will these stooopid asses pass a law against SNOW too???
Posted on 05/19/2005 12:57:58 PM PDT by doc30
By RICHARD GILBERT Thursday, May 19, 2005 Updated at 12:25 AM EDT Special to Globe and Mail Update
A month ago, Ottawa reached an extraordinary agreement with the auto industry. The deal commits the industry to improving the fuel economy of cars, sport utility vehicles, vans and pickup trucks in operation in Canada by as much as 50 per cent by 2010. If implemented, the agreement could produce the most radical change in vehicles Canadians have seen - and perhaps some social changes, too. Here's why.
According to the agreement (known as the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Automotive Industry Respecting Automobile Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the auto industry agrees to achieve by 2010 a 5.3-megatonne reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles on the road (this is relative to a reference case, defined as 90.5 megatonnes).
A government/industry committee will determine whether the target has been reached after May 31, 2011. One industry representative said that, if auto makers fail to comply, they will face "the sword of Damocles" in the form of legislated requirements to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Environment Canada reports that, in 2002, emissions from light-duty vehicles were 91.1 megatonnes - that is, they were already above the reference case. If recent trends continue, these emissions are likely to total more than 100 megatonnes in 2010. The industry commitment is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to 85.2 megatonnes during the next five years. This will thus amount to a 15-per-cent reduction from business as usual.
To accomplish its goals, the industry has only one tool at its disposal: It must improve the fuel economy of new vehicles. By 2010, about half the vehicles on the road will have been purchased since 2005. But the agreement concerns all light-duty vehicles in operation. Thus, the average fuel economy of vehicles sold during the next five years will have to be 30 per cent below current levels.
Because little will be achieved for the 2006 or 2007 model years, it's safe to say that 2010 vehicles will have to have fuel use that is 50 per cent below current levels.
The last time the industry achieved such a dramatic change was between 1975 and 1980. Then, rated fuel use by the average light-duty vehicle fell from 18.0 to 12.3 litres per 100 kilometres. This was a 38-per-cent improvement, and it was achieved under the threat of legislated fuel economy standards, introduced in the United States in 1978.
In 2005, the average rated fuel use was just below 10 litres per 100 km. Thus, the challenge now is to get the average below five litres per 100 km by 2010.
This will be a huge job. Only five of the 550 types of 2005 model-year cars rated by the federal government achieve less than five litres per 100 km, and only 14 more achieve less than seven litres per 100 km. Only five of the 430 types of pickup trucks, vans and SUVs - which together made up almost half of sales during the past 12 months - achieve less than nine litres per 100 km. Almost none of the fuel-misers are produced by North American companies.
Reducing fuel use by half is going to mean a combination of unprecedented achievements in fuel efficiency, plus a radical restructuring of the kinds of vehicle Canadians buy. Subcompact cars will be the norm, hybrids will be commonplace, and the use of vans, pickup trucks and SUVs as everyday vehicles will become a thing of the past.
The suburbs will fade, city living will become even more attractive and, given a chance, public transit will bloom.
Canadians will welcome these changes because fuel prices will be rocketing out of sight. At some point before 2010, the world's oil production will cease keeping up with demand. We'll see crude oil at $200 a barrel, and gasoline at $2 a litre.
But a big question remains: Is the auto industry up to the job it has agreed to?
General Motors and Ford already face the possibility of one day going bankrupt because customers are buying fewer of their highly profitable SUVs. There is good reason to doubt whether the industry as a whole, particularly the North American-owned part, could adapt quickly enough.
Government could help by favouring small cars and encouraging faster turnover of what is now on the road with a scheme of taxes on gas-guzzlers and bonuses for buying vehicles that achieve less than five litres per 100 km. If properly structured, such a scheme could sweep older vehicles off the road and dramatically shift the balance of new purchases toward gas-misers, all without costing taxpayers a penny.
The auto industry would make up for lost SUV profits with new volume. If average vehicle life were shortened from 15 to 10 years, the auto industry would produce a third more cars each year, other things being equal.
