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

~~~
akiselev
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.

~~~
lotsofpulp
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.

~~~
CompelTechnic
American cars currently have good quality. There was a substantial period of
time in which they didn't. That time period is what GP referred to. US
automakers are still playing catch-up in terms of brand image and reliability
engineering (as practiced by Toyota, through which quality improvements flow
for decades), which persist for decades.

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

[https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-
deb...](https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-
proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/progress-of-bills)

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.

------
mikerg87
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

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

~~~
dsfyu404ed
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.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
When you spin it like that, that sounds like a good thing. Though more
efficient cars AND increasingly fewer people on the roads may have helped
carbon emissions.

------
grawprog
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.

~~~
robbrit
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.

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

~~~
Tiktaalik
Yeah in Northern BC solar is pretty marginal I think. BC does have heaps of
hydro electric power though. There is a lot of potential for wind power off
the coast of Haida Gwaii as well (and I assume many other places off the
northern coast).

~~~
kec
That's great for urban folks, but doesn't really help people living off the
grid.

~~~
jrace
How do you get fuel for your gas combustion engine now? How do you get
electricity now?

~~~
kec
I personally am not in that situation, but people who haul diesel & other
fuels out into the backwoods do exist. Batteries aren't quite as viable for
that because they're way less energy dense and in general less environmentally
stable.

~~~
jrace
Well, we have 21 more years to figure that out. Besides, it is not that all
vehicles that take gas will suddenly disappear.

So there will be more than 21 years to discover an alternative.

------
gowld
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
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

------
jammygit
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

~~~
krisrm
"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](https://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.aspx)

~~~
jgon
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.

~~~
jammygit
Election day is... Next week? Its so hard to predict things with popular
political parties taking opposite stances on matters.

------
seanalltogether
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.

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

------
mike_ivanov
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?

------
youeseh
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.

------
jkaljundi
Way too late :(

------
patrickg_zill
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...

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

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
jefftk
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.)

~~~
harryh
Just adding on to this, some math:

The US emits about 11 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. At $150/ton, sequestering it
all would cost 1.65 trillion dollars or about 8.25% of GDP.

That's about what we spend on social security and the military combined.

So, it's a lot. But it's possible to imagine doing it.

I kinda wish there was a company with a bunch of sequestration equipment out
somewhere that people could just give money to in order to suck out more CO2
from the air. Why doesn't this exist yet?

~~~
harryh
Er, I screwed that up.

China emits 11 gigatonnes. The US emits ~half that. So more like 800 billion
or 4% of GDP. About what we spend on Medicare.

Of course, even if US emissions went to zero, it wouldn't be enough to stop
global warming. So there's that.

------
mistrial9
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
Could you please point me to the massive “sea change” in auto regulations?

~~~
mistrial9
try
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standards#Phase_3A:_2010%E2%80%932016)

------
yeahitslikethat
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.

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

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

~~~
TheRealPomax
How is that related to asking someone what they mean by "it's easy to run out
of gas in BC" and then giving an anecdote about running out of gas in AB
instead? Without further details, it says nothing about BC (it also says
nothing about AB, but that's not the province the news article is about).

~~~
yeahitslikethat
Look at a map, bro. Do you know anything at all about Canada? Seriously.

------
sunkenvicar
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.

