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)

  • yimby@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • m9p909@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • httpjames@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alberta doesn’t have much else going for it other than farming.

          The solar potential seems massive.

          There’s a few reports about farming under solar panels, to make use of the shade and sell the power. It may be too small-scale, but the mindset of “we sell power, now, and maybe we can do more” could help.

          Either way, I claim the constant maintenance and care needs a mindset that uniquely suits farmers to being solar energy vendors.