B.C. introduces law to require cars, trucks sold by 2040 be zero emission

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-introduces-law-to-require-cars-trucks-sold-by-2040-be-zero-emission-1.5093110

by Tiktaalik • 7 years ago

231 221 7 years ago

cbc.ca

mistrial92• 7 years ago

the USA was pointed to do this under the Obama Administration; only speculation here, but perhaps the Volkswagon emissions scandal was influenced by this insider fight, as well

getting quick downvotes on this -- maybe mistaken for a partisan statement. This comment is not taking sides, only pointing out that a massive "sea change" in auto regulations was in the making, for years, but never in the public view, and perhaps it was substantial enough to change the course of the Presidential Election

ok! I provide factual evidence (below) and still get downvotes ! the mere mention of 'sea-change' auto regulations, makes the messenger the target..? curiously non-sensical amongst such a tech crowd

tareqak• 7 years ago

Could you please point me to the massive “sea change” in auto regulations?

mistrial92• 7 years ago

try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standar...

sctb2• 7 years ago

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

grawprog3• 7 years ago

So I guess anyone out anywhere beyond the lower mainland is screwed after 2040?

There's a lot of BC that's far away from sources of power.

But then again, the BC government might as well be the Metro Vancouver government. They really give such a small amount of shits about anybody living outside the lower mainland.

ForHackernews2• 7 years ago

If the IPCC is right, we're all screwed unless we cut global CO2 emissions in half by 2030. So...yes?

ed_balls• 7 years ago

Politicians like to create laws and make promises about the distant future which they cannot be held accountable for.

If they would really care they would tax all vehicles except electric and hybrids starting from 2025 and increase the tax every year, so be 2030 no one would buy pure ICE car unless they absolutely have to.

maxsilver6• 7 years ago

There's a lot of BC that's far away from sources of power.

How do they get power now? Anywhere that has electricity today could be charging electric cars today. And fuel cells exist, for the limited use cases where electricity isn't ideal

grawprog3• 7 years ago

It's more the hundreds of kilometers of wilderness between many communities in BC.

giarc• 7 years ago

I think what OP is saying is currently you can drive between communities and not have to worry about filling up (600km to a tank). If your EV only gets 400km, how are you going to get between those locations. As another commentor pointed out, there is a lot of time for charging stations to be built.

cgh• 7 years ago

I grew up in a very small, isolated place in northern BC. Power was produced by a diesel locomotive engine up on blocks that ran 24/7. Except when it didn't, normally in the dead of the very long winter.

sametmax• 7 years ago

2040 is pretty far away, plenty of time for the techs, markets and infrastructures to mature.

Besides, it's only about new ones. You'll still have 10 good years of second hand cars, probably 20 since anticipation will make people stock on models they think they'll sell well. And of course you'll have the obvious delay that is exceptionally given at the end of every single of those big shifts.

So 2040-60 seems a reasonable target given how important it is for humanity. And a deadline will give incentive to find solutions.

TheCoelacanth• 7 years ago

It's more of a rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic target. That is far too late to accomplish anything useful.

ghshephard• 7 years ago

I can't imagine there won't be exception for Northern BC, Farm/Industrial Vehicles, etc...

dugditches• 7 years ago

Literally the first line "All light-duty cars and trucks sold in British Columbia would have to be zero-emission by 2040 under legislation tabled Wednesday."

wrnu• 7 years ago

First paragraph says "All light-duty cars and trucks sold in British Columbia would have to be zero-emission by 2040 under legislation tabled Wednesday."

Side note, why do articles about legislation rarely include a link to the actual legislation?

Here it is: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-deb...

robbrit• 7 years ago

Sure, if you take today's technology and apply it to 2040 then it doesn't paint a pretty picture. However if you assume that technology will advance over 20 years, then things do look better. Battery technology, cost of solar and other off-the-grid energy sources, and electric vehicle supply chains have changed significantly since 2000, and will likely continue to do so by 2040. It's very difficult to predict what things will look like by then.

And yep, in places like BC where most of the population lives in cities, you tend to get laws much more oriented towards what city dwellers want.

Mirioron• 7 years ago

How significantly has battery technology really changed? As far as I can tell, batteries haven't become that much better. I don't see how they'll become that much better in the future either.

xattt2• 7 years ago

There’s a sense that individuals in rural areas will need to move into urban environments for the sake of climate change.

maxsilver6• 7 years ago

Sure, if you take today's technology and apply it to 2040 then it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Obviously, newer and improved tech would be even better, and if we have it, that's great. But I'm not convinced we need it.

