this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
33 points (97.1% liked)
Canada
11379 readers
1030 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- East Gwillimbury (ON)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I actually don't hate this. In fact, I think it's probably a much better plan than what we had before.
So, first off, they're bringing back the EV rebates. That is fucking excellent news. Even better news is that they're announcing investments in more charging infrastructure across Canada. If you want to see Canadian cars go electric, that's what will get you there. Not some meaningless mandate saying that no one is allowed to buy gas cars, while refusing to actually make it possible for people to drive electric cars across one of the largest and most sparsely populated countries on Earth.
Those two items alone are big, BIG green transition wins. So before everyone starts in with the moaning about Carney supposedly backsliding again on green goals (and yes, to be clear, he has done some really big backsliding in that area; absolutely not letting his government off the hook here) let's actually look at the details and recognise what we're getting here.
As for the move away from the EV mandate to "fuel efficiency", we simply don't have enough details to form a complete opinion yet. But I do think, no matter what, it has to be recognized that a true 100% transition away from internal combustion was never, ever going to be possible in Canada. The idea that a country with our specific geography and demographic distribution was going to go 100% electric was a ridiculous pipe dream cooked up by idiot policy vendors who just wanted to pretend they were making meaningful steps towards green transition (while leaving the actual polluters entirely alone). What the fuck is a guy living up in Nunavut supposed to do with an electric vehicle? With an ICE you can throw some Jerry cans in the back to refuel on the long stretches between gas stations. With an EV you're going to, what, carry some solar panels for the four hours of partial sunlight you get in winter?
I think we need to recognize that the EV mandate was the kind of policy cooked up by politicians in Ottawa to appease voters living in Toronto, with not a single thought given to, for example, native communities living up north.
EV's are, by their nature, already far more practical than combustion vehicles for 90% of the population of Canada, as long as we can provide the infrastructure to make them practical. Which comes back to my point above about the promised investments in charging. That's the thing that will do more to get consumers transitioned over to EVs than anything else. For the commercial side of things, we know from the available research already that carbon pricing and similar pollution tax methods are by far one of the most effective ways of reducing carbon output, so in theory a fuel efficiency focused model should produce the results we want without needing to be as inflexible as a flat mandate. The industrial carbon price is already providing strong incentives for commercial shippers and other companies that rely on large scale transit to move towards electric options wherever feasible.
In short, there's absolutely no reason why this approach can't get us the outcome we're looking for in terms of a green transition, and it may well get that outcome in a way that better respects the needs of smaller communities (many of them indigenous) across the parts of Canada that cannot be easily served by EV charging infrastructure. The devil is always in the details, and we'll need to push for that "fuel efficiency" model to have real teeth, but overall there's no reason to start wailing and gnashing your teeth yet. There's a real opportunity for this to be a big win for our green goals.
NB: One thing that does need to be noted here is that we need to take care to learn from the mistakes of the US in this regard. Tying efficiency standards to square footage was a blindingly stupid move that lead directly to the massively oversized luxotrucks that now dominate our roads with their four foot high child-killing front-ends. Then again, we also have to recognise that at the end of the day whatever standards we set are always going to be overrun by whatever happens in California, and that's the sad reality we have to work with.
Nothing - which is why the existing mandate ALLOWS THE SALE OF PHEVs PAST 2035.
Your whole post just screams “tell me I didn’t read the mandate without telling me you didn’t read the mandate”.
I have no hope they'll have learned and understand this lesson =(
Part of this could be related to the South Korea MOU. Hyundai could be looking to build hydrogen fuel cars here.
Freaking Hydrogen cars. Dead end tech with a fuel that's extremely difficult to keep in place. For whatever reason the big asian car manufacturers like Honda and Toyota seem to refuse to admit will never take off, after more than 2 decades trying.
I'm fascinated by their insistence on a technology that is clearly doomed. The embodiment of the sunk cost fallacy. They insist on trying to continue to make Hydrogen a thing, with no plan for infrastructure which is even more complicated than DC fast chargers, while not even attempting to expand EV offerings that people want in the meantime.
Hydrogen isn’t going to happen. So stop holding your breath.
Beyond all of the other problems with hydrogen (production, transportation, storage, dispensing, etc.) the economic truth is that hydrogen vehicles are, at best, 60% efficient. And hydrogen production either relies on fossil fuel production (for “grey” hydrogen), or electrolysis (“green” hydrogen). Electrolysis itself is only about 66% efficient.
This efficiency matters in this comparison because when you put 100 units of energy to get 66 units of energy out, and then put that into a vehicle that can only transform that into around 40 units of motive power, you will always do better putting that energy into an EV which is 95% efficient (you put in 100 units of energy and get 95 units out). In terms of cars, you can charge more than twice as many cars with this input energy as you’d be able to with hydrogen. There is no world where that makes any sort of economic sense for anyone.
With hydrogen vehicles, you get a vehicle that needs a lot more energy to go less distance. It’s the worst of all worlds. And that’s just discussing the efficiency values — and not all the losses that occur during all the transfer stages. Hydrogen needs to be kept cryogenically cold (which also requires more energy to maintain) — in effect, there is no possible work in which hydrogen replaces a modern EV.
I don't believe in or care about hydrogen vehicles, just stating that not having an EV mandate is likely related to the SK MOU because Hyundai is specifically interested in hydrogen. I would not be surprised if this is also the precursor to a Japanese vehicle MOU since they also have an interest in hydrogen.