Canada to Introduce California Type Emission Regs

[Dragon]

http://www.autonet.ca/News/story.cfm?story...1942920-cp.html

By JENNIFER DITCHBURN -- Associated Press  posted October 3, 2006

OTTAWA -- The Conservative government will cripple Ontario's auto industry and put Canadians out of work if it moves ahead with plans to impose new environmental regulations on domestic carmakers, says union leader Buzz Hargrove.

Hargrove is one of a group of auto industry representatives, including the big five car manufacturers, summoned to meet with cabinet ministers in Ottawa on Tuesday night. Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier were all expected to attend.

"This idea of putting in stiff regulations that the companies have to meet or face a penalty is going to cause major damage to an industry that's already on its knees," Hargrove said in an interview.

Government and industry sources say the Conservative government wants to regulate emissions standards for the first time. To date, Canada has always relied on either oral or written understandings with the car manufacturers that they would voluntarily follow standards set by the United States government.

The last memorandum of understanding was struck with the Liberal government in 2005.

But the new Tory environmental strategy, expected this fall, will impose regulations after 2010, when the latest voluntary agreement on compliance will run out. By then, the North American standard might very well look like the environmental high-bar set by the state of California.

Conservatives meanwhile see a huge upside to coming down hard on Canada's worst greenhouse gas emitters, with voters increasingly worried about the environment.

"Given the growth of the Canadian economy over the last 20 plus years how can anyone compellingly argue that sensible, effective environmental regulations hurt the economy?" said one Tory insider.

"Such regulations have been coming forward for 20-plus years and the economy grows, plus individuals benefit."

The source said the government is looking at using the existing Motor Vehicles Consumption Standards Act, which has been on the books since 1981 but never proclaimed into law, as the basis for the new regulations. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act could also be used.

Some in the car industry privately said they were taken by surprise by the meeting with Conservative ministers. The American automakers had already been planning their annual two-day lobbying event on Parliament Hill when they were given notice of the meeting.

Hargrove warned that that any move that would hurt the auto industry centred on Ontario would "kill" the Tories in the province. Already, carmakers are grumbling about reports that suggest the the oil and gas industry won't be subject to strict limits on their greenhouse gas emissions.

"They're not going to do anything that's going to cause a detriment to Alberta, so if they hit Ontario I'm not sure that's the smartest political move," Hargrove said.

[the_yellow_dart]

This seems odd, coming from the Conservatives...

Will it really make a difference?? Don't we get the Cali specs anyways?

[Dragon]

I think they realize something should be done. And since a lot of their political and financial base is out west, they wouldn’t want to hurt that by regulating them too much

I don’t know about cars, but I know there tend to be different models of motorcycles, one for Cali, one for the rest of North America.

Since the cars are already designed to meet these standards. Unless there are additional costs to making them, (that are passed along to the consumer) I can’t see how this would hurt the automakers.

[zete]

I have no problems with this. Anything that helps reduce pollution is a good thing. I can't see it slowing sales of cars down since California remains car happy and it's not like you can't buy everything there, anyway.

As for why the Conservatives would do such a thing, historically the Conservatives have been "greener" than the other parties. It's one of those ironies that the "right wing" party in Canada is more green than the Liberals, but the Liberals care more about being in power than about doing the right thing. And guess who's bitchin' and moanin' the most? The Ontario Liberal government. Sigh.

[Dragon]

Of course the Ontario gov is bitching. We’ve got the most people, who will end up bitching at them when they have to spend more to make their cars meet/maintain these standards.

If the Conservatives were truly “green”, they wouldn’t have essentially scraped Kyoto and would have implanted this to supplement it. The truth is, they don’t want to hurt their support out west, where they are hugely supported by the oil industry, which would have been dealt a huge blow by Kyoto. So they scraped Kyoto and implemented a program who’s biggest effect would be felt in a province where their support is lukewarm at best.

[zete]

Of course the Ontario gov is bitching.  We’ve got the most people, who will end up bitching at them when they have to spend more to make their cars meet/maintain these standards.

