you, sir, are on point. this needs wider reportage.
Posted at 2007-12-20 23:48:28 [PermaLink]I was quite surpised when looking for a new wood stove that the US actually has very strict emission standards on stoves. They have been totally redesigned and now emit about 90% less smoke and use half the wood through more efficient burning. Regulation for wood stove emissions was actaully turned over to the EPA in the US quite a few years ago (somewhere around the late 80's I believe) and have had ever stricter regulations since then. This is the thing that surpised me though, there doesn't seem to be the same strict regulations in Canada (or any I can find) You can go on homedepot.ca and there are EPA approved stoves there for sale and for about half the price you can buy a non EPA stove. In the Us a stove has to meet the very strict EPA requirement or thay can't be sold, period. This goes to further destroy the myth that the US are doing nothing for the environment, while Canada is clean.
Posted at 2007-12-21 08:18:40 [PermaLink]Well, after 32 years of stagnation I guess it is quite progressive to move to a fuel economy standard that Canada's best selling car has been hitting for at least 10 years... 13 years from now, maybe, if it's convenient.
The money shot from the Spiegel article regarding how they see it in Europe:
"The Financial Times Deutschland advocated a market-oriented approach:
"When it comes to a market-based pollution policy, then the issue would be totally clear: Whoever fuels their automobile with gasoline and emits CO2 as a result has to pay -- just as power plants have to factor in the costs of their CO2 emissions certificates."
Full life cycle responsibility.. how novel.
"it is quite progressive to move to a fuel economy standard"
"Standard" now being a euphemism for mandate in the same way that "goal" is for quota. But then progressivism has come to mean little more than favoring ever increasing state regulation of the minutiae of our lives.
When large cars are outlawed, who will you pester at service stations? [External Link]
You didn't catch the irony of "progressive". By "standard" I mean the actual fuel economy numbers, as in the 35 mpg goal which Canada's favorite car, the Honda Civic, has been hitting for a decade.
I agree with you that this is a quota system. I also think it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being enforced so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Regardless of who gets elected after Bush, the carmakers will continue to be completely uncompetitive with the Japanese for fuel efficiency and enforcing this would accelerate their seemingly inevitable doom.
Regardless, I will continue to compliment people on their cars, switching between the fronthand and the backhand as I please.
Dara: I drive a 2006 Civic and get around 350 km in city driving for 40 litres of gas. That's around 11.5 litres per 100 km--or 24.5 mpg per Imperial gallon. Not that great and hardly "hitting". Though much better on the highway.
Mark
Ottawa
"Well, after 32 years of stagnation I guess it is quite progressive to move to a fuel economy standard that Canada's best selling car has been hitting for at least 10 years."
Sorry to burst your bubble but that 35 mpg is U.S. gallons. That equates to about 42 mpg imperial gallons. The Honda Fit barely qualifies, but you'll look nice in your Yaris. I prefer the Mini Cooper. The answer of course is diesel but that's another story.
John B, no need to worry about my bubble, there was a metric unit given so I discarded the obsolete units from the start. 6.7L/100 km is unambiguous and I and my credit card have been enjoying that level of fuel efficiency for 7 years.
Mark,
I knew that Honda had started upsizing the Civic's engine and body size to make room for the Fit, but that seems high to me. I guess it depends a lot on traffic.
I live in the downtown core and average 550 to 600 km between fillups (approx 40 L), although I do spend a good chunk of my time on the highways. I've got a 2000 Si with manual transmission. From the other Civic owners I know, this is typical for the 96-2000 cars and the non-vtec engines (the lions share of sales for that era) are even more miserly.
The EPA website driver reported numbers bear this out although their new rated numbers are lower:
32.6 mpg for the Canadian Si:
[External Link]
33.2 mpg for the non-vtec:
[External Link]
Dara: I do almost all city street driving; the 1.8 litre Civic has a five-speed auto. Supposed to get 8.2 l/100 km in the city: hah!
[External Link]
When I have long highway drives I do get around 6.5 l/100 km, as opposed to the listed 5.7; probably because of generally cruising at 120 rather than 100.
By the way I actually got equal, or better, mileage in the city, with my 2.3 litre, five-speed manual 1996 Ford Contour.
Mark
Ottawa
My '98 Mercury Mystique (2.5 litre V6) gets almost the same mileage in the city, about 12 litres/100 km. One car has already been downsized to a Mazda3, so will the Mercury eventually.
Posted at 2007-12-23 11:31:44 [PermaLink]