The deal with the auto industry is truly remarkable, at least on paper. It has some wrinkles. One is the "reference case," which the agreement says can be subject to further negotiation. Another is that voluntary nature of the agreement; there are no penalties for non-compliance. The way the world is going, it would be poor business to persist with any other kind of strategy.
The biggest concern about the agreement could be that it says nothing about trucking, which has contributed inordinately to the growth in greenhouse-gas emissions since 1990. When the federal government addresses emissions from trucking in earnest, we'll know it's truly serious about meeting Canada's Kyoto commitment.
Richard Gilbert is a consultant specializing in transport and energy issues, with clients in North America, Europe and Asia.
ping?
Canada is so, so, ... European.
Hey! If they can manage to make a car that can fit seven people I would consider it. Wait! Wasn't that called a station wagon? If we look at the title for my SUV it says SW. Guess I already have one.
I can't wait for Canada to break up into several pieces with the western provinces to join the US.
(Could happen.)
Ride you thumb? When wil government learn to leave people alone. If you wnt a large car pay for it, don't make me have to but a small car.
They probably want to do this for their union paymasters. Cars with a shorter lifespan increases turnover. That means more work for unionized auto workers which means more money diverted to the Liberal junta. All in the name of 'saving the environment.' I guess 'its for the children' isn't flying like it used to up there.
quote " the use of vans, pickup trucks and SUVs as everyday vehicles will become a thing of the past"
LOL no they wont, not as long as people still have children. The libs dont have a clue why most people drive SUV's with all the crap parents have to cart around these days for the children, there is no other option than to drive a SUV or van. By the time you fill up the back seat with car seats, and the truck with all the other misc stuff your lucky if you can even get by with a regular sized SUV!
Of course liberals don't realize this because their too busy slaughtering all their children!
If you read til the end of the article it's clear this whole change is taking place because of Kyoto. You can see how draconian the measures will have to be to accomplish the Kyoto goals. I didn't see any mention in the growth of numbers of vehicles. They assume a static amount I believe.
Also, once they start in on the long haul trucking fleets, they'll have oversized picup trucks doing the job of 18 wheelers.
I especially like the part where they say the suburbs will die out and urban living will return AND PEOPLE WILL LIKE IT!
A local teacher here ( Neenah Wi) had a big writeup in the local paper about his "hybrid". He went so far as to call for legislation to make ownership MANDATORY. Buried in the bottom of the article was the part where he admitted he drove an SUV in the winter, because of the lousy traction of his little putt putt skate, and for SAFETY CONCERNS for his family. AMAZING.
That's OK. All the people who live out in the tall and uncut will have to become self sufficiant, since you can't get a month's worth of town food in a two seater, and start subsistance farming. Since they are the farmers, the food they grow for the urbanites will dwindle away. The City dwellers, who are so proud of there little cars that can't actually survive a long road trip will linger for a while, until the cannibalism starts...
(GMMAC and I share the list.)
:-)
Rules legislated by people who can't manage to have more than two children.
Sounds great if you live in a city. I sympathize with my counterparts in the countryside, though. Wintertime, six inches of new powder, and the plows ain't comin' until Tuesday. Gimme an SUV or a great honkin' pickup with knobbly tires, thanks, and keep your 46 mpg eggshell running on fuel-efficient slicks. I don't attend a lot of tea parties and the stock need feeding.
A liberal wet dream of how "the masses" should live.
There is pure pie in the sky stuff. There's not a chance in heck of making these targets, by any means. And any government that tries raising gas taxes high enough to force Canadians into these miserable little fuel misers will certainly be tossed out - we might put up with a lot from our morally bankrupt socialist federal government, but jacking up the level of gas taxes that high is not one of them. These guys must have been smoking really big bongs full of BC bud to have come up with this cockamamie scheme!
If I was looking to make an investment, I would be starting up an auto parts store in Canada. I got a feeling there are some SUV's up there that ain't ever going to die.
will these stooopid asses pass a law against SNOW too???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.