2 million electric vehicles globally, and less than 30,000 in Canada. How best to encourage more?

Electric vehicles Wikimedia Commons 768x512.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons

The latest edition of the Global EV Outlook 2017 was released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in June, reporting that the global electric car stock, (mainly Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)), surpassed 2 million units in 2016 – an increase of 60% from 2015. China is the leader with the most vehicles, at 648,770 units, followed by the U.S. at 563,710.  China is also the leader in other electrified modes – with over 300,000 electric buses.  In terms of market share, Norway, with its its small population of 5.25 million  is the leader: its 133,260 units represent a 28.76% market share. Canada, with its population of 36.5 million people,  is well behind the pack with an electric vehicle stock of 29,270 units, representing a market share of 0.57%, according to the IEA.   (Perhaps not so bad, considering that electric vehicles still only represent 0.2% of all passenger cars worldwide) . Besides tabulating national statistics and trends regarding vehicle stock and charging stations, the report includes a substantial discussion of supportive policies amongst the member countries.

Canada committed to developing a national strategy to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles on Canadian roads by 2018  in the Pan-Canadian Framework agreement,  and the policy process is currently under review – as summarized in an article in the National Observer .  On May 26, the Minister of Transport announced that:  “ a national Advisory Group has been established to contribute to developing options for addressing the key barriers for greater deployment of these technologies in five areas: vehicle supply, cost and benefits of ownership, infrastructure readiness, public awareness, and clean growth and clean jobs.  The Advisory Group includes representatives from governments, industry, consumer and non-government organizations and academia. ”  One of the members of the Advisory Group is the non-profit Équiterre , which at the end of May released a new report :   Accelerating the transition to electric mobility in Canada .  The report modelled three scenarios for ZEV adoption and concluded that only “the scenario with a legal mandate to sell a certain number of electric vehicles resulted in the market share necessary to drive down greenhouse gas emissions in line with international targets.”

Another new report, from the Ecofiscal Commission, Supporting Carbon Pricing:  How to identify policies that genuinely complement an economy-wide carbon price , provides a detailed case study on electric vehicle subsidies  in Quebec, including a consideration of how they interact with other emissions regulations.  The Ecofiscal report suggests that the current subsidy system  results in a high cost for emissions reduction, and that flexible regulations “might be a more cost-effective approach to increasing ZEV uptake” than a supply-side mandate .   Currently, Quebec is the only Canadian jurisdiction with such supply-side regulation; under Bill 104, passed in October 2016, 3.5 % of the total number of vehicles sold or leased by car manufacturers in Quebec must be zero emissions vehicles starting in 2018,  and by 2020, the standard will  rise to 15.5 %. For an overview of the issue and support for the rebate policy option, see Clare Demerse’  article in Policy Options, “Rebates should be part of electric car strategy”  (June 9) .

Canada has signed on to a new international campaign, EV 30@30, which was announced on June 8 at the 8th Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM8) held in Beijing .  The press release  for the campaign states a target of  at least 30 percent new electric vehicle sales by 2030, and: “The campaign will support the market for electric passenger cars, light commercial vans, buses and trucks (including battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicle types). It will also work towards the deployment of charging infrastructure to supply sufficient power to the vehicles deployed.”   A large part of the implementation will be through efforts to increase public and private sector commitments for EV fleet procurement and deployment. The program will also establish a Global EV Pilot City program to reach 100 electric vehicle-friendly cities around the World over five years, and encourage research into all aspects of deployment.  Full explanation of the 30@30 campaign is here .

Along with Canada, other countries signing on to the EV30@30 campaign include China, Finland, France, India, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.  (The U.S., U.K., Korea and South Africa are members of the CEM Electric Vehicle Initiative, but did not sign on to the 30@30 initiative).  In addition to participant countries, the following groups support the campaign:  C40, the FIA Foundation, the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI), the Natural Resource Defence Council (NRDC), the Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT), The Climate Group, UN Environment, UN Habitat, and the International Zero Emission Vehicle Alliance (ZEV Alliance).

