Bans this far into the future are so meaningless. They're a way for ostensibly progressive governments to act like they're doing something without upsetting anyone in power. Fourteen years from now, this will either happen without a ban even being necessary, or whatever government is in power will just say "well this obviously was unrealistic" and simply reverse the ban.
How far into the future would be both meaningful and realistic before banning the main product of a huge, mass market, capital intensive industry?
Anything past the current government's remaining term (< 5 years) can easily be dismissed as "unrealistic" by the next government, meanwhile at the moment pure electric alternatives to some types of vehicles, e.g. offroad SUVs, either don't exist, or at best are in the blindly-preorder-for-next-year-fingers-crossed stage.
With legislation like this popping up in many different jurisdictions, it is extremely unlikely that car manufacturers will just sit around in their lobbying chairs and hope for all the bans to be reversed everywhere. Every manufacturer sees the writing on the wall already thanks to such laws.
By all measures, it is better to pass this law now with a 15 year deadline than in 10 years but with a 5 year deadline. Passing it now with a 5 year deadline, or passing it 10 years ago with a 15 year deadline are not on the table. But the latter option will be on the table 10 years from now, since this law has just passed.
>How far into the future would be both meaningful and realistic before banning the main product of a huge, mass market, capital intensive industry?
Infinite or undefined.
You can't just ban the technology that underpins most transportation (which underpins the economy). It doesn't work like that. You can try. It won't work out well. You have to replace it with something better and let the lions share of the changeover be voluntary. Only then is it realistic to ban the remnants.
It will work out just fine. What's "better" in transportation is shaped to a large degree by government's policies, from taxes to incentives to investment in basic research and infrastructure to promises of future bans, yes.
True, the eradication of fossil fuel powered cars could have instead been achieved by means of an effective carbon tax. However, in Canada this is not politically feasible, the feds barely managed to pass a very small carbon tax that will not significantly affect demand on fossil fuel cars. Banning gas powered cars wholesale on the other hand is much more acceptable thanks to the 14 year lead time. Manufacturers are now incentivized to make their electric cars better, or risk losing business in many countries to others who do.
Leaded fuel, asbesthos, trans fats, supersonic planes, and a ton of other things were once legal, yet their replacements weren't "better" when seen through an egoistic free-market lens (asbesthos is still used in countries that didn't ban it).
> You have to replace it with something better and let the lions share of the changeover be voluntary. Only then is it realistic to ban the remnants.
Yeah, but replacing it with something better needs a lot of capital-intensive work to be done first.
The industry has a lot more incentive to perform that work now if the government sends a strong signal that only companies that did the work (eg switched to producing electric cars) will make money in the future.
Well that's why we have subsidies on electric car though. In canada it's almost a 10k$ discount so it does give all carmakers an incentive to fill that niche because the increased cost of an electric vehicule is partially covered by the gov.
Not necessarily. Making a technology of this magnitude "feasible" requires substantial investments on a scale that requires buy-in from politics and the populous.
Just look at how cars got where they are now. If cities had not invested in converting cobbled streets into asphalt streets [1], if nations had not invested in building highway networks, cars would not have been "feasible", as you say.
[1] In hindsight, asphalt may look like the only plausible solution for city streets, but it actually causes a bunch of problems with drainage and microclimate because it completely seals the surface. In cities where traffic relies more heavily on walking, bicycles and trams, you will see more cobbled streets because they work better in these aspects.
"Don't you think that if the alternative was feasible it would have already been implemented without coercion?"
No, probably not.
It would be very easy for industry to just chug along cars with combustion engines.
Nobody owns the market, and certainly nobody controls the vast value chains and incidental markets.
The more obvious issues are batteries and electricity production and distribution.
Tesla would not be possible without constant 'Climate Change Marketing' from government and other sources - and - subsidies, which are a non-market force.
There are too many variables to switch, and it works better if there is some kind of 'plan' - regulatory apparatus help shape that.
The 'lighter the better' I think in this case the timing of the announcement and phase out is just about right.
This comment almost seems to willfully satirize libertarianism. Does it follow that if a goal hasn't been accomplished without a state mandate, it must be impossible?
It might be in this particular case, but to be convincing we would need to show our work, or at least make a more specific argument.
I disagree. It sends a clear signal to combustion vehicle manufacturers that they waited long enough and it’s time to adapt or die. Arguably, 2030 would be a better date considering the atmospheric CO2 saturation level, but it is what it is.
