[Rob Hood]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=128569

Article is posted in case the link is bad -

SACRAMENTO, California — The state of California will require all 2009 model and later cars to be labeled with stickers giving their global warming score, starting at the beginning of the year. The labels will rate vehicles on a scale of 1-10 — with 10 being the best and 5 an average number — based on direct emissions and emissions related to fuel production, and will let consumers make comparisons between models.

California vehicles already are given a Smog Score, in which new models are rated on a 1-10 scale for emissions. The labeling will be displayed side by side on new vehicles sold in the state. Consumers can also look up detailed information on the Drive Clean Web site.

New York can expect a similar sticker law for new models starting in 2010.

What this means to you: Environmental-impact stickers: not just for refrigerators anymore.

[Major_Lee_Slow]

WTF, my wife's 2003 Passat and my GMC Yukon both score under 1. What kinda vehicle gets a 10?

you know I think that the greenies just hate cars no matter what. First they were pissed off about NOx and CO emissions, the car companies drastically improved those emissions, then it was MPG. OK, said the automakers, we'll improve that too. They all have many models which get over 30mpg. So then the greenies jumped on the CO2 emissions knowing that there was nothing that could be done about them without considerably improving gas millage to unattainable levels (yet they seem to leave out the fact that every breath we all take we exhale CO2, and personally I'm not taking anyone seriously about CO2 until they reduce their own CO2 output to 0). Now they've cooked up this Global warming sticker crap. No wonder our auto industry is in ruins.

Oh, and have you all hear about changing the gas tax to a miles driven tax? Apparently people in Oregon are getting too good gas millage so now the state is hurting for money due to the reduced fuel consumption. I swear, our country is run by complete ass-hats.

[DRD T-bone]

(yet they seem to leave out the fact that every breath we all take we exhale CO2, and personally I'm not taking anyone seriously about CO2 until they reduce their own CO2 output to 0).

The CO2 issue does not have to do with absolute quantities, it has to do with a balance of what the land/sea/atmosphere can handle while still being able to maintain a healthy ecosystem that sustains human and all other species. It seems that in America we've been programmed to think completely in absolute terms. Talk to a typical fanboy and 400 hp is better than 300 hp so 500 hp must be even better! 3000 lb is better than 3500 lb so 2500 lb must be amazing. Without taking into consideration driver or suspension setup, the car might just sit and spin at the line then do donuts all over the road course. Car setup is about balance.

Same goes for CO2. All reductions strategies set targets of ___% below 19__ levels NOT a complete elimination of CO2 emissions. Complete elmination of CO2 emissions could prove just as disastrous as everyone setting their house on fire at once. Some sort of consensus has been reached that CO2 emissions have to be reduced. Humans emit about 2 lb of CO2 per day. I drive 18 miles a day to work and back then another 9 miles to Jiu Jitsu and back on some and 14 miles to school and back on others so call it average 30 miles per day. Average car (~22 mpg) puts out ~0.91 lb of CO2 per mile so in driving myself I would emit about 27 lb CO2 per day just in that for a total of 29 lb CO2 per day. That doesn't take into consideration my electricity use and the carbon input to the things I buy every day among other things. If I bump up to a 30 mpg car my total CO2 output would shrink to 22 lb CO2 per day which is 76% of my original output. If I somehow only breath half the time and cut my respiratory CO2 to 1 lb per day, my total CO2 output would shrink to 97% of my original output. That's why the "we all exhale CO2" argument is just a straw man. Focus on low hanging fruit first.

Oh, and have you all hear about changing the gas tax to a miles driven tax? Apparently people in Oregon are getting too good gas millage so now the state is hurting for money due to the reduced fuel consumption. I swear, our country is run by complete ass-hats.

Government's gotta pay for roads somehow. Prorate it by gallons of gas purchased (which may or may not correlate with vehicle miles traveled on the roads) or by miles traveled (which could be completely on private race tracks). Both have their merits.

It's NOx that's the real problem-especially in major metropolitan areas. That's what they should be focusing upon. The sad thing is the CO2 scare is detracting from such efforts, well it's certainly not helping them.

Our NOx emissions standards are much more stringent than the Japanese and Euro standards. At a 3 mile view, we've focused on improving urban air quality while they've focused on fuel mileage. Hence our cities' air quality has been improving while we still get low (by comparison) fuel mileage.

[robz71lm7]

Our NOx emissions standards are much more stringent than the Japanese and Euro standards. At a 3 mile view, we've focused on improving urban air quality while they've focused on fuel mileage. Hence our cities' air quality has been improving while we still get low (by comparison) fuel mileage.

It still doesn't mean they're good. I live outside of Louisville, KY which still suffers from high levels of ground level ozone in the summer. I'd rather see Utilities be forced to focus on NOx and SO2 before CO2.