Should we look deeper at environmental policy?

(This article is a 4-minute read)

This question came to me a number of times over the past month. This is because I wondered out-loud if a particular plan proposed to us by our politicians had any thought about how ‘their’ plans will affect us negatively.

Today I want to focus on the environment policy in Canada. For your information I’ve been reducing, reusing and recycling for over 35 years because I know that if I don’t do my part to take care of our planet – we all lose.

Being a Canadian my thoughts on this will focus on my own country, and maybe you will be able to see how your government policies relate to ours.

Earlier this year the Trudeau government introduced plans to completely eliminate the building of diesel and gas cars by 2035 in Canada. As some have said, t’s an ambitious goal, given that there isn’t really a solid blueprint that we’re supposed to follow. Omar Alghabra, the minister of transport, explained that the government would be “expanding and strengthening” the existing incentive programs, but other than that it was political speak with no details. For your information there are about 90,000 Canadians driving zero-emissions vehicles, due to a $600 million investment from the federal government, which offers drivers a $5,000 incentive.

One of the zero-emissions vehicle available is Tesla’s ultra-low range Model 3 that is sold exclusively in Canada. The interesting thing about this no-frill Electric Vehicle it has only 94 miles (151 kilometers) of range and no Autopilot. As some background, due to these limitations, Tesla was able to price this vehicle low enough to qualify for Canada’s Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles program. While there is an added bonus, by introducing the low-cost no-frills version of the Tesla it helped qualify the higher priced Standard Range Plus model as well due to the unusual price cap system.

Unsurprisingly, it appears that the 94-mile range Model 3 isn’t a big seller. New data from Transport Canada showed that just over one-half of a percent of drivers who purchased a Model 3 and received Canada’s $5,000 Electric Vehicle credit actually sprung for the low-range variant. This situation has cost us Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars to subsidize the purchase price of the more expensive trim that would not have qualified for the incentive. This works out to $115 million Canadian in credits, to be accurate.

With the earlier government announcement that it will ban the sale of new internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and light-duty trucks by 2035. Canada has joined a growing list of countries banning the fuel-guzzling vehicles, in Britain their ban will start by 2030, and Norway a country with extremely cold winters their ban will start as early as 2025.

Don’t get me wrong the phasing out ICE vehicles is very helpful in lessening the effects of climate change. It is my understanding that there is one key stumbling block for those in cold weather countries. It is my knowledge that in extremely cold climates, the temperature reduces the range and increases the charging time for electric vehicles. For your information in a 2019 report by the American Automobile Association  stated that cold weather can decrease the range of electric vehicles by up to 40 percent.

Now this is when it gets interesting.

A model has been developed by the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago and includes thousands of parameters from the type of metals in an electric vehicle (EV) battery to the amount of aluminum or plastic in a car. Picture this you quietly drive out of out of the Tesla showroom in your Model 3. You are pleased with yourself that you are doing your bit for the planet, but most of all you look great in the car.

Did you know that according to the research done by Argonne you’ll have to drive another 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before you are doing less harm to the environment than a gas-guzzling car? That’s the result of looking at the data from a model that calculates the lifetime emissions of vehicles.

So, I have a question for governments around the world as they push for greener transportation to meet climate targets, how are these extra miles/kilometers helping?

This brings me to the question; What is political ideology? It is my understanding that political ideology is a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols that explains how society should work and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.

It appears to me that the Trudeau government is so focused on their political ideology that they have forgotten about those that are paying the bills for their doctrines. Consider what I’ve outlined for you;

• As taxpayers we’ve paid out $115 million dollars as subsidies to people that can afford a new car to make them feel good about their purchase.
• The time for charging the electric vehicle depends on two variables according to ‘Car and Driver’ magazine. The variables are charger capacity and power source. It is my understanding that a typical electric car (60kWh battery) it takes just under 8 hours to charge from empty-to-full with a 7kW charging point.
• Did you know that gas or diesel-powered vehicles regularly beat their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ratings? ‘Car and Driver’ found in their highway testing of 12 Electric Vehicles that they’ve run range tests on, fell short of both its EPA highway and combined figures.
• It should be noted that when you live in a colder climate like us in Canada that range is reduced by 40% according to the American Automobile Association.
• The research done by Argonne National Laboratory shows that you’ll have to drive 13,500 miles (21,725 km) with an Electric Vehicle to do less harm than a gas-car.

These facts have shown a few things that all of us can learn from and speak out on. I am reminded of an anonymous quote that I read over 20 years ago; ‘Never live in hope and expectation with your arms folded.’

The key is to remember that politics is both form and substance, and much of our environmental policy appears to have been written without much thought. Consider the following;

1. When implementing any ideals, principles or doctrines, you cannot be shallow or just scratch the surface.
2. Grand gestures don’t necessarily mean good over-all results.
3. Judgement is necessary in analyzing and deciding what is in our best interests.

In conclusion, I hope you will share these facts with others. I ask that because if we don’t keep informed the next grand gesture will harm us even more, won’t it?