News Sections
Ottawa proposing new car efficiency standards
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(32)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Jan. 17 2008 10:28 PM ET
Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said Thursday the government is working towards a "made-in-Canada" solution to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars and light trucks by 2020.
On Thursday it announced that it will launch a consultation process that will help create new rules for fuel economy.
As promised last year, Cannon said Ottawa will begin in 2011 to regulate the fuel consumption of new vehicles. The aim is to at least match U.S. standards by 2020.
"By 2020, the average new vehicle sold in Canada will have a fuel consumption better than some of today's hybrid cars, and produce fewer GHG emissions, than approximately 93 per cent of all vehicle entries listed in the 2008 Fuel Consumption Guide," said Cannon.
In 2006, the combined new vehicle fleet (car and light trucks) average fuel consumption was approximately 8.6 litres per 100 km in Canada.
"The U.S. Congress has recently set an ambitious target of 35 miles per gallon, or 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres, for the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in 2020," said Cannon.
"Now, we welcome the U.S. goal but are committed to developing a made-in-Canada standard that achieves, at minimum, that target benchmarked against a stringent dominant North American standard."
On Friday, speaking to CTV's Canada AM, Cannon added that the provincial premiers have "an important role" to play in developing a national fuel economy standard for vehicles, and the environment is a "shared responsibility" between the federal and provincial governments.
Cannon also said he intends to write to the premiers to ask them to help determine the fuel economy standard, which he says will be a first in Canada.
The new U.S. regulation is called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard but it has been challenged by more stringent proposals out of California.
"For Canada to adopt the CAFE standard, which President Bush supports, means taking the slow lane in addressing climate change," Pierre Sadik of the David Suzuki Foundation told The Globe and Mail. "The California standard means getting to a solution much faster."
Several premiers agree. Quebec's Jean Charest and B.C.'s Gordon Campbell have said they want to move towards the tougher California standard.
"We want to achieve the best standard and reduce as much greenhouse gas as we can in as economically viable way as possible," Campbell said.
"Why we're going to the lowest common denominator is beyond me."
Manitoba has also said it wants to shadow California. But some carmakers say Ottawa's plan may be too ambitious.
"It's not going to be a cakewalk," said James Miller, Senior Vice President of Honda Canada.
"We think the goal that the minister is looking for, if it's 35 miles per gallon and harmonized, is going to be a struggle for all of the manufacturers."
Cannon, speaking at the Montreal International Auto Show, said the government will consult with the automotive industry and environmental experts about ways to improve new car efficiency standards.
George Iny of the Automobile Protection Association said Ottawa's move is a step in the right direction.
"It's very ambitious. The average car in 2020 would be as fuel-efficient as the very best vehicles today," said Iny.
"Our government recognizes that the transportation sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in Canada, accounting for 25 per cent of all Canada's GHG emissions," said Cannon.
"That's why we are taking action now to make sure that, into the future, we have the most environmentally responsible cars and trucks on Canadian roads."
With files from The Canadian Press and a report by CTV's David Akin
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(32)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
JP
said
Conrad Piche
said
Sean Calder
said
Fool
said
Alain Renaud
said
Brook
said
David from NS
said
PBW
said
For years the Big Three - and others - got round fuel efficiency standards by building vehicles on a truck base, which was exempt. All that did was help them avoid doing the R&D necessary for efficient engines.
As far as I am concerned, I shall not buy from the big three until they really produce efficient engines and vehicles.
Nick T
said
Adrian in Calgary
said
Perhaps tomorrow they'll announce legislation to have gravity reduced by 2050 in order to reduce energy demands?
larry
said
I'm not sure the implications of going faster ie: we do have a huge automotive employee base in Canada and so we want the cars made here to meet the mark as well. As well, new technology does take time.
Karen D
said
msamour
said
Ron
said
Hybrids skirt this problem by storing energy, from combustion during idling and braking cycles, in batteries. The energy is then used either at the wheel hub or in a power-traim mounted motor to provide or suplement propulsion.
Using a gas or diesel engine strictly in "generator mode", however, adds nothing.
R/H
said
jonathan
said
All cars in the European Union are sold with a CO2 rating with punitive taxation the more CO2 it emits.
As a result 80% of people buy high efficiency diesels.For example The latest generation BMW diesels (not for sale in Canada) can out perform the petrols in all aspects, but will give 43 mpg and around half the CO2 emissions of a petrol.
Even the latest Europe only mini cooper, gives around the same mileage as a Prius.
