photo originally uploaded by Alaina B
It’s the autumn of 2008 and we’re at a Southern California auto dealership. A young couple is shopping for a new car. "Honey, the 2009 Hummer H6 Terminator really rocks," gushes the guy. His wife stands on her tiptoes and reads the Cal-EPA label affixed to the window. "Yeah, but the Hummer’s Global Warming Index rating is just terrible, especially compared to the new Toyota (TM) Happy Dolphin plug-in hybrid," she says. "Let’s go look at the dealer across the street."
Environmental officials hope that scene becomes common when California cars begin sporting greenhouse gas emission labels alongside the familiar EPA mileage estimate. On February 15, the California Air Resources Board convenes a workshop to hash out the label’s design and the details of what it will say. The meeting is part of the implementation of a 2005 law that requires all new California cars and trucks, beginning with the 2009 model year, to carry a prominent label listing a Global Warming Index rating. The label must compare "the emissions of global warming gases from the vehicle with the average projected emissions of global warming gases from all vehicles of the same model year," according to the law. The label must also contrast a car’s greenhouse gas emissions with the vehicle that model year that contributes the least to global warming. (According to carbon credit company TerraPass, a 2007 Hummer H3 driven 12,000 miles a year spews 13,812 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; a Toyota Prius emits 4,226 pounds. A Toyota Land Cruiser, however, is hotter than a Hummer, pumping out 15,651 pounds of planet warming gases.)
The intention of global warming labeling, of course, is to encourage consumers to buy earth friendly transportation – and for General Motors (GM), Ford (F), Honda (HMC), DaimlerChrysler (DCX) and other automakers to compete to have their car listed as the lowest emission vehicle on each label that will appear on some 2 million cars sold every year in California. We can already hear the voice-over on the car commercials: "Your contribution to global warming may vary…."
Green Wombat 
OMG – The sooner California breaks off into the atlantic the better. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Why don’t you start with all the Celebs private planes and Arnolds fleet of Hummers. While your at it start with all our lawnmowers, they polute more than any car on the road.
Lets build more electrical damns, they are great for the environment.
It’s the Pacific, and I agree with SoCal breaking off. The northern half can stay.
Wait a minute…all of the idiots who are making these crackpot laws are doing it in Sacramento! I think the whole state needs to drop off!
A lot of harrumphing over very little, folks. How much will some labels cost? If it gets folks to think about the impact they have, it’s a good thing. Even if it doesn’t, the cost involved will be trivial.
BTW the relevant scenario is not CA “breaking off” into the Pacific (let alone the Atlantic), but being gradually inundated. As is already happening to some islands in the South Pacific and elsewhere.
It’s about time that the America driving pubic can make informed purchase decisions about the vehicles they drive. All the “let the marketplace decide” advocates should be happy with California’s labeling decision. This a state that has been at the forefront of intelligent responses to fighting global warming – something other states should emulate in the absence of the current administration’s failure of leadership.
Knock SoCal all you want, we’re still one of the most vibrant spots on the planet! And it’s nearly 70 degrees and oh so sunny!
Hummers are cool. They wil burn away all the remaining oil so fast that we wont need to worry about global warming after that. Sure the globe will warm a bit while hummers are in action. For this alone, hummers should get the lowest long term global warming rating.
That’s why I Don’t live in califorina.
I think this is a great. Now when I go buy my next car I can ask the dealer which car get the worst global warming score and that is the one I will buy. I also think we should label cars as to which one will make the earth a little flatter. By the way did you know that on 98% of Antartica the ice sheet is increasing? If you have lived in California that the temperatures in the last 5 years on average have been about 5 degrees cooler than they were 20 years ago? Please people get educated. Don’t believe in junk science!!!!!
Wow, so much hostility to rating the carbon contribution from cars.
What else is new? Through history, every new idea has been oppossed, ridiculized and shunned by the masses.
A great example is smoking. The tobbaco companies linked smoking with sexy pictures to enticed younger people to smoke. And then, the tobbaco companies argued that it was a personal responsability and choice after people were addicted to their products.
I can’t wait for Honda to bring the first Hydrogen car in 2008.
THANK GOD FOR ARNOLD!
Global warming is a big money grab. People are arrogant to think they have such an impact on the earth. Listen to George Carlin on the subject. Don’t listen to people who’s job depends on propogating this “theory”. Get the facts and decide for yourself.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011907/content/globalwarmingupdate_.guest.html
They killed the electric car:(
california to get global warming labels on new cars from 2009
My comment to this entry: Green Wombat: California Cars to Get Global Warming Ratings: It is strange to see almost all the comments opposing the idea.. that also on a business2 blog, where I thought gathers some intelligent readers. I…
It’s one thing to note that the climate is getting warmer and another to suspect and test for an anthropogenic cause. Deciding that the cause is CO2 and then issuing labels accordingly is partisan politics run amok. Next step is taxation when they find the labels aren’t working. (“How were we to know that all of this contractors *needed* pickup trucks and not Priuses?”)
This is not insanity, although it looks like it. It’s worse. It’s the supernanny state run by well intentioned fools.
This could be good IF it is done correctly. One of the factors that people forget is total environmental footprint. An F-series might get 15 mpg and a Chevy or Toyota truck 16 or maybe 17 even, but Ford’s production process thanks environmental efforts (including carbon offsetting, paint fume reuse, energy conservation projects, plant emissions cleaning and reduction and recycling processes) is vastly cleaner and has a smaller net release of carbon and other chemicals into the air/water/etc making it the cleaner of the vehicles. The Toyota Prius, while very efficient on gas, weighs much more than the Toyota Corolla and has a battery pack created through mining Nickel (a dirty process). All of that makes its total environmental impact much worse than will probably actually be posted by narrow focused and ignorant enviromentalists and politicians.