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.

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.

'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.

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?

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.

1 means "good" right

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

Cats reduce efficiency, don't they?

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

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.

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

My tow vehicle ... not listed.

2006 MAzda CX7

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

Where's me a tree to hug?

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.

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

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

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:


(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?

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:



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.

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.

That's a basic problem with government taxing things to make people stop using them. Cigarette taxes are the classic example. Government taxes cigs so people will stop buying them. Then, they send that money to schools or Medicaid. Those schools/Medicaid comes to rely on that revenue stream.

Then, one day, the tax begins to work. People get sick of paying $5 per pack and they stop smoking. Now the schools/Medicaid has to either cut their budget, or Joe Taxpayer gets increased taxes.

I guess the greenies are trying to stop us from using cows.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/...bout-a-cow-tax/

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.

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.



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.



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.

I first heard about California wanting to do that. They pushed for hybrid vehicles, then lost so much tax revenue, they wanted "re-penalize" those who aren't using much gas (and therefore paying less taxes that they need), as well as everyone else. In my truck, I might come out ahead to pay by the mile since I get 11-12 mpg. But I'd still rather not get a bill from the state each month...

Environmentalists have to be some of the most self-centered, egotistical people on the planet.

Why would I say that? Here's why. They talk about "greenhouse gasses" raising the temperature of the planet. Plants make up the vast majority of life on the planet, and they happen to like the greenhouse effect. It is good for their groth and proliferation.

They talk about CO2 emissions. Well, CO2 is also good for plants. It also promotes growth and proliferation

What about global warming? Let's assume this is true, although a growing number of scientists are disagreeing. Global warming is expanding the temperate zones of the world. It is also expanding the tropical and sub-tropical zones. These are the areas of the planet where most life exists. Therefore, it is expanding their habitat.

But what about the the ice melting and the seas rising? The oceans make up 99% of the inhabitable space on earth, and contain 90% of the groups of major living things. Every single drop of water contains life, whereas polar ice is almost barren. Life likes water.

So, why is all this bad for Earth? It's not. It's bad for HUMANS. All of those things above are bad for us, but good for the earth. So, for environmentalists to say that "we're killing Mother Earth" is a flat out lie. We're making the Earth a less habitable place for ourselves, perhaps. If we want to be self-serving and "look out for #1" then we need to all drive solar cars and sing Koom By Yah. But, if we want to do what is in the best interest of all life on earth, we'll just keep on keepin' on!

Interesting idea. I'd argue that the basis of environmentalism quite the opposite; it's the sacrifice of select human "luxuries" in the pursuit of maintaining a prosperous life sustaining environment for all of the species; hardly selfish.

The expansion of temperate zones has the general effect of moving habitats towards the poles, whether this is "good" or "bad" for each species depends on each species' ability to adapt. Ultimately those species that do survive would in theory be better adapted for survival of any other major changes in climate or other hardships, but the philosophical question of the day is, "Is this Darwinian natural selection that is (supposedly) driven by human industrialization actually "unnatural" selection?" Environmentalists say, no, human industrialization should not force the extinction of entire species of animals, no matter how significant or insignificant the species. I argue that the two are not mutually exclusive; we can easily thrive and prosper as industrialized humans while keeping the "animal kingdom" largely undisturbed. If people could back away from the negative stigmas of hippies singing around campfires and reevaluate what they want the world to look like for the future generations I think we can continue making serious progress. Likewise, those seated around the campfire should probably get up and get a job trying to make actual social or environmental progress.

But, humans are not separate from nature. We are a part of nature. The fact that we are self-aware is immaterial.

Is it unnatural for a wolf to hunt its prety to extinction? Not at all. It's bad for the wolf, but that's the way nature works. One dominant species does what is best for itself. It's simply the way nature is.

However, I will soften my stance a bit to say that I appreciate environmentalists on many fronts. I know it sounds hypocritical, but I usually find myself on the side of Green Peace when it comes to the slaughter of whales and other animals. For some reason, I don't much mind the indirect cause of mass animal death, but I don't like directly causing it.

I know - it's a weird place to draw a line. But, I figured I'd come clean and be honest.

What human "luxuries" are you referring to?

I knew someone would call me on that. I just was searching for a simple definition of environmentalist and I suppose "luxury" fit the bill, but I'll go into it more if you'd like. A more appropriate way to look at it, in my opinion, is in terms of efficiencies. If I'm going 1 mile down the street, do I need to fire up the 'Maro, let it warm up, drive a mile, then shut it off? Time-wise, cost-wise and energy-wise, it'd be more efficient for me to bike. Driving over there is more of a luxury. To some it may be a necessity. Maybe you physically can't bicycle due to physical limitations or weather. This, of course, is an extreme example, but little things like these definitely add up. On the other extreme, in terms of sustaining human life, all that is necessary is a place to sleep, a basic mix of grains and fruits, a supply of oxygen and a place to relieve ones-self and you can just stare at the wall all day and not make any CO2 while propogating the species. It's all relative and highly subjective, but I suppose I can toss out the following:

- Driving by yourself is a luxury when the ability to carpool or take mass transit are available and cheaper
- Driving a large vehicle is a luxury when you cannot justify it's use
- Driving itself is a luxury over short distances if you're completely able to bike
- Leaving lights and appliances on, throwing things out before their useful lives etc. can be considered luxuries I suppose

I'd never think of pushing any legislation like this, but I've run into a lot of people in this way of life who are watermelon greens: green on the outside, red (communist) on the inside, always willing to tell you what you can't do. It's more honorable, in my opinion, to educate and inspire people to do it on their own rather than cram it down throats.

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.

I have to disagree there. Our consciousness puts us on a much higher level of nature, one where we've gathered an enormous amount of historical data so that we can reasonably predict the consequences of our actions and ascertain the best course of action to avoid the least desireable outcomes.

I.e. I don't have unprotected sex with everything that walks because I know that I'd probably contract something and die. I weigh the relative costs against the relative positive outcomes given each one's estimated likelihood and make a conscious decision. Wolves will display some of this behavior such as a lone wolf not messing with a buffalo because that's the basic level of "data" available to them.