Global warming stickers required for CA cars...., CA gets "Gore'd", NY next... Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[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.

[trackbird]

We should fly to California and build a giant bon fire out of a huge pile of decals. How much energy does it take to produce the stickers? Better yet, how much smog is created (probably in China) to manufacturer the stickers to tell us how "bad" the cars are?

Can we just take a giant chop saw to the fault line and shove most of the state (at least the government) into the ocean? We'll leave time for all the frraxer's to get off the soon to be island, but good lord folks, this is getting more and more absurd.

Maybe the Russian guy's right, China can have the whole state. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[MarkT]

'Tis a good idea...but liberalism has spread like a cancer to more regions of the country than just California. That does seem to be the most insanely concentrated area though. Maybe it's like a vampire outbreak....take out the original and the rest are released from the curse.

Wishful thinking.

[Blainefab]

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

..
California vehicles already are given a Smog Score, in which new models are rated on a 1-10 scale for emissions.
..

Yay, my daily driver rates "less than 1"

So how can smog production not be directly proportional to MPG, which we already have ratings for?

[ledfoot2]

I want one for my car with the "1" rating, just to piss off the tree-huggers.

Maybe I should get two so I can slap one on the Suburban too.

[StanIROCZ]

1 means "good" right (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[ledfoot2]

1 means "good" right (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Long tube headers and dual 3" straight pipes tells me "1" must mean good.

[Pilot]

Cats reduce efficiency, don't they?

[pknowles]

Every vehicle I own, even the 98 Honda Civic has a score less then 1. WTF? I didn't bother looking up the score on my 3/4 ton truck if the Civic is less then 1.

You just need to put one of these on your truck to trick the crazies.
http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/h...umper/304204329

[billy_ocean]

I win! so far, haha.

the DD (company car) got a 9!

2008 Ford Taurus, with a pretty peppy 263 HP V-6. Probably around the same HP as my 94 Z28, same number of gears, and probably 1000 lbs heavier. And I wonder what smog score the Camaro would get?

[pknowles]

I win! so far, haha.

the DD (company car) got a 9!

2008 Ford Taurus, with a pretty peppy 263 HP V-6. Probably around the same HP as my 94 Z28, same number of gears, and probably 1000 lbs heavier. And I wonder what smog score the Camaro would get?

V6 and V8 4th gen's are both less then 1 at least for the 2002's.

[DRD T-bone]

More information isn't necessarily a bad thing, however, those that care about this sort of thing typically will conduct the appropriate research regardless. The EPA's web site already has this information for vehicles: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

[mitchntx]

My tow vehicle ... not listed. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

2006 MAzda CX7

Carbon Foorprint ... 9.6
Air Pollution score ... 6

Where's me a tree to hug?

[00 Trans Ram]

Well, I think they're idiots. Trying to look up my 2008 Pontiac G8GT. First off, they list the Pontiac G8 . . . right under the G7 and above the G9! And, the top of the list contains the Pontiac G10, G11, G12, G13, and G14. Does CA have some kind of ESP and know what Pontiac's future lineup will be?

Secondly, they only list a smog score of 4 for my car. No other info.

[pknowles]

The reason why I hate "ratings" like this is they don't publish the guidelines they use (or at least I couldn't find it on their website in under 5 minutes) to generate this magic number. This makes the number absolutely meaningless and as credible as a random number generator. Are they using the EPA's rating system (I assume so), which is very biased and only based on engine emissions during the EPA rating dyno sessions regardless of what vehicle it goes into. The weight and aerodynamic performance has a dramatic effect on how hard the engine has to work and therefore emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Aboutratings.do

[CrashTestDummy]

Interesting that electric cars are almost unanimously-rated a 10. It's funny how people conveniently forget that electric cars still pollute, it's just that the point source of the pollution is not in their garage, although it is usually from coal-fired generation plants.

I call this one 'Busted'.

[v7guy]

Interesting that electric cars are almost unanimously-rated a 10. It's funny how people conveniently forget that electric cars still pollute, it's just that the point source of the pollution is not in their garage, although it is usually from coal-fired generation plants.

I call this one 'Busted'.

It's pat of the reason I doubt the global warming scare (or global cooling scare if you look back 40yrs). Out of curiosity how does my trailblazer have a larger carbon footprint but a better score than my old S10 blazer?

[DRD T-bone]

Interesting that electric cars are almost unanimously-rated a 10. It's funny how people conveniently forget that electric cars still pollute, it's just that the point source of the pollution is not in their garage, although it is usually from coal-fired generation plants.

I call this one 'Busted'.

It's pat of the reason I doubt the global warming scare (or global cooling scare if you look back 40yrs). Out of curiosity how does my trailblazer have a larger carbon footprint but a better score than my old S10 blazer?

A simple way to look at it is that MPG directly correlates with carbon footprint, the amount of gasoline burnt is proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted. Smog scores take into account the other gasses that come out of the tailpipe and the Trailblazer probably burns much cleaner than the S10 Blazer

[DanKeen]

Interesting that electric cars are almost unanimously-rated a 10. It's funny how people conveniently forget that electric cars still pollute, it's just that the point source of the pollution is not in their garage, although it is usually from coal-fired generation plants.

I call this one 'Busted'.

Actually, it says that just so on the site ("This does not take into account upstream emissions.", or something to that effect).

Also, considering this is CA, the following data shows that there is negligible coal production:

Total Electric Industry

• Coal: 0.6%
• Petroleum: 1.2%
• Natural Gas: 60.1%
• Other Gases: 0.3%
• Nuclear: 6.9%
• Hydroelectric: 16.0%
• Other Renewables: 9.0%
• Pumped Storage: 5.8%

(Sourced from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/s...california.pdf)

That's total electric industry. If you look at just the electric utilities (and not places that are generating their own power), there's no coal production at all. The numbers are from 2006, though.

There's no reason at all to be upset about this requirement. What do you lose by having more information? Yes, it's a weird 1-10 scale, but that makes it easier for Joe Public to consume.

Give me a justification, whether you think global warming, etc is real, that scoring high on both of these numbers could be a bad thing. The whole "pollution comes from elsewhere" is a straw-man argument. Let's just stick to fossil-fueled cars. How would displaying these numbers harm you?

[robz71lm7]

Fuel economy numbers are what it should be based upon since there are no emission controls for CO2. It's funny how it ranks vehicles with similar fuel economy at other ends of the spectrum.

Also as someone working in the electric utility industry I can tell you that for most buyers in this country their electric car will be powered by coal. The above percentages show why electricity is so expensive in CA. Notice it states 60.1% from natural gas which is very expensive. In KY combustion turbines are reserved for summer peaking loads because they are so much more costly to operate and maintain. Combustion turbines, burning natural gas, still have very large CO2 emissions. Besides that CA buys a lot of power. The chart Dan showed is their NATIVE generation-where do you think the power CA buys is generated? However if all cars were electric the government could simply regulate utilities alone.

And for the rest of the country:

(IMG:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/fig2.jpg)

I know this is a CA thread, but we all the rest of the country will follow suit. The only viable sources of electric power that are "global warming friendly" are nukes and hydro plants.