California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars 685
Legislation may by 2016 restrict the paint color options for California residents looking for a new car. Black and all dark hues are currently on the banned list. The California Air Resources Board says that the climate control systems of dark-colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings — especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours.
Global Warming Theater (Score:2, Insightful)
Overboard (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm all for protecting the environment, but this is just going overboard. If the paint is toxic, then yeah, the government should get involved, but them dictating the mere color of my car is just giving them FAR too much control over the lives of everyday citizens.
Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems to a bigger problem. Also dark asphalt roofs seemed a bit ridiculous next to reddish ceramic tiles.
(Don't laugh, one of the problems of climate change is when the poles shrink/melt, the reflectivity of ice and snow gives way to water which rather absorbs the heat, basically escalating a rising problem with temperature).
Is A/C Mandatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
My old VW's climate control system was my windows. How's that gonna work harder in a black car?
Take Action for the sake of Taking Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorta like the first cell phone law (can't talk on the phone but can text message on the phone). It sounds like a case of "we need to something so we can say we're doing something, even if it's stupid." Then when interviews come up ("what did you do for this-or-that issue?") politicians can talk around it by referencing legislation that they passed to "help climate change," knowing that most people will smile and nod and think they are doing well and not actually look up the legislation to see just what brilliant ideas were in it...
Maybe I'm cynical. :)
Or, maybe I like black cars. Who knows.
lolw00t? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:W-T-F (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to cool pavements down though, do you? That's why they want to ban dark cars, because they use more fuel in order to keep them cool.
TFA specifically mentions that these techniques have been used successfully in buildings so banning dark asphalt roofs is probably something they'd do for new builds.
Just a thought.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just ban inefficient cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact we are politely discussing the merits of this proposal instead of laughing at and/or preparing boiling oil for the idiots responsible shows we have lost the Republic our mighty forebearers gave us in trust.
The idea that a Free People would meekly submit to some pinheads who will tell us what color we can paint our cars is laughable. So obviously this, among hundreds equally insane examples, proves we are no longer such a nation.
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Insightful)
the climates system for heating works of the engine waster heat, air conditioning does not.
Of course that will change with electric cars.
In fact, running the heater is better for the engine in that they will run more efficiently. Naturally only after a certain temperature.
"There is no way this can pass legislation."
"Probably not, but if it does there is no way it will hold up in court.
Offensive (Score:4, Insightful)
This has to be the most offensive thing I will read today. The idea that the government can tell a person what color their car can be should deeply offend every American, even those living in California.
Welcome to the Nanny State (Score:2, Insightful)
California is cursed with the worse nanny-state politicians in the country. It's destroying the economy too - the state is nearly bankrupt, businesses are leaving, taxes are on the rise. It's a total disaster. If you want an example of what happens to an economy when Democrats have complete power, just look to California for an example.
And for the record, Arnold is NO republican!
The interior color makes a bigger difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a black car with a black interior and a black car with a light gray interior. The gray one is far cooler in the summer.
Re:W-T-F (Score:4, Insightful)
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most. You'd get more efficiency by cutting out weight.
Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that a white hummer is worse for the environment then a small black sedan.
Agreed, but what if you could fix both problems? Ban hummers (the vehicles) and make dark-colored cars more energy-efficient and you're better off than if you did only one or the other.
It seems to me that, when faced with a proposal that makes, say, a 5% improvement on a problem, a common negative response is that the solution doesn't entirely correct the problem so why bother? A 5% improvement gets us to a 5% better world. Solve the hummer (the vehicle) problem next. The two are not zero-sum.
Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:20% solar reflectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Making a new car creates a lot of CO2 in itself. "Emissions" usually mean particulate, not CO2. Confusing these two forms of pollution is a big problem.
The Prius is a red herring. The most eco-friendly car you can buy is a 20 year old Geo Metro.
Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:1, Insightful)
And then the water evaporates and makes clouds that reflect. Problem solved by nature.
Re:Retardifornia (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good Idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Try this.. Place two cars of identical make and model, but one in black and the other in silver, next to each other and stand 50-100 feet away. I'm willing to bet you'll think the black one appears bigger than the other one in the daytime and smaller than the other one at night.
Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:2, Insightful)
Thermal inertia would help to even out the day and night temperatures, which should reduce energy use. It's probably a trivial effect, though.
Re:W-T-F (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:20% solar reflectivity (Score:4, Insightful)
The Prius is a red herring. The most eco-friendly car you can buy is a 20 year old Geo Metro.
I agree, pending nothing wrong with the engine or cat. However, driving a Geo Metro isn't as safe (20 years of safety research and no structural fatigue), as comfortable (working A/C) or reliable (the Geo is more likely to break down in the next year than the Prius). It's a trade-off.
