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.
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).