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 — 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).

"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)

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10257074

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
Kyoto" > wrote:

>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 — 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).
>



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

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.

"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" > wrote in message
...
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 — 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).

On Apr 1, 8:00*pm, "Jerry Okamura" > wrote:
> 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.
>

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

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
http://www.carboncreditcapital.com/r...%20English.pdf

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

On Apr 2, 2:33*am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
> 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 creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>
> 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

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 **** pits made in India for
nothing. Windshield wipers are optional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxWq9bKRmc0

On Apr 1, 7:43*pm, Joe > wrote:
> "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)
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10257074

You're a complete asshole. You know nothing about advanced, modern
day auto racing tech, and the notion that the emission idea will cost
so much is clearly bull****, pulled out of some bloggers **** stained
rear end.


What are the credentials of the person who wrote that ****? Where is
the evidence?

If you're that gullible, you are a proven fool. And so are those who
you use as "credit"

****. It's morons like you who are still upset that NASCAR is
planning a move to fuel injection. As if it's some fancy new
technology, when they've been running carburetors since day one.


You're the same ass hat who claims that BHP is reduced by using
Ethanol, or Methanol. Distort, distort, distort.

Face it Rich, all you know about an automobile is sitting your fat ass
in the seat, and turning the key.



Stupid ****ing hillbillies.

On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:

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

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.

On Apr 1, 8:00*pm, "Jerry Okamura" > wrote:
> 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.


Translation, Jerry accepts the bull ****, 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.