Even if we were just stuck with today's 2019-era technology, we could still meet this mandate by 2040, just by widely deploying the green technology we already have on-hand today.

Rural and suburban communities don't need any reduction in quality of life to meet this mandate, we just need to deploy today's tech reliably out there.

kec3• 7 years ago

Is rooftop solar even viable in the northern half of the province? High latitudes get way less sun.

kevin_thibedeau• 7 years ago

You can't haul electricity into the wilderness.

johnwyles• 7 years ago

I'm sure there will be provisions in place for exceptions

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole.

temp-dude-87844• 7 years ago

There will a big market for used trucks unless they make further changes to the emissions and inspection laws. Also, AirCare was cancelled, so older vehicles aren't currently under as much scrutiny as a few years ago.

dbingham• 7 years ago

Yeah, and how are people in the rural areas of BC going to be doing if we don't hit zero emissions by 2050?

We need to be treating that as a hard limit. And yes, that means sacrifices, behavioral changes, and - probably - a drop in standard of living. Or at the very least, life that looks pretty different than it does now.

But the alternative is the natural world collapsing out from under us and society coming apart at the seams as a result.

soperj• 7 years ago

You realize the BC Government isn't even based in Metro Vancouver right?

grawprog3• 7 years ago

Yeah...tell them that. You'd think they were.

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

The NY state government isn't based in NYC either. That doesn't mean their wealth doesn't buy them outsize influence.

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

Look at it through their eyes. Screwing "those filthy hicks that hold us back" is a fringe benefit. They'd never admit it but they don't feel bad for making everyone else suffer, after all thats's what you get for voting for the "wrong" party.

Tiktaalik3• 7 years ago

Maybe the Greens who only hold three seats in urban/suburban Vancouver Island, but the NDP hold several seats in rural, interior BC and they're more supportive of BC's traditional resource economy.

switchbak6• 7 years ago

I think you're ascribing an intent that's just not there. Certainly I've never met anyone whose prime motivation was trying to screw rural folks. Certainly there are some people that are quite out of touch, but I think their heart is mostly in the right place.

In actual fact I've met many farmers, loggers, and even a friend in the petroleum industry that all take climate change very seriously.

Once you move away from partisanship, I think you'll find there's a lot of support for this even in places you wouldn't expect it.

refurb• 7 years ago

I was going to say the same thing. Lower Mainland? That could work.

Price George, BC? Yeah, no.

bdamm3• 7 years ago

Yeah, how would an electric car even carry enough energy to heat the cabin long enough to make it to McBride, Chetwynd, or Kitimat? Seems like a major stretch.

shereadsthenews• 7 years ago

Being far from everything is going to be a niche activity in the future. Most people will gather into settlements that are compact enough and large enough and few enough to be interconnected by electric rail.

That said, I prefer a carbon tax which allows each individual to make their own choices of how to spend their carbon budget. Perhaps you'd like to spend your carbon budget on driving all over BC, while I'd like to spend mine on eating beef or whatever.

TheRealPomax4• 7 years ago

Sure. But then again, if 20 years isn't enough time to build charge stations... actually, I'm not finishing that sentence: 20 years is more than enough to build charge stations where they're needed.

I mean, come on: if even Terrace already has three charge point, I'm pretty sure the rest of our province isn't some lame duck unable to build what is needed to meet the needs of the people who live where they live.

jammygit2• 7 years ago

Zero emission sounds nice, but Alberta next door gets its power largely from coal. Just because it isn't coming out of a car doesn't mean its zero emissions

wetpaws• 7 years ago

It's just one of many bottlenecks. You can't fix them all at the same time, unfortunately, gotta at least start somewhere.

bagacrap• 7 years ago

Yes, "zero" may be misleading, but displacing the emissions away from human settlement is a good thing for human health. And I assume that coal is on its way out, certainly in the 2040 timescale at least?