I will even go so far as to argue that Tesla was the catalyst for demonstrating this should be done (with EVs that are at parity with combustion vehicles in some ways, and better in some ways).
Manufacturers aren’t going to do nothing in the hopes that literally every country on earth elects someone that is petrol friendly. Even if Canada has a change, if the US, UK, EU, etc all enact similar laws, they aren’t going to make IC engines for just Canada and electric everywhere else. Their entire game is economies of scale.
The people (i.e. voters) overwhelmingly support action to limit climate change. That's the reason those laws are politically viable in the first place.
Once enacted, trying to undo them after being in place for 4 years will not only be difficult procedurally but politically suicidal.
It won't happen unless the political party in question has so much electoral buffer that they can ignore what 70%+ voters think about the subject.
Furthermore, if you believe that the climate is changing for the worse then every year will be even more devastating than the one before.
Power cables and roads in Oregon melting due to extreme heat? Next year even more cables and roads will melt.
Every year the public support for climate action will grow and opposition to it will become even more politically suicidal.
> The people (i.e. voters) overwhelmingly support action to limit climate change. That's the reason those laws are politically viable in the first place.
A poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs research found that 57 percent of Americans would vote for a $1 fee added to their monthly electricity bill to “combat climate change,” but only 28 percent would agree to pay an additional $10 per month.
The question began with $1, then $10, and rose after that in $10 increments, but a majority of those polled opposed every amount more than $1. By the time the figure reached $100 per month, just 16 percent said yes and 82 percent said no.
I wouldn’t support a flat fee either since it wouldn’t incentivize less use of power or better energy sources. With that type of proposal you pay more, even if you’re trying to do good.
Here’s an example alternative proposal: a $10/gallon gas tax, with all proceeds distributed to everyone evenly. If you use less gas than average you win, if you use more than average you lose.
Meanwhile, we have people fantasizing about banning things and massive gas tax increases, but the only way to make that politically popular is to ban only in the distant future and to avoid fuel tax increases.
Seriously, what's popular is more research and support for cheaper alternatives. There is a consensus around that, and only around that. Anyone outside that consensus is in a small minority.
>The people (i.e. voters) overwhelmingly support action to limit climate change. That's the reason those laws are politically viable in the first place.
In the abstract, sure, but if (hypothetically) 13 years from now people are staring down a 5 figure price increase will they still support it?
We are paying the price regardless. The trick is to get to the point where we can’t get out of paying what is due, because we’d try to weasel out of it even if climate change accelerated from doing so.
The only analogy I can think fitting is the condo building collapse in Miami where the condo board and residents were wringing their hands over $15 millions of dollars of work that needed to be done right up until catastrophic failure. While arguably unaffordable, it would’ve been cheaper than the deaths of 150+ people.
>The only analogy I can think fitting is the condo building collapse in Miami where the condo board and residents were wringing their hands over $15 millions of dollars of work that needed to be done right up until catastrophic failure. While arguably unaffordable, it would’ve been cheaper than the deaths of 150+ people.
While lamentable, I don't see why people will react any different re: climate policy. Of course people will say 'Yes I support policy to prevent condo collapse.' These same people will, as demonstrated, say 'No do not spend my money to prevent condo collapse.'
I'll take the bet they will. 45 °C is a point where the reasonable person is not wondering if climate change is real or worth doing something about any more.
The probability that the opposition will be in power for one point in the next 14 years is pretty high. Besides, given that canada's population is a tenth of the US's, in the worst case they'll have a 10% overproduction of ICE cars.
By the same method, the probability that the opposition to the opposition will regain power for one point in the next 14 years is high.
If, at that point, any competitor has seen their development programme through, and you haven't, especially if they've also got some local manufacturing - your company is dead. These deadlines aren't moving backwards.
> the change can be undone if the opposition party comes in power at any point
Well, yes, that's how all democracies on the planet function. It's a feature that has pros and cons, but it's the system we are working under. Let's rally behind this kind of "good" and keep making our voices heard so it sticks, rather than apathetically complaining about the state of things.
"Waited long enough?" Battery cost/range has just become viable enough for a larger portion of the population to even consider an EV - starting an electric push even as recently as 3 years ago wouldn't have made a considerable difference in market share. The governments of Canada/US should look into subsidizing charging stations if they want to make a mark in the near term.
