From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Through a variety of regulatory and spending initiatives, the Trudeau government is expanding its control over our lives, often in the name of climate change or other environmental objectives. For example, the government plans to force consumers to buy electric vehicles instead of conventional cars and has proposed or implemented plastics restrictions on consumers and businesses—everything from plastic drinking straws and plastic utensils to clothing material and food packages.

However, while evidence of the high costs to consumers continues to mount, evidence of the environmental benefits is notably absent. Indeed, many recent studies provide evidence that Ottawa’s restrictions on consumers may well cause net environmental harm. One reason is that the plastic products the federal government is so intent on restricting are more environmentally efficient than alternatives.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology concludes, “15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.” The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Why? Because plastic generally takes less energy to manufacture and transport than the alternatives. In fact, many plastic products that are more environmentally friendly than non-plastic alternatives (according to the study) are products the Trudeau government wants to ban or curtail through regulation.

Other evidence shows plastic bans of the type imposed in Canada cause environmental ruin, contrary to the predictions of politicians. For example, research in New Jersey found after single-use plastic bags were banned in 2022, shoppers switched to the heavier reusable bags. “Owing to the larger carbon footprint of the heavier, non-woven polypropylene bags,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “greenhouse gas emissions rose 500%.”

Similarly, the New York Times reported that while California banned single-use plastic bags almost a decade ago, in 2023 “Californians threw away more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed, according to figures from CalRecycle, California’s recycling agency.”

Also from the Wall Street Journal, analyses suggest electric vehicles often emit more particulate pollution (dust, dirt and soot) than conventional vehicles. That’s because most particulate pollution these days is not from the tailpipe but from tire wear. EVs are much heavier than conventional vehicles so their tires wear out faster, increasing particulate pollution. The firm Emissions Analytics compared a plug-in electric to a hybrid vehicle and found the plug-in electric, which weighed more, emitted about one-quarter more particulate matter than the hybrid as a result of tire wear.

Last year, the chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board noted that EVs manufactured by Ford, Volvo and Toyota were all about 33 per cent heavier than conventionally powered versions of those same vehicles. That’s a problem not only for the environment but also for driver safety—and yet more evidence that the Trudeau government’s EV mandates will harm Canadians.

When it comes to vehicles, plastic products and many other things, the Trudeau government should begin reducing its control over consumers. The harm to consumers is evident; the compensating benefits to the environment—if any—are not.

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Nearly 30 per cent of EV owners worldwide intend to switch back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

According to new data released this week, electric vehicle (EV) sales in Europe plummeted by 36 per cent in Europe including a 69 per cent drop in Germany, the continent’s largest auto market. And according to a recent survey by McKinsey & Company, nearly 30 per cent of EV owners worldwide intend to switch back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Clearly, in light of growing consumer hesitation and a global slowdown in EV sales, the ambitious timelines set by governments for the EV transition are increasingly at odds with market realities.

In Canada, the Trudeau government has mandated that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks must be zero-emission by 2035, with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030. But only 8.1 per cent (139,521) of the 1.7 million new vehicles sold in Canada in 2023 were electric, according to Statistics Canada. And it takes an average of 55 days to sell an EV in Canada—33 days longer than in 2023 and four days more than a gasoline-powered car. To achieve the Trudeau government’s 2026 target, EV sales would need to more than double in just two years and increase more than sevenfold by 2030 (assuming no change in total vehicle sales). Such rapid growth within a short timeframe is questionable at best.

It’s a similar story in the United States where the Biden administration has mandated that nearly 60 per cent of new vehicles sold must be electric by 2032 even though demand in 2024 has been lighter than expected and nearly half of American EV owners say they’re likely to switch back to ICEs. In Europe, the United Kingdom and the European Union plan to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2035 yet, as previously noted, EV sales are plummeting.

Some automakers have already responded to the realities of the EV market. In April, Tesla laid off 10 per cent of its global workforce. Ford announced it will cancel the production of an electric SUV, delay the production of an electric pickup truck, and postpone the start of EV production at its Oakville, Ontario plant by two years. General Motors abandoned its goal of producing 400,000 EVs by mid-2024 due to lower-than-expected sales and revealed in August it would delay the start of production at its battery plant in Indiana by about one year, pushing the timeline to 2027.

The EV transition also faces another major hurdle—a shortage of minerals for EV batteries that can only be addressed by opening a massive number of new mines in record time. According to a 2023 study, to meet international EV adoption mandates by 2030, the world would need 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines, 17 new cobalt mines, 50 new mines for cathode production, 40 new mines for anode materials, 90 new mines for minerals needed to produce battery cells, and 81 new mines for the body and motors of the EVs themselves, for a total of 388 new mines worldwide. For context, in 2021 there were only 340 metal mines operating in Canada and the U.S. combined.

Identifying, planning and constructing a mine is a slow process. For instance, lithium production timelines range from six to nine years and for nickel 13 to 18 years—both of these elements remain critical for EV batteries. Clearly, today’s aggressive government timelines for EV adoption clash with the realities of mineral mining.

The facts are undeniable. Governments can’t dictate consumer choices via mandate. The fantastic EV adoption timelines of the Trudeau government and other governments in the western world are increasingly out of touch with the realities of production and market demand. These governments have overestimated their ability to shape the auto industry, which is why EV mandates will fail.