Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Roughneck]

The real solution isn't what kind of EVs people are using, it's to try and get as few people driving as possible. EVs can tackle an emissions problem, but it's only part of the problem. The space and materials needed to sustain them are unsustainable all the same.



The talk of the problem around EVs misses the real problem. The goal shouldn't be to try and make a family's second car be an EV. The goal should be to make it as easy as possible for family's to not need a second car in the first place.

[Fuzz]

Ya, by making the cost of vehicle trips so small, you are incentivizing more driving. We need to figure out how to reclaim the gas taxes, too.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The goal should be to make it as easy as possible for family's to not need a second car in the first place.

That's easier said than done. In some densely populated cities that you can maybe get away with that and maybe some jobs you can work from home but we are always going to have jobs were people need to commute distances circumstances necessitating two vehicles. Heck a lot of people may not want to sacrifice a vehicle even if they could.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's easier said than done. In some densely populated cities that you can maybe get away with that and maybe some jobs you can work from home but we are always going to have jobs were people need to commute distances circumstances necessitating two vehicles. Heck a lot of people may not want to sacrifice a vehicle even if they could.

Not wanting to and not needing to being the critical difference.

More than half the country's population lives in eight cities. Eight cities with significant and sustained mass and active transit initiatives from all three levels of government could improve the finances and carbon footprint of half the country. That helps change the scope of the ask significantly.

If you need a car, it means you need a few hundred dollars a month expense in perpetuity, not including the acquisition cost. And that's hoping there isn't a significant maintenance cost. If everybody needs a car, then there needs to be parking, which drives up the cost of housing or increases the need for street parking or surface lots, two terrible and unproductive uses of real estate. If you want a car, it's because you can weight that cost against the alternatives. In a time when everybody's worried about the rising cost of families, providing a means to eliminate a couple grand of expenses every year they can use on something else seems like it would be good. Not to mention getting better cities out of it as a result.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by SebC

Challenges, schmallenges. Swappable batteries solves the inherent problem EVs have so as a civilized and sentient species let's get together and start making it work. At the very least, figure out a system for range extension via battery trailers.

Oh yeah, we should also just affix a windmill to the roof that charges the batteries as you drive.

Thats right, I just invented perpetual power. Clean energy for the world!

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh yeah, we should also just affix a windmill to the roof that charges the batteries as you drive.

Thats right, I just invented perpetual power. Clean energy for the world!

[Fuzz]

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Oh my God! Seriously? Batteries are less effective in cold weather?! Since when?!?!

My gasoline fuelled car needs a battery to start and operate! I'm gonna be stranded on the highway!!!!!!

I think you're missing the point.

Mandating a move towards a vehicles sold being EVs is going to be a problem if people lose even 30% battery capacity in a Canadian winter.

There are real concerns with EVs, and I am as pro EV as anyone.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's easier said than done. In some densely populated cities that you can maybe get away with that and maybe some jobs you can work from home but we are always going to have jobs were people need to commute distances circumstances necessitating two vehicles. Heck a lot of people may not want to sacrifice a vehicle even if they could.

But you really only need to get the top 10 cities in Canada to reduce the need for vehicle transportation and you could drop emissions across Canada.

It doesn't even matter if everyone in small town Alberta drives a F350.

Urban planning
Transit
Electric Buses
Rail

Which is why I don't get why we want to mandate all vehicles sold by a certain date need to be EVs.

Why not instead focus on the other things, and create heavy incentives for fuel efficient vehicles?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, by making the cost of vehicle trips so small, you are incentivizing more driving. We need to figure out how to reclaim the gas taxes, too.

That’s easy, just carbon tax the #### out of everything. Once the grid is cleaned up then traffic density based tolls. Once the externalities to driving drop disincentives are no longer required so gas taxes can be removed for general progressive taxation.

[Azure]

If you want to get people to drive less, or use their cars less to get from point a to point b, you have to provide an alternative.

In order to do that in a way where you can change the behaviour of the most people possible for the least amount of money spent, you have to do it in heavy urban areas.

Transit
Rail
Urban Planning

Please tell me how the carbon tax will push us to do those things better.

Winnipeg is #6 on the list of most populated cities in Canada, and people here just dream about LRT or anything other than the ####ty bus system. Literally no amount of money will change that. So what do you get? More sprawl = more driving. Every development is moving further and further out, and there is literally NO plan for any kind of transit system.

Not that I expect us to be like Europe due to how the population density is different, but one would at least think that it would make sense to have every new development connected to a transit system that takes people to the major centers in the city.

I'd imagine you will find similar issues in most other cities as well.

Kind of a strange idea to think that the 'carbon tax' will get us there.

[GGG]

My point wasn’t to reduce driving. It was that Carbon taxes will slowly lower carbon emissions of the power used to power cars. Once CO2 and other pollutants emmissions are controlled the negative externalities from driving mostly go away.

