New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars

And the Canadian and American governments are pretending that saving $200 a year in fuel will make up for it.

Automakers facing carbon tax in 2011 under tough new standards

By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceApril 1, 2010 1:02 PM

Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008.

Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008. Photograph by: Darren Stone, Victoria Times Colonist

OTTAWA =97 Automobile manufacturers could face a carbon tax on new vehicles in the 2011 model year if they fail to meet new standards to reduce tailpipe emissions that were announced on Thursday by Environment Minister Jim Prentice.

The declaration confirms that the government still plans to move ahead with a draft plan unveiled in December to impose tougher tailpipe standards on cars, matching new proposed regulations in the United States.

"Since last May, we've been working with the United States to put in place tough North American standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles," Prentice said at an Ottawa car dealership. "We are pleased to be taking this step to further harmonize our climate change action with the Obama administration =97 a step that will protect our environment and ensure a level playing field for the automotive industry."

Environment Canada estimated in December that the standards would result in a 20 per cent reduction in emissions compared to the 2007 model year. It now estimates the standards would result in about a 25 per cent reduction in emissions for the 2016 fleet of new vehicles when compared with the 2008 model year.

"The proposed standards would require substantial environmental improvements from new vehicles and would put Canadian GHG emission standards at par with U.S. national standards and, by 2016, with the California standards," Environment Canada said in December.

While companies would be forced to comply with the new standards for average emissions of their fleet between 2012 and 2016, they will be allowed to purchase credits or pay a carbon tax to the government to offset emissions at a rate of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for the 2011 model year.

The standards are based on vehicle size to encourage manufacturers to make existing vehicles more efficient as opposed to changing the makeup of their fleet to produce smaller vehicles.

The regulations include a credit system to provide "flexibility" in compliance if they exceed targets, or want to trade credits between companies. The regulations also propose incentives to give double credits for companies that introduce advanced technologies, including electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles which run on hydrogen.

Prentice has criticized the Quebec government for introducing its own regulations this year to crack down on tailpipe standards, describing it as a "folly."

But Quebec Environment Minister Line Beauchamp indicated on Thursday that her government intended to stick with its plan if the joint Canadian and U.S. standards fall short of meeting the California standards. California has also decided to sign an equivalency agreement with the U.S. government that delays the pace of its originally proposed standards by one year.

Meantime, Quebec has said that its regulations also include fewer loopholes and more stringent reporting requirements for industry than what the Harper government has proposed.

The Harper government said it will adopt its new regulations by this summer, following a two-month public consultation period. Prentice's announcement comes one day after the government cancelled an incentive program for home renovations to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.

The program was also previously cancelled by the government in 2006 but restored under a new name, one year later following public criticism.

With files from Kevin Dougherty (Montreal Gazette) and Marianne White (Canwest News Service).

snipped-for-privacy@canwest.com

Reply to
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
Loading thread data ...

"New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars"

"The rules will cost consumers an estimated $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, the government said. But the heads of the Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency said car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their vehicles through better gas mileage."

New Mileage Rules: Pay More for Cars, Less at Pump More miles on less fuel: Gov't efficiency standards will mean higher car prices, fuel savings The Associated Press By KEN THOMAS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON April 1, 2010 (AP)

formatting link

Reply to
Joe

Governments LIE and dupe the people into believing they will get more than they put in. There is NO free lunch.

Reply to
D E Willson

Translation: The people who are going to get hurt the most are the very people that democrats say they care most about, those who are poor and those who are on the lower end of the wage scale.

Automakers facing carbon tax in 2011 under tough new standards

By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceApril 1, 2010 1:02 PM

Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008.

Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008. Photograph by: Darren Stone, Victoria Times Colonist

OTTAWA ? Automobile manufacturers could face a carbon tax on new vehicles in the 2011 model year if they fail to meet new standards to reduce tailpipe emissions that were announced on Thursday by Environment Minister Jim Prentice.

The declaration confirms that the government still plans to move ahead with a draft plan unveiled in December to impose tougher tailpipe standards on cars, matching new proposed regulations in the United States.

"Since last May, we've been working with the United States to put in place tough North American standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles," Prentice said at an Ottawa car dealership. "We are pleased to be taking this step to further harmonize our climate change action with the Obama administration ? a step that will protect our environment and ensure a level playing field for the automotive industry."