Gpetrium2• 7 years ago

Coal may be out in places like Canada by 2040 assuming great advances in technology, cost & major climate disruptions. However, it is very unlikely to be out for countries in Africa and Asia that are seeing tremendous increases in energy consumption that cannot be covered by other means of energy capture due to a variety of reasons.

krisrm• 7 years ago

"Alberta next door gets its power largely from coal"

If the government is to be believed, not by 2030 they won't: https://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.aspx

jgon• 7 years ago

We'll see what happens after the election, but the current government literally paid billions of dollars in order to EOL those coal plants by 2030, ahead of schedule. So the previous commenter isn't giving the whole story.

pietrovismara• 7 years ago

Still much better as pollution would be more concentrated in the plants area, while leaving cleaner air in the cities. Also most countries are shifting from coal, so the situation will probably be better also for Alberta by 2040.

pilsetnieks3• 7 years ago

Also, and I'm loath to even say this, but a coal plant + EVs are still more efficient than burning gas in a million questionably maintained internal combustion engines.

ip264• 7 years ago

EV & hydrogen both make the fleet fuel-agnostic. Coal today, yes. But ten years from now, it could be anything, and the cars won't care.

btian• 7 years ago

the article was talking about B.C.

Why are you talking about Alberta?

danbolt• 7 years ago

I was under the impression that Alberta and BC's energy consumption was quite interdependent. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_electricity_policy#Sup...

sintaxi3• 7 years ago

BC is powered with Hydro.

mikerg87• 7 years ago

This is an empty promise. BC, Ontario and many other provinces made emission reduction promises for 2020 back is the early 2000’s. It’s already clear these won’t be met, so I am dubious of the province to meet something this far off

sb057• 7 years ago

After all, the politicians passing this will be dead by then, or at the very least out of office, so why bother passing legislation that will actually fix stuff when you can just pass the problem to the next generation while still reaping the political benefits?

esaym• 7 years ago

And I think in the 1970's it was Jimmy Carter that demanded all cars get 40mpg by 1990 so...

dsfyu404ed5• 7 years ago

Compact cars (Tercel, Escort, Civic, etc) were getting 40mpg in 1990. If it weren't for the perpetual safety arms race making vehicles fat we'd likely have crossovers that get a real world 40-50mpg by now.

SECProto2• 7 years ago

BC, Ontario and many other provinces made emission reduction promises for 2020 back is the early 2000’s. It’s already clear these won’t be met, so I am dubious of the province to meet something this far off

What promises did BC make? I wasn't able to find the specific promises, so I can't tell what you mean.

BC is currently sitting at about -30% per capita CO2 emissions relative to 2000 [1]. Total emissions reduction isn't quite as impressive, but they have still reduced CO2 while increasing population and GDP.[2] Hard to say more without knowing what you're referencing, but it's still significantly better than most jurisdictions!

Ontario is not really the scope of these comments, but I took a look out of curiousity. Back in 2006, they set goals for 2014, 2020, 2030, and 2050. They met the 2014 goal [3], mostly through reduction of co2 emissions in the electricity sector. To meet the 2020 goals, they needed a bigger reduction, and had a strong plan[4] to meet it - subsidize electric cars, cap and trade industrial emissions, etc - but they elected a populist idiot who scrapped all that. So I agree that Ontario won't meet their 2020 goal.

[1] http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/sustainability/image...

[2] http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/sustainability/ghg-e...

[3] https://media.assets.eco.on.ca/web/2016/11/2016-Annual-GHG-R...

[4] https://media.assets.eco.on.ca/web/2016/11/2016-Annual-GHG-R...

whytaka2• 7 years ago

I'm sorry the non-sustainability of your lifestyle puts the world at risk.

lainga• 7 years ago

What are you suggesting, that everyone north of Prince George move to Surrey?

jedmeyers• 7 years ago

Now, they should just stop existing. Because “the world” is apparently at risk. As philosopher Carlin once said: “the planet is fine...”

rayiner2• 7 years ago

Unless you’re a subsistence farmer in Bangladesh, your lifestyle is unsustainable. The average Canadian or American produces 15-20 tons of CO2 annually. Even assuming electric generation is CO2-free, buying a Tesla instead of driving your current car another 7 years will put out 11-16 tons of CO2 per year. Ditching the car might get it down to 10-13, but only if you don’t replace that with Uber, food delivery, etc. In the Netherlands, a country of dense walkable and bikeable cities, the average person puts out 10 tons of CO2 annually.

You know what really cuts emissions? Poverty. The average Bangladeshi puts out just 0.5 tons of carbon Per Capita.