But I'll admit I'd burn down a forest if I knew it would keep my wife that much safer. Mod me as a troll for saying it, but at least I'm not being fooled by fake-safety like many SUV drivers have been.
Re:Good Idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are cyclists banging into black cars in epidemic numbers or something?
Maybe more cyclists should watch where they're going. They're only four times your size after all. Hard to miss.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them? Are we all teenagers?
1. Paint your car a color that reflects light.
2. Inflate your tires.
3. Drive slower.
Each of these will improve your fuel economy noticeably. None of them require you to drive less or get a dinky car. What's the case for not doing them -- contrariness?
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope to fuck this isn't another thing that affects the rest of the states...since the auto companies no longer like making CA only version of their cars.
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems.
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
Re:W-T-F (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Black cars. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet..they still can't pay their own bills.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:2, Insightful)
> You don't understand the article,
Typical progressive. Anybody who objects just doesn't understand or is acting from a 'false consciousness.' Sorry pal, I can read and did actually RTFA.
> the summary is abjectly false,
The linked article has the following headline and lead graf has:
"California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?!"
"Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings - especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours."
How does that make Slashdot's summary or headline 'abjectly false.'
> and your reply shows you were predisposed to believing this.
Guilty as charged. I now expect this sort of bizarro world stuff, especially from CA. But I do RTFA and yup I was right to expect this sort of crap because it is real.
Sooner or later the Tree of Liberty is going to need watering. Because it is clear that there are only a few probable outcomes left. You guys manage to get my side into death camps or just bred out of the gene pool or eventually we fight another revolution. Or Atlas Shrugs. My team does have one advantage in a revolution though... you guys in the Blue State hives don't have guns. :) Don't count on the Army, though they are normally agents of the State this isn't Russia; most of the US military will be on my side. Those guys take their Oath a lot more seriously than the average elected official who violates the Constitution daily.
Re:Black cars. (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, the air of the planet is the air of the planet... CA emissions spread to your state.... Your state's emissions spread to CA and the rest of the planet as well...
That said, and I am a Cali resident, I agree with your main point. We seem to have a pretty stupid approach to dealing with real problems by focusing on things that do *relatively* nothing at all.
An example of what I'm saying is the C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) which leads all the CA emissions policies, etc. Had CARB, instead of making stupid emissions rules that don't really mean shit, pushed to completely ban combustion engines in cars in the 80s --- the induced market would have us all rolling in clean electric vehicles sourcing power from renewable resources.... But instead they got focused on stupid distractions, just like this stupid 'ban black paint' idea.
Re:Black cars. (Score:1, Insightful)
Why don't you just send a bigger chunk of your money off the Sacramento then? Convince all your friends to do the same!
You don't need laws to do the Right Thing do you?
While you are at it, invite some homeless to stay in your extra rooms and offer them some cash. Since you're wealthy, you can afford it.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
If doing X is the smart thing to do, I invite you to attempt to persuade me by the overwhelming force of your reasonable arguments.
On the other hand, if you tell me I must do X at the point of a spear, I will quickly conclude that (1) you have little respect for my basic humanity and (2) your argument must not be that good in the first place.
As it happens, I enjoy driving fast ( I do own a small car, mostly for performance reason). It gives me pleasure to do so and I get to my destination sooner. I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment. Why people insist on forbidding me from taking part in a simple pleasure on my own dime is entirely beyond me.
Re:Good Idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you start paying a usage tax to BE on the road with cars (who pays a gas tax for the same purpose), I'll stop trying to run you off them.
Re:Good Idea. (Score:1, Insightful)
Cyclists on the road are, generally speaking, a fucking cancer.
Re:W-T-F (Score:1, Insightful)
Rule of thumb is you lose a cylinders worth of power, and I don't think people will give up their air conditionair
LOL, I don't know where you heard that, but it's totally false.
Re:Black cars. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I don't think so, unless they helped push nuclear power plants to pick up the slack in power. Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
Re:W-T-F (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe there's not a vast left-wing conspiracy, just like there's not a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil and/or an asshole.
Re:Black cars. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems yet.
Fixed that one for ya. What again is the problem with more efficient vehicles? Do you need a five litre engine to feel better about yourself?
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? I hope I'm not your neighbor. And if you're one of those obnoxious little shits who thinks causing 120db of racket is "cool," you're a fucking twit. Your blast pack is a douchebag cowbell.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
New York and California subsidize the rest of the country, and have for decades. That's because they put in more federal money than they receive every single year. So, you're paying them back, and I doubt it's what you owe them.
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
While you're there, try reading a bit. It's useful to actually know things instead of talking out of your ass.
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cause when I'm driving down the road in the late morning and early afternoon, I really need to see the sun perfectly reflected in the windshield of oncoming traffic!
