145
According to Politico, Mark Carney is under intense pressure.
Auto Manufacturers want to get rid of the electric vehicle mandate. They simply refuse to sell more small electric cars in Canada, claiming it's impossible / unprofitable.
They also say Donald Trump is now President of the United States. Climate Change is no longer an american concern. The political climate in the United States has changed and Canada should follow the US, whether it likes or not.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/10/canada-ev-mandate-elon-musk-tesla-00446980
They're not wrong.
Ive owned an EV for 7 years now and it does some things really well and its not very good at others. Its not SUPERIOR to my gas vehicles, its just different.
Its ludicrous to tell Canadians that they can ONLY buy EVs at a certain point. It doesnt make sense to force that change when they dont suit a lot of applications. For example there are currently NO EVs that are great at pulling trailers, they lose far too much range when hauling. They also lose 20 to 40% of their range in winter. They also take considerably longer to charge on a road trip than a gas car takes to fill up and thats only IF you can find a convenient charger, its available, its working and you have signed up for the correct payment app - not nearly as simple as using a gas station.
They ARE good for commuting especially if you live in a city. And theres no denying that they are far less costly to maintain. My little EV has cost a TOTAL of $400 in 7 years. Thats amazingly low. And its very reliable. Nothing to check, just unplug it and drive it. But its still not my first choice for many tasks.
Buyers aren't stupid, they will buy what they need and what suits their lifestyle, not what the gov tells them they need.
The goal isn't to force consumers to buy one. It's to force manufacturers to work out the flaws you mentioned and produce a better EV instead of focusing on out-dated technology. That's why the cut-over date is so far out. They want to give them time to work on the technology.
But there are some things about EVs that cannot be overcome because science. Like the fact that gasoline holds far more energy for its weight than batteries ever can. Which is why things like the Tesla semi is a flop. Because to get the range you get out of two saddle tanks of diesel the semi would have to carry much more weight in batteries than is practical and charge times and kW input would be astronomical.
The same goes for cars but to a lesser extent. We CAN make them go far (a Lucid EV just set a record at 1205 km on a single charge) but that car costs well over 150,000 because of the massive amount of batteries needed.
Then there's the electrical infrastructure issue. Most EV owners charge at home, but if EVERY household had an EV there will be a significant new draw on our electrical grid. If everyone charges at night thats not a huge deal but obviously if everyone had an EV there going to be a lot of people charging during the day too, especially on trips. We'd have to add a lot of power to our grid and EVERY power source requires some kind of environmental cost, the question is only how much.
That's true for our current batteries. Where does science say we'll never be able to make batteries with a higher energy density than fossil fuels?
This is merely one of the limitations I mentioned manufacturers need to work on.
Right, which is why we need to build out renewable capacity as we go. By forcing EVs onto the market it would spur home owners to add solar panels to their roofs. The rise in demand would increase new production. Again, that's why it's a long term phase out rather than cutting over suddenly.
Also it's far more efficient to generate power in large facilities rather than in lots of little ones. It's better to have a few larger power generation plants rather than every car having its own. It's the economy of scale. One generator that produces enough power for 100 vehicles is more efficient than 100 generators powering one vehicle each. Transmission distance lowers that efficiency, so hopefully those sources can be clean and local to where they're being used.
Well nowhere except that the mandate is trying to force the changeover in five years time, and despite multiple announcements about 'new' 'long range' batteries, no ones been able to make the quantum leap needed. And its not a minor gap: Gasoline stores about 47.5 MJ/kg, while lithium-ion batteries typically store around 0.3 MJ/kg. This means gasoline provides roughly 100 times more energy per unit of weight. Thats a huge leap for batteries to overcome.
Also, EVs are competing against gas cars but gas cars are also improving a great deal. It used to be getting 25 mpg in a sedan was impressive enough, but I just talked to an owner with a Maverick hybrid who said on her best run she got almost 70 mpg. Incredible for a small truck.
Hybrids may be the answer. Full battery EVs dont do everything and gas cars have issues, but hybrids bridge the gap. The main problem there being that now you have to maintain two drive systems, so its not exactly a recipe for easy maintenance as they age.
So when the worlds climate scientists say we must stop buring fossil fuels or risk the collpase of civilisation, your retort is, only when it's convenient for Candaians ?
collapsed inline media
When it's pointed out that many millions around the world die every year from transport pollution, sucks to be them?
Here's what one Canadian had to say to that
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/un-expert-human-rights-climate-crisis-economy
The thing is the environment doesnt care WHERE the GHG's are coming from. So it makes sense to attack the problem where the problem is. And the problem is NOT in Canada. Our emissions are a margin of error in the global scale and Canada does very well because we have such a huge land mass and a lot of plants and trees to take up our carbon and GHG's.
So when people say we have to buy EVs, thats a pretty ridiculous statement for Canadians. If EVERY vehicle in Canada was an EV the global climate would not even notice the difference. Therefore forcing EVs in Canada is far more about performative actions and virtue signalling than it is about actually changing the environment.
What would actually make a difference is to change the way we do business with the two biggest polluters in the world - China and the USA. They are dumping GHGs into the atmosphere by the tonne. Its like a boat has hit a log that's punched a huge hole in the hull and water is pouring in but Canada is here putting a bandaid over a little crack at the back of the boat. We just dont matter til the big hole is fixed and even if the little crack is completely sealed the boat is still sinking fast.
It wouldn't be hard to say to both countries, we will limit our trade with you til you clean up your act. Put a limit on China's emissions in order for us to buy their goods.
But that won't happen. Because that eats into profits. And no corporation is going to support that. So instead they push Joe Average to buy an EV, as if parking his 20 yr old Corolla and buying an 60k EV is going to make a smidgen of difference in the worlds climate. It wont. But that doesnt matter, what matters is that no one looks too hard at whose doing the damage and forcing them to change because it will worsen their bottom line. The EV message is mostly smoke and mirrors to keep you from looking behind the curtain.