EDIT: Apparently BC is mostly powered by renewables. Edited math above to subtract CO2 from producing electricity, but add in cost of producing new car.

whytaka2• 7 years ago

You’re right. But I support legislation that aims to remedy that.

chollida1• 7 years ago

In a place like Canada, where electricity primarily comes from natural gas,

Come on, you don't just get to make up your own facts on the spot:)

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/electricity/20068

Total electricity generation in Canada in 2016 was 648 terawatt hours. Hydro has the highest share of generation at 59%, followed by nuclear at 15%, coal at 9%, gas/oil/others at 10% and non-hydro renewables at 7%.

beached_whale• 7 years ago

Most Canadians get their electricity from Hydro and Nuclear. Ontario and Quebec. With Wind up there too. In BC, the majority of its supply is renewable too. So there is 75% of the Canadian population.

The other provinces vary, but make up a minority.

jefftk• 7 years ago

Industrial carbon sequestration costs about $150/ton, so that's ~$3,000 to fully eliminate your carbon footprint. Yes, that's substantial, but it's also not like we would have to got to a subsistence farming standard of living in order to stop contributing to climate change.

(Offsets via getting others to stop emitting carbon, like methane capture on farms, are a lot cheaper but harder to be sure of the counterfactual impact.)

thatfrenchguy• 7 years ago

The average french person emits 4.57 metrics tons per capita (and there is diesel cars everywhere). One could argue they live better lives than most people in the US, and it's definitely not poverty.

gpm• 7 years ago

The "non-sustainable" non-urban lifestyles are essential for our society. How else do you expect to get food, minerals, lumber, hydro electricity (heh), and so on.

By all means, price in the externalities, use a carbon tax or something. But the idea that we shouldn't go to the middle of nowhere because it requires a CO2 emitting vehicle is ridiculous.

mikestew• 7 years ago

It's likely that your lifestyle requires mineral extraction workers to live in BumPhuck, B. C., along with those that support them. They're not necessarily living out there just for the wide open spaces, that's where the valuable rocks live. We all play our part, and we're in this together.

sctb2• 7 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19646040 and marked it off-topic.

yeahitslikethat3• 7 years ago

In BC today you can still run out of GAS very easily. I've done so in Alberta. At 2am. In February. I almost died.

TheRealPomax4• 7 years ago

...what? How is running out of gas in Alberta, a different province, related to running out of gas in BC?

yeahitslikethat3• 7 years ago

You can't find a similarity between Alberta and BC?

jkaljundi• 7 years ago

Way too late :(

gowld• 7 years ago

Is there a BC election soon?

Does Canadian provincial government have any power to bind future governments and citizens? Most jurisdictions do not.

This is exaggerated symbolic gesture. Future legislatures will adjust the deadline or reduce the requirements if they see a demand for positive-emission vehicles.

elchief• 7 years ago

There is not an election soon

The BC government is a coalition between the NDP and Green Party. This is the NDP throwing the Greens a bone for supporting them on other legislation

natch• 7 years ago

2030 should be totally doable. 2040 is so lax it's almost a joke. And there are ten years in between those two numbers. Hard to see why they pushed it out so far.

Zenbit_UX• 7 years ago

To be fair they had milestones in between now and 2040.

rdiddly3• 7 years ago

Ever notice how seemingly all the predictions and new regulations deal in a timeframe always conveniently 10 or more years into the future? Everybody embraces denial so eagerly, even the ones claiming to be confronting the problem. Coastal flooding, unprecedented storms & droughts, crop damage, streams of refugees... these are happening NOW, and even if you stopped driving TODAY, like leave the car right where it's parked, forever (which we all literally need to do) it wouldn't be enough to "stop" climate change, since the climate has changed, for one thing, and since driving isn't the only cause. Though it's an important one, and if you never drove again, it would help. Minimally. And most people, a.k.a. "you," are probably not even willing to do that.

This law, like most of the others, is well intentioned but still too weak; it's "provisional living" just like how a junky's plan to kick always starts tomorrow. Quitting an addiction is a pain in the ass, but hey, now that we have this great plan for 2040, we can continue business as usual today. And even this would be, politically, something of a miracle to get passed. You wouldn't even be able to get it out of committee in, say Texas.

rayiner2• 7 years ago

We don't just need to ditch our cars: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.h...

But the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.

standardUser3• 7 years ago

Energy isn't the problem, our dominant energy sources are the problem, as we all know.

Telling people they have to live like a homeless person isn't realistic, helpful, informative or true.

mac01021• 7 years ago

What is the nature of those emissions? Mostly from agriculture and food distribution?

stcredzero3• 7 years ago

For years, I've been telling people they probably couldn't even fart without a significant carbon footprint. Now I have proof.

sampo• 7 years ago

8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.