Scrap the Infrastructure Bank, says CUPE

GO transit stationThe federal government first announced its plans for an Infrastructure Bank in the Fall 2016 Economic Statement, and fleshed out an implementation schedule and funding in the Budget released in March 2017   .  The  Infrastructure Bank website here  describes: “If approved by Parliament, the Bank would invest $35 billion from the federal government into transformative infrastructure projects.  $15 billion would be sourced from the over $180 billion Investing in Canada infrastructure plan, including: $5 billion for public transit systems; $5 billion for trade and transportation corridors; and, $5 billion for green infrastructure projects, including those that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deliver clean air and safe water systems, and promote renewable power.”  It will function as an arms-length Crown corporation “and would work with provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, and private sector investment partners to attract pension funds and other institutional investors to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.”  A May 13 press release from the responsible Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announces that the selection process for senior management positions has begun, and the goal is to launch the Bank in 2017. The enabling legislation is buried deep in the enormous Bill C-44, the Budget Implementation Act  (as Division 18 of Part 4) . Bill C-44 is now in 2nd reading in the House of Commons, and the Finance Committee began a clause-by-clause review of the legislation in the week of May 29.

There is no shortage of criticism and critics of the Infrastructure Bank, from across the political spectrum.  In “Where Were They Going Without Ever Knowing the Way? Assessing the Risks and Opportunities of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”,  (May 4) economists at the University of Ottawa Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy argue that the case for the infrastructure bank is weak since Canada doesn’t yet have a comprehensive inventory of the status of existing infrastructure. (The May 18 report  submitted to Canada’s Climate Change Adaptation platform may answer some of those objections) .

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) is leading the union charge of criticism , mostly on the grounds that the infrastructure bank encourages and enables privatization of public projects. Even before the March budget was delivered, CUPE Economist Toby Sanger wrote  Creating a Canadian infrastructure bank in the public interest  , published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  After the budget was delivered,  CUPE’s initial response  was published in April .  In May, CUPE compiled expert criticisms here   , and on May 29, the union issued the call to  “Scrap bank of privatization, build infrastructure for Canadians” . CUPE also presented a detailed brief  to government committees in May, with ten points of criticism and recommendations for change so that public bridges, roads and waterways remain under public control.

Catching up to the transportation revolution: Canada will have a national electric vehicle strategy by 2018

Electric vehicles Wikimedia Commons 768x512On May 26, Canada’s Minister of Transportation announced  that Canada will develop  a national electric vehicle strategy by 2018 in consultation with provincial and territorial governments, as promised in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change agreement.  A national Advisory Group has already been established to develop options in five areas: vehicle supply, cost and benefits of ownership, infrastructure readiness, public awareness, and clean growth and clean jobs.  The Advisory Group includes representatives from governments, industry, consumer and non-government organizations and academia.  In November 2016, the Minister had released a vision document,   Transportation 2030: A Strategic Plan for the Future of Transportation in Canada , which included all modes of transportation – air, ships, trucks and trains, as well as  a section on Green and Innovative Transport . According to the government press release on May 26 , transportation accounts for about 24 percent of Canada’s emissions, mostly from cars and trucks.  The Pembina Institute states that there are only 21,000 electric cars on the road in Canada in 2017.

Relevant views of the future:    Expect the Unexpected  , a report from Carbon Tracker Initiative in February 2017,  forecasts that electric vehicles will account for over two-thirds of the road transport market worldwide by 2050.  “The Transportation Revolution is Closer Than You Think” , a May 22 blog  from Climate Works Foundation summarizes several recent studies.    And a new report, Three Revolutions in Urban Transportation  envisions three scenarios up to 2050, and states:  “ The world is on the cusp of three revolutions in transportation: vehicle electrification, automation, and widespread shared mobility (sharing of vehicle trips). Separately or together, these revolutions will fundamentally change urban transportation around the world over the next three decades.”    …Our central finding is that while vehicle electrification and automation may produce potentially important benefits, without a corresponding shift toward shared mobility and greater use of transit and active transport, these two revolutions could significantly increase congestion and urban sprawl, while also increasing the likelihood of missing climate change targets. In contrast, by encouraging a large increase in trip sharing, transit use, and active transport through policies that support compact, mixed use development, cities worldwide could save an estimated $5 trillion annually by 2050 while improving livability and increasing the likelihood of meeting climate change targets.”  Three Revolutions was published by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways at UC Davis.