It seems these proposals are pretty feeble
tb
said
MHR from Ontario
said
jac
said
If you want to achieve the 35 mpg goal, you should ask for 45 mpg. The federal government should have the test done on actual pavement with actual drivers. I presently own a 03 Accord they claime it makes 44 mpg but actually only makes 32. And yes I do know that it depends on the driver, and I also made the test. The best I got was 34 mpg."
My chevy gets 33 MPG highway. So I guess I don't understand why people think that the big three are not fuel efficient. My car also has 200 HP and 8 feet cargo space.
FYI the 5500 pound Silverado/Sierra are rated to 10L/100 km.
These trucks can also run on 85% ethanol, which is better than any combination of battery/gasoline.
If you want to come on here and talk about gas efficiency why not put it good use. Demand drive thru conveniences are shut down permanently. Have speed regulators installed in cars. How much green house emissions are being expelled by those commuters that drive 1000 km a week that cruise at 120-140km?
What they need to really focus on here heavy truck emissions. This is what runs are country and they are not even looking at alternatives to their fuel consumption??
Chris
said
Even the federal Liberals (the poster childs of "trying" to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions) realized they would lose too many votes.
In the end, the feds will decide that it is better to let Alberta (with only 29 seats in the house of commons) suffer economically and make all the sacrifices for GHG reduction that are wanted by the eastern folk.
Dave
said
The problem is as long as the gas guzzling SUV's and muscle cars are still available there will still be the individuals who will buy these cars even though they pollute and waste fuel and resources.
The big shiny new car in the driveway is still a status symbol, and even if a 80 mpg four passenger vehicle was available tomorrow with a reasonable price tag there will still be the individuals who will insist on getting a model that guzzles gas and pollutes the air simple because it stands out and announces them as upper class or a cut above the nieghbours with thier compact green cars....
The solution is to totally phase out all the "Grande-Polluters" and make only compact "green" vehicles.
People such as myself who live in rural areas would also benefit from an expanded public transportation system so a car was not a vital link to the medical professionals and the shopping centres......
Unless we can find that genius who invented the 300mpg carburettor....you know....the one the oil companies assasinated back in the fifties.....
L-P in Markham
said
I am forced to drive a vehicle that burns 12-15 litres /100km because I have children. With Ontario's laws about car seats and boosters, I cannot fit my children(3) in a car. There is no room. so I have to have a van or an SUV. If I want to bring a long another adult with us (ie mother-in-law) then even my van gets cramped.
Let's get realistic about it people. Fuel efficient cars are cute, but are so small, I barely am able to sit in them on my own. Forget my family. Oh and I have to use it to commute since I can only afford 1 vehicle and Transit would end up costing me more per trip as well as taking 3 times longer to travel.
Like I said, let's get realistic. Get me a reciprocating engine that runs on hydrogen created by building new hydro-electric dams up north (so, we destroy a small part of the environment to save the bigger ones) and I will gladly get me one of those.
J-F (Ottawa)
said
I've owned several such cars through the years and hope they continue to make them as they do now.
If they can find a way to keep the performance AND reduce emissions, it's a great plan.
Some people prefer a Honda Civic, others like Ford Mustangs, as long as consumers will have the "choice" and keep emissions to required standard, it's a win/win situation.
Ryan
said
This looks more like a charade than anything. I bet tomorrow the auto industry will be screaming murder that they can't meet the targets that the gov't set. Then the average tax payer will feel better about taking $1 billion in their tax money to go towards an industry that was too slow to react to consumers demands. That $1 billion should go to other areas where the money is more warranted (ie health care, deficit, infrastructure, etc.)
Pat_Pending
said
Rob
said
Karen D
said
CP
said
At the same time give more incentives to those with smaller engine cars by accelerating their insurance discounts.
FB
said
Jim McB
said
Cities don't represent the only people in this country, yet when an announcement is made, some creature emerges a concrete box get interviewed and the answer is always the same, it's not enough. Well rural folks and farmers keep enough trees to give them vitually no carbon footprint, so all this regulation is to cater for city folks. That is something you should always keep in mind.
My vehicle is a 2002, Japanese, and gets 36 mpg city and 45 mpg highway. It is a hatchback and can carry more than most North American sedans and will take 5 passengers in relative comfort. Surely we in this part of the world can build something competetive now, it just takes customer demand to make it happen!
Mike Anton
said
steve I. C.
said
How high Mr Bush? Yes Sir!