doesn't see through.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In a lot of domains we don't have a technology problem. We have an adoption problem. And government intervention absolutely helps.

.

To add to this we also live in a rather large country and outside of major centres we absolutely require government intervention to assist with infrastructure delivery even when the tech is readily available.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In a lot of domains we don't have a technology problem. We have an adoption problem. And government intervention absolutely helps.

90% of the public doesn't need full size gas/diesel pickups and SUVs to get groceries from Costco every weekend. But automakers sell them those vehicles because those are the most profitable products for automakers. Tell the automakers they have to sell 20% of their customers BEVs and PHEVs and either they'll market some customers towards BEV/PHEV cars to keep sales up or they'll accept lower margins and make EV pickups and SUVs.

And given that this mandate lines up with the timelines of nine large American states that are close to half the US auto market, this intervention is effectively market making for EVs that speeds adoption along and pushes further cost declines. But of course, absolutists as usual will fight and fearmonger on each every regulation cause it's not about tech or climate change anymore. But apparently all about culture wars.

Honestly, as an engineer who has actually taken some cleantech courses at the graduate level, half the time when I hear, "We need better tech...", I know what will follow is technologically illiterate politically motivated screed. Most people have no idea how far along the tech is, how much is being built and deployed, and that the big issues are usually scalability and markets (which drive reinforcing cycles), not the tech itself. "We need better tech," is just a stalling tactic now. And not one that anybody with the slightest amount of knowledge doesn't see through.

Sorry I don't buy the blame the corporations for the ubiquitous SUV and trucks. While they are more profitable so sure there is some push but the consumer leads on this. You can buy a Kia Soul if you need to get groceries they have lots on the lot waiting to be purchased. EVs have higher inventory levels than ICE cars right now and by a lot. Sure some is crazy products like the F-150 Lightning but the Nissan Leaf is certainly available if you want to buy a lawnmower that is electric and pay $10k more than a Nissan Versa. Tesla doesn't keep inventory per se but the waiting lists have evaporated despite price cuts.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Build.It

One of the things Poilievre said in his interview with Rex Murphy which made a lot of sense is that Canada should be focusing its efforts on building nuclear plants here and across the rest of the rest of the world. Apparently Canada has some of the highest concentrations of nuclear engineers in the world. Additionally we should be developing our natural gas production and exporting it to countries which currwntly use coal fired plants. This would make a much more significant global impact to reduce carbon emissions than to tax our own citizens to death. The goal should be to use what we have to help other much higher emitting countries reduce their emissions.

Not saying we shouldnt reduce our own emissions as well, but lets be real... we could drop our emmissions to 0 and it wouldn't make a dent. One additional year of China's industrialization will undo anything we do.

"Build nuclear" sounds like a great idea but it's one that's not as realistic as "build solar" or "build wind", both of which are cheaper, quicker, and don't face nearly the regulatory hurdles.