New federal clean fuel regulations, which take effect on Canada Day, are designed to cut pollution from vehicles. Although there won’t be much of a change to pump prices across the country on July 1, experts say, there will be a noticeable increase several years down the road. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)
My boomer parents be like:
- We had the oil crisis in the late seventies
- We had a recession in the 80’s
- We had high inflation rates in the 80’s
- We had high interest rates in the 80’s
- Salaries were frozen for a year to combat inflation in the 80’s
- We had it worse
They could afford a house and a car with two kids, gas, cable, phone and buy groceries virtually on a single income.
Meanwhile we have:
- A pollution crisis fueled by oil and plastics
- We’ve been in recession since 2008 (or so it feels like it)
- We’re facing runaway inflation rates fueled by corporate greed instead of regular economic factors
- Interest rates are low, but property prices start at just under half a million in comparable areas, also interest in bank accounts give nothing and our savings lose value
- We have widespread wage stagnation since the early 2000’s
- The world is ending
We can barely afford a small 500sq ft condo with double professional income, without a car or even kids in the mix, and we cry every time we buy groceries. And the whole world is burning. But sure, they had it worse.
I don’t care if gas prices increase due to new regulations. It had to happen eventually. Maybe the day nobody will be able to drive to work will be the day they start investing in mass public transit.
That’s exactly my parents too, they have a good couple of million stashed away for their retirements. I was hoping when they sold our childhood home a few years ago they would help my sister and I with down payments. NOPE! They firmly believe that since they could do it we can do it, completely closed off to the idea that things are fundamentally different nowadays. Rent is 43% of my take home and I’m lucky!
It’s a good move. Canada isn’t even close to hitting it’s climate goals. The only way to actually hit 1.5C climate goals would be to tax carbon extremely heavily, resulting in a massive drop in quality of life. However if we and other countries don’t pay that “tax”, then we will pay massive interest over the next couple generations. It’s a lose lose situation.
I disagree. This legislation will just result in producers adding even more ethanol to gasoline, leading to more valuable farm land switching from food production to biofuels.
Canadians are struggling to feed themselves as it is, we don’t need scarcity driving up costs even more.
Canadians are struggling to feed themselves as it is, we don’t need scarcity driving up costs even more.
Corporate profits is the reason, not supply
Cool, so lets make things worse by reducing supply as well?
Really don’t understand your train of thought here my dude.
We over-produce so much that we have artificial limits to protect profitability. Supply is not an issue.
Because of global warming there’s going to be a lot of land throughout the world that will no longer be viable for agriculture.
If you’re upset over the current blip in food prices caused by the temporary disruption in grain supply stemming from the conflict in Ukraine, then buckle up, it’s gonna get a lot worse from here.
We will need to move agriculture to other parts of the world. That’s going to mean food prices are going up no matter what we do.
Why are you concerned with having to open up new farmland in other parts of the world for ethanol, when we’re going to have to move agriculture to other parts of the world either way? Seems like being upset over someone pissing in the ocean.
Because of global warming there’s going to be a lot of land throughout the world that will no longer be viable for agriculture.
When? Just the date please
If you’re upset over the current blip in food prices caused by the temporary disruption in grain supply stemming from the conflict in Ukraine, then buckle up, it’s gonna get a lot worse from here.
No, the current blip in food prices was caused by mass money printing from the Pandemic. It is not “temporary”, food will never return to pre-war prices. Not that grain has anything to do with the hundreds of other products on the shelf experiencing the same increase.
Congrats on falling for propaganda
We will need to move agriculture to other parts of the world. That’s going to mean food prices are going up no matter what we do.
Again…when? Won’t be in our lifetimes, but starvation is already happening today.
Why are you concerned with having to open up new farmland in other parts of the world for ethanol, when we’re going to have to move agriculture to other parts of the world either way?
Ah yes, great idea. Make the ethanol somewhere else in the world, and ruin it’s carbon neutrality shipping it all the way back to Canada. Not gonna happen, local farm land will be converted to fuel production instead.
Seems like being upset over someone pissing in the ocean.
Ironic considering Canada’s emissions are also a piss in the ocean.
TL;DR there are far better ways to reduce carbon emissions than attacking our food supply or putting Canadians through significant economic hardship. The fact these options are being outright ignored by our government makes one question what the true motive is here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_agriculture
Food prices will increase by 80% by 2050.
No, the current blip in food prices was caused by mass money printing from the Pandemic.
What’s colloquially termed as “money printing” is monetary policy that involves central banks decreasing interest rates to increase the money supply. Central banks around the world are raising interest rates, the exact opposite of “printing money”.
The demand for food is inelastic because people gotta eat. Are you denying that disruptions in food supply wouldn’t result in an upward pressure on price? Basic principles of supply and demand don’t exist simply because things you’ve read on the internet tend to avoid criticizing Valdimir Putin’s actions? Propaganda indeed.
Again…when? Won’t be in our lifetimes, but starvation is already happening today.
Wow so you’re really going all in on “screw future generations”? While the old saw of “the victors write the history books” isn’t always true, it is true that future generations will write the history books. What do you suppose the history books will say about people that have your attitude?
TL;DR there are far better ways to reduce carbon emissions than attacking our food supply or putting Canadians through significant economic hardship. The fact these options are being outright ignored by our government makes one question what the true motive is here.