I don't know about other countries, but here in Canada, it is actually ILLEGAL to have a reflective paint job. I'm sure they would treat reflective windows the same way.
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm neither republican or democrat, but living and voting here, you see every year, Democrat politicians continually pushing for more programs that may or may not be good ideas (banning black cars? - democrat nurtured.), but that we definitely can't afford...
And how exactly does the delay of the state budget cause the state to go broke... are you suggesting that the state not having a budget will cause it to spend more or earn less? I guarantee that with the way the legislature attempts to spend money, holding up the budget can only have the opposite effect of what you propose.
Further, why do you suppose the Republicans held up the budget? Perhaps because the state was literally, out of money, and democratic lawmakers were relentlessly pushing additional spending measures on the budget.
And yes, then there was also the issue of taxes. If you're a wealthy, high paid worker that's willing to put your money where you're politics are, that's fantastic, and commendable. But if you're an employer, such as myself, you're taxes are going to have a very real effect on the lives of current and potential employees--And that's exactly what we need right now, fewer jobs being created, right? So that we can pay out even more in unemployment benefits, right?
Sim-city got it right- case-and-point, the current Corporate mass-exodus from California. Which I'm sure is also because "the budget was held up by republicans". Christ.
California's budget problems are as obvious as your blue-collar neighbor in the McMansion with an Escalade in the driveway (or maybe that's just a California thing). It's all quite poetic: the most materialistic and consumerism-stricken populace in the nation is represented by politicians who continuously want expensive, shiny, new, fashionable things (policies, programs, etc) for their 'constituents'.
Look, I hate the legislation of morality and religion (prop 8) as much as.... well, a lot. But I would trust my brother's wife with a checkbook register sooner than I would California democrats.... and that's really fucking bad.
*"Most Liberal" Stats: Voters: 44.4% Dem. / 31.3% Rep. Assembly: 63.7% Dem. / 36.3% Rep. Senate: 24 Dem. / 15 Rep. Icing: Nancy Pelosi
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:4, Insightful)
I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
Re:W-T-F (Score:3, Insightful)
Air compressors in cars use an enormous amount of power. Figures are 20-40 HP (~15-30 kW).
The solar gain in a car is enormous no thanks to all that glass letting in the sun and no (legal) way of shading the windows to keep it out while you're driving along. Dark cars do have a slightly higher solar gain than lighter one, so this would have a small effect on overall fuel consumption, but not in the middle of summer, where the compressor runs full time anyway. The effects would be so negligible compared to some of the other (more complicated) methods of reducing fuel consumption.
I agree on the cutting out weight part. Modern cars can have in excess of 200kg of electrical cable in them to bus around power and control signals. This is in part because cars are generally 12V power systems so you need enormous current (and thus enormous cable) to even run a headlight, let-alone crank the engine.
Moving to a higher voltage would reduce the cable requirements considerably. 48V electrics in cars would require 1/16 the current weight in cable (the old I^2 * R rule) to retain the current electrical losses in the cables.
There's a huge benefit to be had there but still we persist with 12V electrics in cars. This is mostly tradition, but originally it would have been convenience, safety and the fact that 12V doesn't require a sparkie's license to wok on.
Everything on the car can improve economy. Paying the extra money for good tyres will make a noticeable difference, as will keeping the wheels correctly aligned and inflated.
Keeping roads flowing smoothly and road surfaces in good condition will reduce overall wasted fuel.
Keeping your car well maintained and having services at manufacturer specified intervals will keep it running efficiently.
Driving smaller cars with smaller, more efficient engines uses less fuel. Modern 2L 4cyl engines can generate as much power as a gas guzzling V8 (I am sitting at 124kW from a naturally aspirated 2L motor and fuel consumption is BETTER than an equivalently powered V6 from another manufacturer).
Simply driving more smoothly and not applying the boot to either pedal too heavily all of the time can have an enormous effect. Accelerating too hard is just wasteful, and doubly so in traffic where you usually overshoot and have to brake immediately anyway. Braking hard and late is also more wasteful because you often overshoot when you might not have needed to come to a complete halt.
There's so many (more expensive and more complicated) things that have a far bigger effect on fuel consumption than wankily banning dark coloured cars!!!
Re:Black cars. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
And you have the Democrats doing their damnedest to spend it all. Maybe you should find a way to get rid of the leeches of society out there, like Octomom?
Re:Retardifornia (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax Revenue "holes"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
Ah, perhaps you would have better luck handling the tax revenue if a good portion of your (how shall I put this gently) "legally-challenged residents" actually paid taxes...
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
Consider electric power to be a sort of "common language" of electricity. If your car runs on gasoline, then gasoline is the only source that it'll run on. But if your car runs on electricity, then it runs on gasoline, or coal, or nuclear, or hydro, or whatever you care to power your community with.