Environment Canada estimated in December that the standards would result in a 20 per cent reduction in emissions compared to the 2007 model year. It now estimates the standards would result in about a 25 per cent reduction in emissions for the 2016 fleet of new vehicles when compared with the 2008 model year.

"The proposed standards would require substantial environmental improvements from new vehicles and would put Canadian GHG emission standards at par with U.S. national standards and, by 2016, with the California standards," Environment Canada said in December.

While companies would be forced to comply with the new standards for average emissions of their fleet between 2012 and 2016, they will be allowed to purchase credits or pay a carbon tax to the government to offset emissions at a rate of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for the 2011 model year.

The standards are based on vehicle size to encourage manufacturers to make existing vehicles more efficient as opposed to changing the makeup of their fleet to produce smaller vehicles.

The regulations include a credit system to provide "flexibility" in compliance if they exceed targets, or want to trade credits between companies. The regulations also propose incentives to give double credits for companies that introduce advanced technologies, including electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles which run on hydrogen.

Prentice has criticized the Quebec government for introducing its own regulations this year to crack down on tailpipe standards, describing it as a "folly."

But Quebec Environment Minister Line Beauchamp indicated on Thursday that her government intended to stick with its plan if the joint Canadian and U.S. standards fall short of meeting the California standards. California has also decided to sign an equivalency agreement with the U.S. government that delays the pace of its originally proposed standards by one year.

Meantime, Quebec has said that its regulations also include fewer loopholes and more stringent reporting requirements for industry than what the Harper government has proposed.

The Harper government said it will adopt its new regulations by this summer, following a two-month public consultation period. Prentice's announcement comes one day after the government cancelled an incentive program for home renovations to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.

The program was also previously cancelled by the government in 2006 but restored under a new name, one year later following public criticism.

With files from Kevin Dougherty (Montreal Gazette) and Marianne White (Canwest News Service).

snipped-for-privacy@canwest.com

Reply to
Jerry Okamura

But, if th Democrats increase taxes to the top 5% income, and also reduce the 800 billion dollars military budget by 70%, they could give some money back to those families with an anual income of 50K or less.

VV

Reply to
Viejo Vizcacha

The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost for cars. Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than a publication on carbon credits

formatting link
So it's petty clear that you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less appropriate place).

Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their vehicles through better gas mileage.

Rob

Reply to
Rob Dekker

Seat belts were supposed to cost us thousands of dollars too. But they were cheaper than air bags.

My first car was a bloody '58 Ford. No padded dashboard. No lap belts.

I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the cost of an automobile out of range in those days.

If buddy want's a cheap car, there are shit pits made in India for nothing. Windshield wipers are optional

formatting link

Reply to
Harold Gleason

No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options. People wouldn't buy them back then.

Reply to
Brent

Translation, Jerry accepts the bull shit, and pretends to care.

It's all political to Jerry O.

Now! If this came from the mouth of Bush, McCain or Palin.

Jerry wouldn't be involved in this discussion.

Jerry is loyal.

Where is the evidence? Not some right wing crap.

Hell, even $24 Trillion's cite said no such thing as New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for car

He made it up, you moron.

Reply to
Ron Wood Jr.

Rich, you need to get out more... clean air (like home garbage pick up) comes with a price... we pay it and breath.

You could save hundreds... shit - thousands of dollars a year if, instead of having a couple of guys drive past your house each week, you kept your empty pizza boxes and frozen food wrappers in your bedroom - if you don't mind the smell. We could save a bundle if we didn't have emissions controls on our cars... if we don't mind the smell.

Rich is young so I really can't blame him (disadvantaged kids need all the support we can offer). He is too young to remember the air quality issues that lead up to the early 70s and the introduction of sweeping changes in engine design.

I've been involved in auto repair for something like 40 years... ALL of my daily drivers are bone stock, have all emissions control devices connected and working and offer gas mileage close to what I remember from the high compression, tetra-ethyl lead days. With the added bonus that, here in the frigid north at least, these engines last longer than they ever used to.

$27 TRILLION? Are you sure Canada HAS that much money?

You sir, are a cross posting little wiener... move out of your mommas basement and get a real life.

Reply to
Jim Warman

If you figure that the average car has a lifetime of over 100,000 miles, and you get the milage to go from 20 miles per gallon to 31 miles per gallon, how many gallons are saved?

100,000/20 is 5,000 gallons of gas. 100,000/32 is 3125 gallons, A savings of 1875 gallons, at a price of $2.50/gallon, that would be 4687.50 total.

