What Snow?

Dear Luddites,

Thank you for your continued lobby efforts on the adoption, by the federal and provincial governments, of the California emissions GHG regulation for new vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Notwithstanding the fact that the standard is not even good law in California, it is not technically feasible, and partial implementation it would create a "patchwork" approach to vehicle regulation in North America- I wanted to take this opportunity to remind you of one important element: It is called the California (not Norsk) standard for a reason.

You see, in California (a state which over half of which is a desert) they have this thing we don't have - its called perpetual summer. In this perpetual summer, they don't get (for example) a foot and a half of snow overnight. The average temperature is significantly higher than it is, ...say, HERE. The average precipitation that doesn't melt on contact is about a millionth of what it is, ...say, HERE. They do have to deal with armadillos.

Now, there are three ways to achieve the California Standard: mandate the adoption of news/better technology (which you can't regulate, btw - if you could, I think you should start with legislating a better knee for humans), decrease the availability of larger vehicles to reduce the corporate average fuel economy or drastically reduce the weight of vehicles. As it stands now, 99% of vehicles produced in North America would not qualify under the standard by the year 2016. Luckily in California, they have much better fuel quality standards to put into their over 41 million vehicles (personal, fleet, transportation and, of course, white broncos.)

In the case of the last two items, I think that the last 48 hours in Ottawa bears striking witness to why this is a poor idea. Not that I was counting, but I didn't see any SUVs stuck in the snow. I also didn't see any Priuses, Yarises or Accords (Oh my). I suspect this was because their owners looked outside the window and said "I think today is a snow day" and went back to eating twigs and berries.

I suppose you can suggest to the world that whenever it snows we should simply stop what we are doing. Maybe call in the Army. Cover ourselves under blankets and wait for the snow to melt. Bah, Flimshaw.

Large vehicles are important in our climate. Like every other type of vehicle, their fuel economy and safety features are improved every year. It is incredibly...metropolitanist to regulate away from the size and type of vehicles that people in the country (you know, those who don't live where there are snow plows) need to get around.

Large vehicles are also safer. Notwithstanding the ice and snow - and the treacherous conditions they create for all drivers, not just those with four wheel drive - larger vehicles provide for more weight and protection around passengers. I will concede that if everyone drove small cars, the vehicle to vehicle accidents would have fewer fatalities - but you don't see a lot of buses that are as small as your Smart Car do you? Not to mention that the vast majority of vehicle fatalities are still a direct result of one-vehicle incidents. You hit a tree in a Yaris and you are fucked. My airbag goes off, the fender gets dented and the Air Conditioner releases a puff of "Calvin Klein's - Escape." I am pretty sure an armadillo would take out a smart car.

Don't get me wrong - I think we should reduce GHGs. I just think there are way smarter ways to do it than telling people to drive vehicles that they can't drive six months at a time.