Emissions of EU are, on the average, 6.4 tons CO2 per capita. There is large variance between different countries, though.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

(But these numbers don't include the carbon footprint from goods imported from outside and consumed in the EU.)

blueadept111• 7 years ago

True, but it nonetheless encourages manufacturers to invest in zero emissions vehicles. Switching to clean energy can't happen overnight, and the real solution is population control, but it's still a signal in the right direction.

Having said that, I have no strong opinion on whether humanity is smart enough limit its own growth enough to avoid decimating all the other species and the natural balance, though if I had to guess I'd say "no". We seem to be kind of like locusts that way.

akiselev• 7 years ago

When the United States implemented corporate average fuel economy standards in 1975 - requiring all cars a manufacturer sold to average to a minimum fuel efficiency by 1978 - in response to the 73-74 oil embargo, they basically did just that. Little to no warning or time to prepare.

The end result? The US auto industry had to retool their factories and kill or redesign many of their products in order to meet the new standards (and many just paid the fines as long as they could). It was the largest change in the industry since WWII, and it destroyed almost all of their competitive advantage - outside of trucks which had relaxed standards - and resulted in decades of poor build quality that American cars are still disparaged for to this day. The Japanese and European automakers who operated mostly in markets that already demanded small cars weren't forced to retool and American car companies have been playing catchup ever since, without time to wind down their existing product lines and get the public used to small fuel efficient cars.

The fuel efficiency standards had to happen but the way in which they were implemented nearly brought down an entire industry, one that proved invaluable for national security during WWII when the allies needed to manufacture mountains of munitions and tanks. Governments can't implement huge policy changes without giving everyone time to adapt without causing massive unforeseen problems, ones which can only make the problem we're trying to solve a lot harder.

Brakenshire2• 7 years ago

I’d actually say the risk for the US is the other way round. European and Chinese manufacturers are going to jump on EV’s because of their domestic fleet economy standards, because of long-standing taxation on fuel, and because they are appropriate for domestic conditions with high population density, and American manufacturers risk carrying on producing gas guzzling SUV’s and being left behind. By the time electric cars are profitable at scale in the US, European and Chinese manufacturers will be producing tens of millions of units a year. The Chinese philosophy is “overtake on the bend” and they’re going to make the transition as sharp as they can.

mtgx• 7 years ago

and resulted in decades of poor build quality that American cars are still disparaged for to this day.

Wrong. The American carmakers failed to adapt to this new rule properly, while the Japanese carmakers fully embraced it and ended-up benefiting from it.

It's not so different from what's happening today with EVs. Some are pushing full-steam ahead for EVs, gaining all that know-how and expertise to build high-efficiency and high-reliability EVs with long ranges, while others drag their feet because they don't like change and they would rather keep milking their current ICE technology for decades more to come.

Guess which type of company is going to do very well in the future, and which will do poorly.

rdiddly3• 7 years ago

You're right that the hamfisted approach rarely works as intended. I'm basically saying, there's no approach that will work to everyone's satisfaction; that's why we will not end up confronting climate change, only adapting to its consequences. We're good at the latter, not so good at the former. I hope I'm wrong of course.

If I were in the mood to argue with you I would ask (about the 1975 legislation) Did it raise fuel efficiency standards, ¿sí o no? I don't have an undue amount of national pride and I don't work in the automotive sector, so I don't have a strong opinion about America even having an auto industry. The only reason I would want a domestic auto industry would be to save resources currently wasted on trans-oceanic shipping and to have more lucrative blue-collar jobs on US soil for people. Give them good jobs and they are less likely to turn delinquent in various ways including at the ballot box.

But the harsh fact is, to mitigate the present crisis, the entire auto industry would need to go away, forever, and not just in the US, but worldwide. I think the scope of the change to our daily way of life, that would be necessary to achieve a low carbon footprint, is hard for most people to imagine. The closest thing would be maybe homelessness. Which doesn't quite capture it, but is in the ballpark. Or maybe a return to quasi-feudalism, where you're a serf working some lord's land with hand tools to produce food. Jim Kunstler favors this vision. It's plausible enough as sci-fi although I think he might be being a bit sentimental. At any rate they're both situations people don't want to imagine. So, we simply don't imagine it.

eggonbeagle• 7 years ago

They refer to WWII and it needs to be noted that the industry--broader than just autos, had to retool, for war production. It was rapid. It was govt dictum and that self-same WWII engine that they cite did what it had to do. Now. The Carter years..the oil embargo- those cars were grossly inefficient. The threat was immediate and the extent and length of the oil crisis was unknown. I do not --after the fact--assign overblown blame on remedial action. It's was called a crisis because it was. wwII was a crisis..because it was..

lotsofpulp• 7 years ago

I find it difficult to accept reasoning that a law from 45 years ago is responsible for American car brands being low quality. They know perfectly well that the fatter margins are in trucks and SUVs, so that is where they focus their efforts.

astrodust• 7 years ago

We really don't have the luxury of waiting here. The stakes are too high.

skookumchuck• 7 years ago

resulted in decades of poor build quality that American cars are still disparaged for to this day.