Keep in mind that we were able to almost double the gas milage of vehicles simply by switching from carberators to fuel injectors, and putting in computerized electronic ignition and fuel injection control. Switching to vapor injection, flex-fuels, and fuel mixtures could double the milage again. Eliminating obsolete regulations and focusing on innovation to lower emissions could further increase mileage by eleminating PVC, catalytic converter, and permitting mechanically coupled superchargers.

Back in the early 1960s, several states, most notably California, outlawed mechanically coupled supercharges and nitrogen enriched fuels because they didn't want consumers to have cars that could outrun the police cars. Putting these technologies into a 1 litre engine could increase the horsepower of the smaller engine, lowere the fuel to air ratio, and give higher torque, which means that the engines could run at lower RPM and work well with the transmission such that they could get to 60 MPH while the engine runs and 600 RPM.

This is probably more a ploy for companies like GM to raise prices in the wake of falling unit volumes. Ironically, many of the technologies that would lead to hyper-effecient cars would actually lower the production costs, much the same way that computers and electronic ignitions reduced the number of wear points and improved performance.

Reply to
Rex B

Hello Jim, a mechanic.

It appears that you see my point. And $27 Trillion wouldn't know a bloody Briggs & Stratton from what powers some of the cars in the American Lemans series. :)

Reply to
Ron Wood Jr.

There is a viable idea to do with powering internal combustion engines lately with amazing fuel economy.

Here is one, but I want it to be tested at Lemans. I attend Lemans on a frequent basis.

formatting link

Reply to
Ron Wood Jr.

You believe that? A 20mph crash in a 1980 mid-sized car would do about $1000 damage. A crash at that speed now causes almost $6000 damage. Why? Not inflation. Mandated safety features, like airbags which are all, "use once and replace." The people trying to push these things on others always downplay the real cost, otherwise people would simply refuse en masse to adopt them.

Reply to
Liberals are vermin

You believe that? A 20mph crash in a 1980 mid-sized car would do about $1000 damage. A crash at that speed now causes almost $6000 damage. Why? Not inflation. Mandated safety features, like airbags which are all, "use once and replace." The people trying to push these things on others always downplay the real cost, otherwise people would simply refuse en masse to adopt them.

Reply to
Liberals are vermin

credits

formatting link
>

Variable valve timing is, indeed, viable. But, it sure is not new; it is available on current production cars.

Reply to
Bob Willard

I'm not sure that I do see your point... I see my point and, if it coincides with yours.. good...

As a child, I recall daily smog reports on the TV and radio.... Now, just to be fair, the smog reports were for places I didn't live. They were for area much more heavily populated. Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo... Images of people falling in the streets... people wearing breathing aids... these were common on the news...

Obviously, the early efforts helped and, as technology improved, air quality is improving... even as we are growing more dependant on our cars and trucks.

This clean air isn't going to come free... and there is no guarranty that it is going to come "cheap".

Most people confuse "fuel economy" and "low emissions" - using the current level of technology, these are mutually exclusive (though improving compared to the early years) .

I see your link to variable valve timing... curious since there are few engines in Fords line-up that don't have VCT apparatus. (FWIW, about 8 years ago, I opted to abandon "all make" auto repair because of the specialized nature of the modern automobile).

At some point in the near future, we are going to have to release our dependancy on petroleum products and forge ahead into new areas of energy sources.

Hello Jim, a mechanic.

It appears that you see my point. And $27 Trillion wouldn't know a bloody Briggs & Stratton from what powers some of the cars in the American Lemans series. :)

Reply to
Jim Warman

Reply to
<AllieKat

Here we go again. Progressives wanting to decimate the military so they can get a free gubmint cheese. What do we do for protection or a response when we're attacked the next time?? Will Obama stop aggression by tinpots and lunatic dictators by the sheer power of his personality??

Reply to
The PHANTOM

HOWDAFUKK MUCH GAS WOULD YOU HAVE TO SAVE TO COVER THAT $926 PER VEHICLE FFS ??!! AND HOW LONG WOULD YOU HAVE TO DRIVE A CRACKER BOX SIZED TINCAN OF A CAR TO SAVE MORE THAN $3,000 ??!! WHY NOT TAKE OBAMA'S ADVICE AND AIR YOUR TIRES UP ??? Hell I took his advice and put 300 psi in each tire of my gas guzzling SUV and now I have to stop every 200 miles and drain gas out of the tank !!

Reply to
The PHANTOM

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.