I agree. Using public transit instead of driving is a much better solution. So are you going to get rid of your car because there’s a better solution? Or at least get an electric car?
This is a temporary solution to reduce carbon emissions for people that are going to continue driving vehicles that emit CO2. It is certainly not a solution, it’s just something that buys us a little more time for the more permanent solutions to be implemented.
They sound like an accelerationist
Fuel alcohols can be made from other source materials. Including waste and byproduct materials.
We don’t “need to” displace food production to plant crops exclusively for fuel.
Historically, fuel regulations have been wildly effective at controlling and reducing vehicle emissions. Improving and tightening those standards is another good step forward for our climate and air quality.
Something left out of every discussion on fuel price is consumer choice to purchase large, fuel inefficient vehicles. And no, “best in class” fuel efficiency doesn’t mean shit if you are riding a vehicle several “classes” above what you actually need.
It’s like the third rail, can’t talk about it, even suggesting someone didn’t actually need an F150 to commute to work is a cardinal sin. Of course, of course, you need that truck because you bought a seado, which you 100% also needed. Your a bad driver, so.you had to protect yourself in a mobile fortress, makes sense. What do you mean you know the difference between a want and need? A luxury and a nessecity?
Look at any list of top selling vehicles. Trucks , SUV and crossovers dominate the top of the lists. Even when hatchbacks or smaller vehicles are on the list they’re often “sporty” models that themselves are not efficient.
The single biggest thing most people could have done to help dodge higher fuel prices is to have chosen a more efficient vehicle. Full stop.
The very last thing we should be considering is whinging about increasing fuel costs before looking at our own choices first. But I can feel it, I can feel someone out there getting all fired up at me about how I don’t know their life, how they need that Land Rover because the kids have hockey, as if we couldn’t get to hockey in the Toyota Terecel days.
$0.17/l…sure. drive less if you don’t want to pay it. That’s the entire point, using price pressure to reduce the usage of climate damaging fuels.
Increased fuel costs are gonna disproportionately hurt the poor. The great thing about the carbon tax is that the rebate scales with income. This doesn’t.
This kind of policy feeds right-wing rhetoric that “elites” are using climate change to hurt the little guy.
Everything disproportionately hurts the poor. It’s so expensive to be poor, you have no idea unless for example you know or are someone trying to survive on the 13k the Ontario government says it is right and decent to give disabled people to live on.
I spent zero dollars on transportation over the last two years, and I took one round trip on the city bus the year before that. I spent zero dollars on clothes. The only thing this will affect in my life is the cost of food, since that is the only thing I can afford to spend money on, and there are so many larger problems presently affecting the cost of food it doesn’t even make sense to care about this.
We need to address the problem of poverty in Canada but not through undermining climate policy. It needs to be its own thing.
They aren’t using them to hurt the little guy intentionally, it’s just what generally ends up happening. Gas is much more affordable than the alternative. Imagine how much it will cost to develop the infrastructure for electric cars, make them widely available, and troubleshoot the technology to be effective in our climate year-round. There’s no way the wealthy allow those costs to be passed on to them. Those changes will be made with tax breaks and incentives, and they will be made with labor that could have been building reasonably priced housing. The costs of the cars themselves will be passed on to the consumer.
I don’t have an answer to this problem, but conservatives aren’t wrong to point out how elites still take their private jets everywhere, and profit from foreign trade deals where they offshore the pollution (and wages) for product development, while screwing the lower and middle classes over in the name of stopping climate change.
These extremely ineffective actions taken by left wing politicians are no where near enough to make a difference, but they are a great way to score easy votes and keep a lot of money out of the hands of the poor.
The good news is that populations worldwide are seeing decreased birth rates. Fewer humans is definitely in the top 5 of best ways to reduce our carbon footprint.
Edit: To be clear, the conservatives are just as ineffective and corrupt. The “right wing” isn’t necessarily the problem here. It’s that we have nothing but bad politicians across the board who can’t or won’t implement important sweeping changes, like developing nuclear power stations across the nation.
Solid analysis and great points.
I’m not sure if this is the right move… It’ll inevitably hurt the consumer due to rising costs from the biofuel.
The government should target the polluting larger fish and you know, actually adhere to their climate goals… cough cough
“Canada has never reached any of its own climate targets,” said Caroline Brouillette, national policy manager at Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of more than 130 groups. Source
article>> there will be a noticeable increase several years down the road.
hurt the consumer due to rising costs
… several years down the road.
Adhering to our climate goals would be devastating to people living in provinces where they’ve done little more than double down on resource extraction. Apparently that’s a bad thing.
And in several years, electric or hybrid vehicles will be the majority.
I know we’ll need a new car sometime in the near year, and I’ve already set at minimum to get a hybrid.
Gotta play to your strengths. Alberta doesn’t have much else going for it other than farming.
Really hard to diversify being so far north and disconnected. There is only one US interstate connecting Alberta to the US, and it really doesn’t go anywhere of value.
“Canada has never reached any of its own climate targets,”
Has any country?
Not that it excuses Canada’s lackluster approach, but we’re far from the only slacker on this.
We should be doing a lot better, but taking strong enough measures needed to signifigantly and quickly move the needle would guarantee any politician who did it would never get re-elected.
You have a good point. Apparently only 2 countries are hitting their targets…