The poor build quality was there before 1975. There was no sudden decline in 1975.

schaefer• 7 years ago

> even if you stopped driving TODAY, like leave the car right where it's parked, forever ... it wouldn't be enough

rdiddly - have you got a citation for that? more importantly - did you ride your bike today?

rdiddly3• 7 years ago

Not sure why that would be the most important, but yeah a bike has been my main mode, daily, year-round, for 27 years except for a few-month period in 1994 and again in 1998 and 2001. That includes commuting, regular grocery shopping, 2 years of Costco runs (trailer), and 5 years of transporting 120 lbs of music gear to gigs (trailer again). Haven't owned a car exclusively since 1987 and haven't owned a share of one since 1998. On the day you asked that, I walked instead though, because the destination was close enough and I was in the mood.

Edit: I also drove a cab for a couple of years, if you want to count that (but I biked to the garage).

Brakenshire2• 7 years ago

Ever notice how seemingly all the predictions and new regulations deal in a timeframe always conveniently 10 or more years into the future?

This isn’t correct, the EU and China both have fleet emission standards for cars which bite in 2021 at around 100-120 gCO2/km, which is already strict, and scale down from there. This is one of the reasons why VW is aiming to massively scale up EV production in the next few years.

kingkongjaffa2• 7 years ago

Historical legislation has been increasingly (not linearly) tough as well. https://imgur.com/a/O7mLqOp

eanzenberg• 7 years ago

Citation for >> Coastal flooding, unprecedented storms & droughts, crop damage ?

Looking for significant increase from baseline and root-cause being human-caused climate change.

metalchianti• 7 years ago

And streams of refugees? Surely they're not feeling from their war-torn home nations. This post is sensationalism and part of the reason why people don't take climate alarmists seriously.

__HYde• 7 years ago

Hasty and radical changes will certainly lead to even more harm.

chocolatebunny• 7 years ago

I'm curious as to what a realistic climate policy would be, if such a policy exists. We're generally acting too slowly reduce climate change but if we act too quickly there'll be a lot of social and political backlash. But as things get worse there will be more mass human migration which generates more social and political upheaval but not in a direction that would improve the environment.

lenticular• 7 years ago

The Paris agreement, even if it were implemented faithfully, was still woefully inadequate. Not only that, but the longer we wait, the more severe cuts will be necessary.

Because of these considerations and our previous track record, I just really don't see the world cooperating on this issue well enough to meaningfully cut emissions. Eventually, renewables will become much cheaper than fossil fuels. At that point, emissions will hugely drop just due to market forces. We'll already be locked into some pretty bad outcomes by then though.

tempestn• 7 years ago

A broad carbon tax with offsetting rebates would be a good start. It's a free market solution that requires minimal direct government intervention, and will have effects across all sectors. Start with a level that wouldn't be too great a shock, then ramp up on a pre-planned schedule so businesses and individuals can plan ahead.

BC implemented a carbon tax in 2008:

In 2008, the province implemented North America’s first broad-based carbon tax, proving that it is possible to reduce emissions while growing the economy. Between 2007 and 2015, provincial real GDP grew more than 17%, while net emissions declined by 4.7%. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-chang...

Obviously a 4.7% decline over a decade isn't enough, but it's better than a 17% or greater increase. Increasing the tax should increase the effect. (Of course, even with rebates making it revenue neutral, it will also cause some pain for those in industries that are heavy producers of greenhouse gasses, but unfortunately some amount of disruption is inevitable with the degree of change that is required.)

Also, allow for negative carbon tax on carbon extraction—there are already systems in place that can extract carbon from the air, and planned systems that should be able to do so for ~$100/tonne currently. This should keep improving, but if we rely on carbon extraction to be profitable without considering the positive externality, it will be needlessly delayed, and we need to get started scaling this up asap.