Driving less is not morally better if the externalities are minimized.

Traffic congestion and the cost of roads will be the issues with driving and they can be dealt with through congestion taxes.

[peter12]

What about the enormous amount of land devoted to car storage?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

What about the enormous amount of land devoted to car storage?

Why do I care in a net zero world and secondly if people are willing to pay parking and taxation on those facilities then the externalities of consuming space are being taxed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

My point wasn’t to reduce driving. It was that Carbon taxes will slowly lower carbon emissions of the power used to power cars. Once CO2 and other pollutants emmissions are controlled the negative externalities from driving mostly go away.

Driving less is not morally better if the externalities are minimized.

Traffic congestion and the cost of roads will be the issues with driving and they can be dealt with through congestion taxes.

You're not being realistic.

I think you're dreaming if you think the carbon tax will change behaviour fast enough to make a difference.

The biggest emitters in the world do not have a carbon tax.
Most developing countries are going to burn more fossil fuels in the next 25 years.
China / India / Europe are going to burn record amounts of coal the next 10-15 years.

Canada is being delusional thinking that the carbon tax or mandated EV only sales is going to do anything, and yet we are extremely singular focused.

There has to be data available on what 25% increase in EVs in Canada will require in terms of power production. Where will that production come from? Solar is great in some provinces, but a tough sell in others & wind is not reliable at all in most provinces. Hydro is great, but not everyone lives in Manitoba or Quebec where capacity could be built out.

That means a fast move towards more EVs will equal even more fossil fuels needed to create power.

Unless there is some other breakthrough you think will happen between now and 10 years from now.

[ripTDR]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you really only need to get the top 10 cities in Canada to reduce the need for vehicle transportation and you could drop emissions across Canada.

It doesn't even matter if everyone in small town Alberta drives a F350.

Urban planning
Transit
Electric Buses
Rail

Which is why I don't get why we want to mandate all vehicles sold by a certain date need to be EVs.



Why not instead focus on the other things, and create heavy incentives for fuel efficient vehicles?

This times a million. Densification is happening at a very rapid pace in the lower mainland. Years ago there should have been skytrain snaking everywhere. Now we are saddled with crazy rising construction costs and years long wait times to get the minimum that should have been done by now. All the while all levels of government and environmental groups are telling me to get out of my car but not addressing the fact that there is no meaningful transit options. They are also NOT addressing affordability issues where people have to move further away from where they work.



What a mess

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Azure

That means a fast move towards more EVs will equal even more fossil fuels needed to create power.

Not sure if intentional or not, you left out that driving EVs reduces overall carbon output.

[flamesfever]

I don't know whether this has been covered or not.

The plan is to stop producing ICEs in 2035. So then by say 2055 all cars should be EVS. Then if the Russians invade us and knock out our grid, as they presently doing in the Ukraine, then everyone will be stranded.

IMHO Canada is the last place on earth that we should be considering EVs. First it's too cold, and second the distance between people is too great.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I don't know whether this has been covered or not.

The plan is to stop producing ICEs in 2035. So then by say 2055 all cars should be EVS. Then if the Russians invade us and knock out our grid, as they presently doing in the Ukraine, then everyone will be stranded.

IMHO Canada is the last place on earth that we should be considering EVs. First it's too cold, and second the distance between people is too great.

The distance point sort of negates the “grid” as one entity point, doesn’t it? We have power sources and infrastructure separated by huge distances.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I don't know whether this has been covered or not.

The plan is to stop producing ICEs in 2035. So then by say 2055 all cars should be EVS. Then if the Russians invade us and knock out our grid, as they presently doing in the Ukraine, then everyone will be stranded.

IMHO Canada is the last place on earth that we should be considering EVs. First it's too cold, and second the distance between people is too great.

Except we are very heavily full of 2 car households.
Can/should we replace 100% of ICE cars?
Probably not.
Can we do 50%?
Yeah, probably.

A 2 car household with 1 ICE and 1 EV, can electrify way more than 50% of their overall driving, which will have a huge impact.

2 commutes:
Use the EV for the longer commute, even if range is reduced by 50% that'll cover 99% of people's commutes

Weekend errands:
Use the EV for the majority of these. Even if range is reduced by 50%, that'll cover most people's weekend driving if they're staying in town, just running errands/the kids around

Long trips:
Summer, use the EV
Winter, use the ICE if range is an issue.

It's not a perfect system and it won't work for everyone, but it'll work for the vast majority of people/families, and can have a very large impact on ICE usage.

I'm sure I'll now hear a bunch of edge cases, where people will tell me they have to drive 2 kids 300 km one way, in opposite directions every weekend for hockey so one ICE and one EV won't work.
And yeah, that's fine. But for the vast majority of 2 car households, a 50/50 split of ICE and EV cars, will electrify way more than 50% of the driving miles.