But when the gas runs out, you aren't stuck with a bunch of machines that you can't afford to run. When better, cheaper, cleaner power sources are discovered, the cost of adoption is dramatically reduced, because every type of power can be converted into electrical. This would untether your economy from any one source, for ever!
"Exporting our smog to the power plant that handles our section of the grid" should be a national priority.
Re:Retardifornia (Score:3, Insightful)
As a Texan living in California, I'd have to say Texas is worse. By far, they are dumber, the civil infringements are greater (you practically have no 4th amendment rights in Plano,) and it's the home to one of the biggest embarrassments on this planet.
Re:Overboard (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply put, a "black" paint with 20% reflectivity is not black, it is gray (unless they are counting wavelengths outside the visible range). Still, it is not the radiation hitting the outside of the car that heats it up so much as the color of the interior. Take a black car with a white interior, and a white car with a black interior, put them both in the sun and see which one heats up faster. Light gets in through the glass, and if it remains light it can also get out through the glass. Once absorbed and re-radiated in the infrared, it no longer can.
If you really want to keep cars cooler, ban black interiors, not black paint. Then make them all park in the shade.
Mal-2
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
It isn't flawed, you just don't understand it. The carbon tax isn't there to pay to have carbon sucked out of the atmosphere, it's to compensate for the use of a scarce public resource (the atmosphere's ability to absorb carbon) and encourage it to be used wisely.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
This isn't vaguely similar. He just wants the right to drink a soda at the pool, even though he'll have to pee more often and wear out the urinal faster.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:3, Insightful)
You are asserting that purchasing a legal good and using it legally is equivalent to "urinating in a pool".
I'm not asserting that. For one thing, the legality is what is under question here ("should I be legally able to do unconstrained emissions so long as I pay for them?"), so it cannot be used as the underlying reason. My example was merely to demonstrate that "it's alright, I'm gonna pay for that" is not a valid excuse for a large variety of activities out there, both legal and illegal - and those of them that are illegal are that for a reason!
That said, the law being discussed in TFA is silly regardless of how you look at it.
Re:Black cars. (Score:3, Insightful)
If that many people depend on the govt for jobs....then I think you might have insight as to one of the big problems of the state!?!
The govt should not be the primary employer of the people in a state. Laying off govt workers should only be a blip in unemployment numbers, even if you cut like 30% off them at one fell swoop.
Re:Article is WRONG... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the whole point - to get all those smart scientists to figure out how to make dark paint that reflects heat.
Even if they don't end up enabling the legislation - who wouldn't spring $150 for the keep your car a bit cooler in the summer for no energy option?
OH BOY! PASTEL! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm ready for Raymond Cocteau, SanAngeles, and the end of the Franchise Wars now!
Hot dogs! Armor hot dogs! The dogs...kids...love...to...biiiiite!
Re:Retardifornia (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Texas is much worse. You can get arrested for not wearing your seatbelt.
As opposed to California, where they shoot you in the back while you are restrained by two other officers.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:3, Insightful)
I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
Only if you assume that the carbon tax won't motivate others to reduce their consumption. It's not necessary that everyone be low-impact, only that the collective impact be sufficiently low. Assuming we had a viable definition of "sufficiently low", then the solution is to ratchet the tax up until collective emissions fall below that level. Those who choose to emit more than average but are willing to pay for the privilege are automatically factored in.
Re:Overboard (Score:1, Insightful)
If the law says it must reflect at least 20% of *ALL* solar radiation, then black paint may be just fine. Simply find a black paint that transmits over the Infrared spectrum! Black simply means not much reflectance over the very small range from 400-700 nm. The sun radiates a lot more than just visible light.
Trivial effect outside of California (Score:3, Insightful)
Since car color is relatively trivial when it comes to operations, such a ban could be implemented without having much of an impact on other states. They would just avoid shipping dark colored cars not meeting the reflectivity requirements into California.
It is the mechanical systems that are much more expensive to vary by vehicle.
Considering the increase in the number of cars in California, the fact that the smog isn't as bad as it was in the 1960's is a tribute to the smog control practices.
Re:Black cars. (Score:3, Insightful)
"So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? "
Yes.
I consider that a declaration of war.
The environment is a common resource, and you damaging it for a net quality of life gain means a net loss for me. So either we can have the government step in and force us to play nice, or we can tell the government to get out of our lives and then I'll take it into my own hands by slashing your tires.
Your life is yours to do with as you please only in as far as what you do doesn't affect others. Therefore, this does not apply to common resources, i.e. the air we breathe. Screw with my air and I'll ask the government to stop you, seeing as the government won't let me stop you myself.
As the government has taken away an individual's right to use force against those who may harm him, preventing mutual harm has become the government's job. Seen in this way, environmental controls are perfectly reasonable.