If the Conservatives were truly “green”, they wouldn’t have essentially scraped Kyoto and would have implanted this to supplement it.  The truth is, they don’t want to hurt their support out west, where they are hugely supported by the oil industry, which would have been dealt a huge blow by Kyoto.  So they scraped Kyoto and implemented a program who’s biggest effect would be felt in a province where their support is lukewarm at best.

201260[/snapback]

BTW, I live in Ontario and have all my life. As for Kyoto, it wasn't even being implemented by the prior government that supposedly supported it. They talked the talk but failed to walk the Kyoto walk.

Besides, Kyoto isn't about pollution, it's about CO2. It's a common misunderstanding with people who think Kyoto is all about pollution. It's not. If you can create a noxious emissions system that reduces CO2 but pumps out 100x as much pollution, you're OK under Kyoto. Kyoto has serious problems.

As for costing more, this is the same lame argument that was made back in the 70s when the first emissions standards came in. I don't see anyone complaining about those standards now.

Finally, all automakers manufacture cars to California emissions. It's not like they're asking them to do something they don't already know how to do. And a slew of US states are planning to implement California standards, too. Within 10 years California style emissions standards will be the norm.

[KaliRover]

As for why the Conservatives would do such a thing, historically the Conservatives have been "greener" than the other parties.

201249[/snapback]

Off topic - can you show me how Conservatives have been historically "greener" then their liberal counterparts? ... Or, point me in the right direction towards resrouces that would prove this true?

[zete]

Off topic - can you show me how Conservatives have been historically "greener" then their liberal counterparts?  ... Or, point me in the right direction towards resrouces that would prove this true?

201334[/snapback]

Ask and you shall receive: Greenest PM.

And I hate Mulroney and what his government was, but no matter. A fact is a fact, regardless of how unpalatable. And the CBC aren't renown for their pro-Conservative slant.

The Liberals had more time and more money -- their coffers were overflowing with cash -- and did less than Mulroney. 'tis a shame! No, a disgrace!

[Dragon]

BTW, I live in Ontario and have all my life. As for Kyoto, it wasn't even being implemented by the prior government that supposedly supported it. They talked the talk but failed to walk the Kyoto walk.

Besides, Kyoto isn't about pollution, it's about CO2. It's a common misunderstanding with people who think Kyoto is all about pollution. It's not. If you can create a noxious emissions system that reduces CO2 but pumps out 100x as much pollution, you're OK under Kyoto. Kyoto has serious problems.

As for costing more, this is the same lame argument that was made back in the 70s when the first emissions standards came in. I don't see anyone complaining about those standards now.

Finally, all automakers manufacture cars to California emissions. It's not like they're asking them to do something they don't already know how to do. And a slew of US states are planning to implement California standards, too. Within 10 years California style emissions standards will be the norm.

201295[/snapback]

last I read, Kyoto wasn't "just about CO2". Its goal was reduce the major greenhouses, CO2, methane, NO, hydrofluorocarbons, erfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

Like I said before, I don't know aboit it costing more, and I really don't see how it would either. Its just an excuse to bitch without calling the tories out for the real reasons and by doing so, pissing off the west. The only real cost i see, and this is to the consumer, and not the autosecotr, is the additional costs related to maintaining cars at these higher standards.

When I see them implement something to make the oil comapnies out west cleanup their act, then I might consider the tories a "green" party, till then, they are jsut playing politics

[zete]

last I read, Kyoto wasn't "just about CO2".  Its goal was reduce the major greenhouses, CO2, methane, NO, hydrofluorocarbons, erfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. 

Like I said before, I don't know aboit it costing more, and I really don't see how it would either.  Its just an excuse to bitch without calling the tories out for the real reasons and by doing so, pissing off the west.  The only real cost i see, and this is to the consumer, and not the autosecotr, is the additional costs related to maintaining cars at these higher standards.