Finally, even with these changes, it's likely that some form of geoengineering will be required as a stopgap, to prevent temperatures rising to catastrophic levels while we're in the process of bringing CO2 emissions down, and then negative. So we should be doing small-scale testing of the most promising interventions (such as stratospheric aerosol injection) now, to prepare for when they're needed.

travisoneill1• 7 years ago

Best commentary I have read on the subject is from Bill Gates. Here's an example:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/qa-bill-...

kingkongjaffa2• 7 years ago

legislation hasn't been linearly more difficult to reach, it's actually been quite aggressive over the years to say we are setting "convenient" regulations just seems uninformed. The strides automakers and legislators have made have not been perfect but they have been very good.

https://imgur.com/a/O7mLqOp

eT8AZithxooKei62• 7 years ago

From the article:

"She says the legislation would set target dates of 10 per cent zero-emission sales by 2025, 30 per cent by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2040."

They are doing something within ten years.

Trying to ban all gas cars that quickly, apart from being infeasible, would be self-defeating because it would cause a backlash that would elect anyone who promised to undo the changes.

eT8AZithxooKei62• 7 years ago

Just for comparison, check out what Ontario is doing:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/gas-station-fine-carb...

"Gas stations in Ontario could be fined $10K/day if they don't display anti-carbon tax stickers."

dredmorbius• 7 years ago

California attempted a zero-emissions rule in 1990, with a target of 5% by 2001. That failed.

Industry has fought this for far too long. Tell that to your grandchildren, if you (will) have any.

For three decades, California has set the benchmarks for auto emission standards. But now, all that may be changing. In a series of recent cases, California's regulations have been challenged in court, not just by the auto industry, but by the federal government....

In 1990, the California Air Resources Board adopted a regulation requiring that 2% of new car sales by 1998. 5% by 2001 and 10% of all large automobiles sold from 2003 onward be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV's) — cars powered by electricity or alternative fuels, like hydrogen....

https://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html

cr0sh3• 7 years ago

And most people, a.k.a. "you," are probably not even willing to do that.

I'll be honest - right now, I fall into that camp. I enjoy driving. I enjoy my vehicles, both on and off the road. Probably not the right answer, but as you noted, even if I and everyone else stopped - it's too late. It was probably too late back when I was a child, and didn't even know how to drive.

But let's say I were willing. How am I to get to my job?

I live in Phoenix, Arizona - where in the summertime, midnight temperatures can easily break 100 degrees F; yes, it is literally possible here to fry an egg on the sidewalk during the daytime in the summer (you can use a slow cooker inside your car, too! multipurpose vehicles!).

I live approximately 30 minutes away from my work. Walking is out of the question. I could potentially bike to work - but my work doesn't have showers, nor are there any places nearby enough to shower and then ride to work (without needing to shower again). This of course assumes I won't die of heatstroke (but let's say I'm fit enough to avoid that).

You could say "well, you need to live closer to your work" - this would be great - if there were any homes nearby my work, which there really isn't. It's inside an industrial park area, that surrounds a municipal airport - not much in the way of houses; maybe some apartments (in very seedy areas, mind you - this area used to be a truckstop not too many years ago, and there are plenty of holdovers from that time).

Then comes the question of how to transport all of my crap from my house to this new (fictional) home, without having my own vehicle (and, since we've all stopped using them - well, not sure what you do then).

I suppose telecommuting might be an option - maybe in such a scenario as "no car for you...or you...or you" employers would go for that more? Not all jobs of course could do that...

I guess what I'm getting at is that here in the United States, for the most part outside of some very singular municipal areas - most people simply cannot easily do without a vehicle of some sort, whether for personal transportation, or to transport others.

Whatever ultimately happens, we're all probably going to be painfully forced into it. We won't have a choice, it likely won't be gradual. Imagery from Brin's Earth comes to mind. In the end, we all very well might have to "leave everything parked" and simply walk away.

I don't think it's going to be pretty.

CydeWeys• 7 years ago

Just get an electric car? What's so hard about your situation?

sandworm1012• 7 years ago

I'm in much the same camp. I'm in the military. So I live only a few miles from work and have plenty of shower/locker facilities. I could very easily ride a bike. I sometimes walk to work. But I don't have the luxury of a regular workday. Sometimes I need to get to work NOW, an asap situation. Sometimes I work 16-hour days and any time waiting for public transport means less time sleeping. Sometimes I have to bring 100lbs of stuff with me. I just cannot see how any sort of public transport would ever be practical.