Tesla invested >$500 million in global Supercharger charging stations and have been building the Model S since 2012. The Mach E from Ford is relatively new, and the F150 Lightning hasn’t even been built yet (where I can go buy one). Legacy automakers dragged their feet the entire way. Nissan’s LEAF was a weak attempt side by side with a Model 3.
Musk swung for the fences while everyone else was lazy. He’s still full speed ahead expanding as quickly as capital markets will allow. (yes yes I know, say what you will about his character, he gets shit done)
Hmm I wouldn’t say the Leaf was weak. A short range battery electric car makes sense in Japan and they were very popular in Silicon Valley where commuters could charge at the office.
Seemed like a great way to get started in the industry and unlike every other conventional automaker Nissan started in 2011 when Tesla was the only other major player. And unlike the Teslas at the time, the Leaf was affordable.
I agree. Companies that did invest in environmentally friendly technology should be rewarded, and companies that didn't should be punished.
Legacy automakers had tons of time to innovate and switch to more environmentally friendly tech, but they chose not to. The government should accelerate their demise if it can help the environment, they can either get it together in a few years and improve their EVs, or they can sell their assets and expertise to Tesla or other electric manufacturers when the policy causes them to go bankrupt.
And one huge reason is that auto manufacturers haven’t started devoting serious resources to EVs until recently. Technological progress isn’t preordained — we decide where the advancements will be.
Jung called that "the provisional life" or you could call it "provisional living." Something a lot of dieters and addicts do. "My life'll be swell after I quit heroin tomorrow!" You get to enjoy the security of knowing you're gonna do something about the problem, without the hassle of actually doing it. Quitting is far enough in the future that there's no discomfort from it, but because it's "coming," you can let go of your guilt, relax and enjoy one more fix!
I mostly agree, this is always my thought about this stuff. As you say, it is so far in the future that a new government will be in power, and can freely reverse these decisions. Or we'll just end up there anyways because that's the trajectory we are already on.
Something more immediate would have a bigger impact, probably a tax, but taxes don't often work in politician's favour. We have rebate incentives for electric cars, but that only really only helps to swallow the price difference. We can't rely on peoples morals only unfortunately.
Quebec already pledged to do so a while ago [0], and joined California in setting tougher emission standards (above what their respective federal governments are doing) for more than a decade now[1]. Seems the feds are playing catch-up.
The previous administration even tried to put an end to it. [2]
Bans this far into the future are the only thing that's practical. Now that a line has been drawn in the sand it's easier for people, in both the public and private sectors, to successfully advocate for further investment into the infrastructure and technology research needed to make this transition happen. This then creates a snowball effect where manufacturers and consumers naturally gravitate away from internal combustion engines. By the time 2035 arrives this will be a non-event.
The bans are a very hard regulatory signal that the automakers have to contend with, that they likely would not otherwise - and it's a 'giant anchor' in the timeline for transformation that all industries can operate around. A 'date' is a form of regulatory clarity which is what businesses actually want.
The 'original bans' i.e. Denmark/California etc. make the most impact, because they're the markets that force the change, but the follow-ons matter.
15 years is actually not that long in the industry life cycle for automotive. 'Changing everything' about cars is going to be a big deal.
More importantly - it's not the auto-makers that will struggle: it's the electricity grid, battery makers, energy producers - because we have no idea what that means.
Where is the National/Provincial plan to upgrade the Energy Grid to be able to support this? Well now everyone is on notice.
Canada I think timed it correctly because I don't think bans on cars would be appropriate until there is material visibility into a solution. Electric cares are just now crossing the threshold of regular, viable utility to now is the time to flip the switch.
More important that what you are mentioning is the fact that a ban does nothing. Is actually the opposite of doing, it's the prevention a certain type of action.
OK, you are going to ban the use of fuel-powered cars, where is your alternative? What did you exactly do with the ban? Did you create a different massively feasible type of personal transportation?
This kind of actions make me sick. They provide nothing, they accomplish nothing, they just pretend that they can waterboard creativity out of people.
They may not "waterboard creativity out of people", but they provide incentives for affected companies to properly fund R&D into alternatives (both on the technical level, like alternate propulsion systems, and on the business level, like moving from a selling-vehicles business model to a mobility-as-a-service business model).
There's a simpler change than just banning: Start now, with all vehicles priced at over $150,000, and reduce that threshold by $10,000 each year.
This forces the tech to be implemented in the biggest and most profitable vehicles, before filtering down to the mass market and eventually the bargain segments.