3 revolutions in transportation Infographic_itdp

Trends in international climate legislation since the Paris Agreement, built on a new public database

A new database , launched in May,  compiles national climate change legislation for 164 countries in the world, as well as a integrated climate  litigation database for 25 countries, including Canada.  U.S. litigation is available in a separate database hosted by  the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University .  The entire project is the work of  the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics and the Sabin Center.

The database was the foundation of a new report, Global Trends in Climate Change Legislation and Litigation 2017 , the sixth in a series that began in 2010.  The report  highlights the global stock of climate laws, the pace of law-making, the focus of legislation, and climate legislation in least developed countries . The second part of the report, for the first time ever, examines trends in litigation , describing the number of climate litigation cases in 25 jurisdictions, the objectives of the cases, who the plaintiffs and defendants were , and the outcomes of litigation so far.   A press release states: “These developments in climate legislation and policies since Paris should be taken in context. The 14 new laws and 33 policies add to a stock of more than 1,200 climate change or climate change-relevant laws worldwide: a twentyfold increase in the number of climate laws and policies over 20 years when compared with 1997 when there were just 60 such laws in place. … Most countries now have the legal basis on which further action can build.”    The summary of the report  by The Guardian highlights this optimistic note.

The report is the work of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and the Sabin Center on Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School, with the support of the  Inter-Parliamentary Union  and the British Academy.  It was  launched at the UNFCCC meetings in Bonn on May 9.

The database  is available to the public, and “users are welcome to download, save, or distribute the results electronically or in any other format, without written permission of the authors.” Acknowledging that the database is not yet comprehensive, contributions are also invited: “Please send your comments (attaching supporting documents if possible) to: gri.cgl@lse.ac.uk.”

Two Marches in April: for Climate action and Science-Based Policy

In releasing its  most recent working paper , the Labor Network for Sustainablity (LNS) states : “On the eve of the second Peoples’ Climate March, we offer this as a contribution to the conversation that we must continue in earnest and move us to bold, decisive and immediate action.”  Comments are invited, as is participation in Labor Contingent of the People’s Climate March in Washington D.C. on April 29.  According to 350.org,  , more than 100,000 people have already RSVP’ed for the Washington March alone, as of April 13.   See information about the March in Toronto or Vancouver.

The LNS paper, Jobs for Climate and Justice: A Worker alternative to the Trump Agenda , describes  a Jobs for Climate and Justice Plan – a four-part strategy to defeat  the Trump ideas,  and develop  a climate-safe and worker-friendly economy.  Author Jeremy Brecher states that “protecting the climate requires a massive and emergency mobilization” comparable to the industrial transformation of World War 2.   The paper suggests ideas to create new climate-friendly jobs and protect the workers and communities who are threatened by climate change, and while most of these have appeared in earlier LNS publications , the sheer number of positive, concrete examples of worker  initiatives across the U.S. makes this an inspiring document .

According to an article in Common Dreams, “The Fights to Protect Science, People and Planet Are Inherently Connected” (April 6)   .  A  blog post from Legal Planet,  “The War on Science continues”  also makes clear how the Trump administration disregard for science is impacting climate change research, and how closely intertwined the two issues are.  So on April 22,  Earth Day, watch for or join the March for Science “the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments”. “….. We are advocating for evidence-based policy-making, science education, research funding, and inclusive and accessible science.”

ScientistsThe main Science March is set for  Washington D.C., but there are sister marches around the world, including in 18 cities across Canada . The Canadian organizers, Ottawa-based  Evidence for Democracy , state: “The politicization of science, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted”.  This is not just an American issue.  Canadians remember the muzzled scientists of the Harper era, and can see current examples  – Evidence for Democracy published a report on April 6, Oversight at Risk: The state of government science in British Columbia   – the first of several planned surveys of provincial government scientists . Some results:  32 per cent said they cannot speak to the media about their research; 49 per cent think said political interference reduces their department’s ability to create policies and programs based on scientific evidence.