An electric car would probably work for me on a daily basis, but I also have family to visit that are 500+ km away (in woods, no trains/bus options). Somtimes I have to go to training events at locations many hundreds of KM away. I cannot afford to own two vehicles. So until EVs can do both daily commutes and long weekend road trips, my one car will remains IC.

clouddrover• 7 years ago

I could potentially bike to work - but my work doesn't have showers

You could perhaps use an electric bicycle, electric moped, or a 1+1 two-seater like a Renault Twizy:

https://www.renault.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/twizy.html

All cheaper options than a full sized electric car and still pretty practical to get around in.

sintaxi3• 7 years ago

Coastal flooding, unprecedented storms & droughts, crop damage, streams of refugees

None of these claims are true. Sea level is stable. Storms and droughts are more moderate than ever recorded. Crops and food production is amazingly abundant and constantly improving. There are fewer wars now than at any other known point in history.

martinpw• 7 years ago

Sea level is stable

What are you talking about? Even the most ardent denialists do not deny sea level is rising. More recent data show the rate of increase is accelerating. Hard to take anything else you say seriously after that.

baron_harkonnen3• 7 years ago

Sea level is stable

Wow, this level of denial is amazing. You can literally see how the rising sea level is effecting parts of the US. If you live on the East coast it's not too hard see the rising sea level with your own eyes. Driving along the NH coast for example and you can see a huge number of "beach front" homes for sale with water on both sides of 1A and in the front lawns of all of these [1].

Miami is another place where sea level rise is having a visible affect on the city [2].

Tangier Island in Virginia is disappearing [3] you can look it up on Google Earth time lapse and literally watch it yourself.

[1] https://www.nhpr.org/post/rising-seas-are-already-costing-nh...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-...

[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/09/clima...

pif• 7 years ago

The climate changed, that's a fact. Driving partially caused it, that's a fact.

So what?

The climate changed, that's it! Learn to cope with it.

amanaplanacanal• 7 years ago

I think the idea is to try to prevent further changes in the same direction.

youeseh• 7 years ago

Sounds like the BC wants to have their cake and eat it too. By 2040, most cars and trucks will be zero emissions. So, this law doesn't so much speed up good behavior but just pushes out the stragglers.

sunkenvicar• 7 years ago

British Columbia is a million square kilometres for 5 million people. 3 million of whom live in urban areas along the 49th parallel. This is to say that BC is a vast, rugged, rural land. Running out of gas is easy to do and quite deadly.

The political parties in charge want to give well-off urbanites $5000+ each for premium vehicles. Vehicles incapable of functioning in the majority of the province. Somehow a few rich Canadians no longer filling up at the pump will halt climate change for the world.

seanalltogether• 7 years ago

Governments have tremendous purchasing power that they can use to push for better technology. Why write empty laws like this when they can instead hand down a directive that all BC government fleet purchases starting in 2020 be zero emission.

ttul• 7 years ago

There is a lot of criticism of this legislation. Here it is:

https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-deb...

Paragraph 9 is what everyone's talking about, but the general approach of the bill is to implement a gradual increase in the fraction of ZEVs sold each year until the final cut-off in 2040. Specifically:

7 The following targets are established for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia: (a) in 2025 and in each subsequent year, at least 10% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles; (b) in 2030 and in each subsequent year, at least 30% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles; (c) in 2040 and in each subsequent year, 100% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles.

In addition to these hard targets, BC has a carbon tax and the ability to increase the carbon tax rate over time to provide a more efficient incentive for residents to make use of ZEVs - credits notwithstanding.

I prefer to crank up the carbon tax and allow people to make their own choices on how to reduce carbon production. However, I am not everyone. Many people hate the concept of a "tax" and it is politically more palatable to regulate auto dealers. Combining a moderate carbon tax (BC has one of the highest in the world) with targeted interventions like the ZEV vehicle target seems like a good approach.

mike_ivanov• 7 years ago

I'm wondering where the province is going to get electricity to charge all those cars. Solar? -- In BC?? Wind? Hey look at that thing on the Grouse Mountain. Surely they are not building a nuclear plant, are they?

patrickg_zill• 7 years ago

And just like Canada abandoned the Montreal (IIRC) goals just before they were due to take effect and destroy the economy, this law has no force or power until it actually goes into effect, starting 6 years from now.

Tldr : it's meaningless virtue signaling.

You want to clean up the planet? Start with the ten most polluted rivers, all in India or China, and the lead smelting industry which was forced to close in the US and then, predictably, moved to China...

B.C. introduces law to require cars, trucks sold by 2040 be zero emission

Related Stories