When I see them implement something to make the oil comapnies out west cleanup their act, then I might consider the tories a "green" party, till then, they are jsut playing politics

201396[/snapback]

My argument still stands, greenhouse gases can be substituted in for CO2. Pollutants aren't figured into Kyoto. New studies show that a reduction in pollutants would actually raise temperatures. But this is off topic enough.

Besides, Kyoto is more harmful to Ontario -- where all the heavy industry is -- than Alberta. And that argument doesn't wash when you calculate in the fact the Liberals for years did squat, and never cared about the West -- esp. Alberta.

And there's no point getting into a long discussion re: Kyoto. I feel it's a seriously flawed treaty, others think otherwise. My attitude is focus on pollutants and reduction on dependence on foreign oil -- even though Canada is a net exporter. Focus should be on efficiency and technologies that result in less "crap" going into the atmosphere, period. We're only poisoning ourselves, so you'd think we'd try to stop that. Of course, we still have to deal with China, India, etc. who are not in Kyoto and who are destroying their environments big time. It'll get worse out there and we need to sort out a system whereby we all do better. China and India are growing at such a pace they'll be a substantial contributor in no time, and yet Kyoto focuses solely on the West as if the world will remain at status quo. Stupid.

[Flybrian]

Kyoto would allow many nations to simply buy pollution credits while polluting at the same level. All it would do is cost industrialized nation like America and Canada $$$ and not stop pollution at all.

[pow]

Kyoto would allow many nations to simply buy pollution credits while polluting at the same level. All it would do is cost industrialized nation like America and Canada $$$ and not stop pollution at all.

201405[/snapback]

The idea, then, would be to reduce CO2 so that nations wouldn't have to pay the $$$...

And even if the US and Canada declined to reduce emissions, other nations would happily take our money and do it for us. That would stop "pollution."

Edited October 4, 2006 by empowah

[KaliRover]

Ask and you shall receive: Greenest PM.

And I hate Mulroney and what his government was, but no matter. A fact is a fact, regardless of how unpalatable. And the CBC aren't renown for their pro-Conservative slant.

The Liberals had more time and more money -- their coffers were overflowing with cash -- and did less than Mulroney. 'tis a shame! No, a disgrace!

201352[/snapback]

Hey thanks alot!!!

Edited October 5, 2006 by KaliRover

[ToniCipriani]

Our cars are already more expensive than they should be. WTF are those morons thinking? First going to war, now this?

[zete]

Hey thanks alot!!!

201502[/snapback]

You're very welcome.

[zete]

The idea, then, would be to reduce CO2 so that nations wouldn't have to pay the $$$...

And even if the US and Canada declined to reduce emissions, other nations would happily take our money and do it for us. That would stop "pollution."

201408[/snapback]

What we need is an inability to redirect pollution to others. Right now many shipping firms fly under flags of convenience, but they also dismantle their ships in India for similar reasons. It's just more convenient since India's environmental laws are very lax. They couldn't get away with what's going on in India in the West. And to me that's plain wrong.

So an international treaty on pollution is what's required. Trading CO2 credits or moving your landifill to China doesn't remove the problem. Shifting it around the globe leaves the problem intact, but out of your jurisdiction -- which is politically convenient but ethically wrong. And this is the problem with Kyoto. It affects only part of the globe, and the rest can keep on doing whatever they want. It makes no sense. We live on the same ball so anything we do should be universal.

In Canada we had the One Tonne Challenge, now gone. I looked up my usage. My household was 1/2 the Canadian average. I don't believe we do anything special, but then when I see how much trash my neighbours have I can't but wonder if they just waste everything, including power. And, no, my household isn't small. It's average. At the time of the challenge it was 5 people (2 adults, 3 kids), 2 cars, 2500 sq. ft. home. We're now down to 4 in the house, with one having moved away after graduating from university.

As for a comment from another member as to the cost of vehicles, I don't find them that much more expensive -- especially now that our dollar is up to a reasonable level (nearly 90 cents). You have to figure in all the features we want in base cars how and it shouldn't surprise us that we have to pay for those features (like AC, power windows/doors, etc.). And I don't believe cars in California are piriced differently than anywhere else in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.