2011? Bah!

Big SUVs may face tougher fuel standards in US

In a major shift, the Bush administration is considering subjecting the biggest minivans and sport utility vehicles to fuel economy standards for the first time. Besides pleasing environmentalists, the move would likely cause the sticker prices of General Motors's Hummer H2 and Suburban to jump, though the vehicles' owners would save money at the gas tank. The biggest SUVs, vans and pickup trucks - those weighing between 3,855 and 4,535 kilograms - have been exempt from US fuel economy rules since they were established in the 1970s, a time when regulators didn't foresee such large vehicles being used as the family car. In 2003, the administration announced plans to overhaul the fuel standards for all so-called light trucks (which include SUVs, minivans and pickups) and said it might also impose mileage targets for the big SUVs and passenger vans. But when the proposed rule was published last August, the heavy vehicles remained exempt. Now the administration is considering including them beginning in 2011, according to sources in the auto industry and with environmental groups who are closely watching the administration's course. The new proposal would still, however, only affect a small slice of heavy vehicles: The administration plans to continue to exempt pickup trucks, which constitute the vast majority of vehicles over 3,855 kilograms.
(Globe and Mail 060322)

Talk about a faint effort of too little, too late. Does anyone know how Canada classifies heavy vehicles?

Daylight time a puzzle for calendar makers

Time is running out for calendar makers to pump out their 2007 products, but it's uncertainty about time that now has producers puzzled. While some provinces have said they will extend daylight time next year to be in harmony with changes in the US, others are still mulling over the notion. Next year, residents of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec will move their clocks ahead one hour on the second Sunday in March and roll them back on the first Sunday in November. The change extends daylight time by a month, shifting more daylight to the evening from the morning. It's a move designed to help conserve energy. Lights won't be needed as early in the evening, which is the peak period for energy consumption, according to officials. The change affects farmers, travellers, manufacturers, stock exchanges and broadcasters. It also potentially poses problems for trading relations between Canada and the US. It could also affect public safety, some say. Children would be walking to school in the dark on more mornings, but it would be lighter later in the day, which could cut down on traffic accidents involving pedestrians during rush hour.

Sherry Biggar, director of merchandising for the Calendar Club of Canada, which is the country's major calendar retailer and offers thousands of titles, says she often gets questions from her suppliers about Canadian holidays and the like. But this daylight-time problem is going to cause a lot of confusion, she says. “I thought the whole country made the switch. That would be easier,” she says. “. . . This could be a challenge because most of these are being printed as we speak.” Meanwhile, the debate is continuing. British Columbia just closed its comment period on the issue, which drew a surprising 3,000 submissions, according to Carol Carman, a spokeswoman with the province's Attorney-General's office. “People care about the time,” she says simply. It will take another month for those comments to be whittled down to a report that the minister and cabinet can assess. Peter Newbury, an astronomer with the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre in Vancouver, points out that the switch won't manufacture sunlight, but it could help us make better use of it. Ultimately, he figures, politics and economics will guide British Columbia's decision, not astronomy. (Globe and Mail 060322)

Like I have mentioned before, does all the alterations and recodings and traffic reconfigurations, etc, etc really amount to any saving of energy at all? Maybe on the bottom line it looks like we're saving energy, but how much was invested? I think if this was factored in, the EROEI would drop dramatically. Wow, is the Bush Administration all over the place or what? It's getting very hard to determine what their intentions truly are with the things that they decide to enact.