SUZUKI – Government support for electric vehicles drives down emissions

ELECTRIC VEHICLES WON’T SAVE US from runaway climate change, but they’re part of the solution, along with support for public transit and active transport like walking and cycling. The transportation sector accounts for almost one-quarter of the world’s carbon emissions, so it’s an area where change is necessary and possible.

As Norway and other countries are demonstrating, incentives and tax policy can move people quickly into cleaner vehicle options. Half of Norway’s cars are expected to be electric this year, and it’s on track to meet its commitment to have only zero-emissions cars sold by 2025. Its strong EV mandate, inexpensive hydropower, tax incentives and price parity with internal combustion engine vehicles contributed to this success.

Reduced tolls, bus-lane access and free parking and ferry rides sweetened the option for Norwegians. Only four per cent of the country’s EV owners say they would go back to conventional cars.

Norway is ahead of much of the world, but electric vehicles are on track to reach more than half of global new car sales by 2040. Government policies have driven this shift. The Norwegian government offered about US$1 billion in incentives this year, including waiving high vehicle import duties and taxes for electric car buyers. The government plans to phase these out in 2021, gradually replacing them with higher taxes on fossil-fuelled vehicles.

China used government incentives to increase EV production last year by 50 per cent over the previous year, and built the world’s first fully electric bus fleet in Shenzhen. India has a US$1.4 billion, three-year subsidy plan to jump-start electric and hybrid vehicle sales.

Although Canada isn’t embracing the full policy package needed for significant behavioural change, it’s making progress, with commitments to reach 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2040, and 2025 and 2030 targets coming. But it’s a long road ahead. Just 2.5 per cent of total vehicle sales last year were electrics. Federal rebates implemented in May should boost electric vehicle sales, but we need mandatory targets.

Provincially, B.C. and Quebec are echoing California, which in 1990 became the first place to set up a zero-emission vehicle standard. One of 10 new vehicles purchased there last year were EVs. Quebec’s mandate sets a target for one-third of all new vehicles sales to be EV by 2030. B.C.’s mandate, expected to become law soon, requires that all new light-duty car and truck sales be zero-emission by 2040. That could play a big role in helping B.C. meet its transportation climate targets.

Municipalities and provinces can help prepare for the EV transition by building more public charging infrastructure and requiring new residential buildings to install chargers or be electric-vehicle friendly. Other ways to lower transportation emissions include cleaning up the electricity used to charge EVs and reducing the carbon content of fuels for non-electric vehicles with biofuels or hydrogen produced from renewables.

Even without government interventions, electric vehicles may cost less than gas-powered cars by 2024, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts. Add lower operating and maintenance costs and savings from forgoing high-priced gas, and there are many incentives to switch. Hydro-Québec’s online calculator estimates it costs $10.65 to drive a gas-fuelled compact car 100 kilometres and $2.10 for an electric […]

via SUZUKI – Government support for electric vehicles drives down emissions — ArmchairMayor.ca

6 thoughts on “SUZUKI – Government support for electric vehicles drives down emissions

  1. Full disclosure: I think global warming / climate change hysteria is a scam, having lived my whole life under various and sundry doomsday deadlines since the 70s. BUT, I believe this article is highlighting a good advancement in reducing pollutants into the atmosphere. Although, again, isn’t electricity generated by burning things, too, either coal or natural gas? So, … anyhow. I wanna be friends so will believe that the pollutants emitted to generate electricity are less than those by oil-based combustion vehicles. Regardless if your predicate is climate change or just plain old pollution reduction thinking, the article highlights a good.

    Like

    • Good point boomrx. There are a lot of emissions pollutants in burning shit. They used to use tetraethyl lead . A militer l bolus of tetraethyl lead in yur blood will destroy yur brain or kill ya. Still used in developing countries. caused spikes in crime and violence in inner cities in the 60s and 70s. The high lead levels in city kids then, was from tetraethyl lead, not paint. I know. I am a toxicologist. I did a retrospective study on it.
      Now there are ketones and radium in the shitty gasoline they use from tar sands and fracking

      Like

    • The problem, boomrx, is that there are some powerful corporate interests attempting to shape the climate debate, which makes it extremely hard for people to trust a lot of what they say: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/05/07/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

      At present, the main goal of legitimate climate activists is to produce electricity via renewable means such as solar, wind, tidal and mini-hydro power. It turns out renewable energy – especially if it’s locally produced and generated – is far cheaper and more efficient than energy produced centrally by monopolies. With grid-based energy, so much power (around 75%) is lost on top of all the money being siphoned off for profits and obscene CEO salaries.

      Like

  2. Pingback: EVs and Carbon Credits: Milking the Drying Up Cow | Worldtruth

  3. Pingback: Debunking Elon Musk: Driving Electric Car Fake Environmentalism | Worldtruth

Leave a reply to boomrx Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.