Henry Ford once promised customers any color so long as it is black. Now, California seems close to saying that black cars can stay out of the state. This is not a racist takeover, but an environmental movement to encourage the selection of cars that reflect light to reduce energy demands.
The proposal is before the California Air Resources Board and the thrust is not color but reflectivity of the paint. The Board, by 2012, would require a reflectivity standard. Before you jump on the “whites-only” standard, it is not as loony as it may seem. Such standards are “technology forcing.” Presumably, the standard would not outlaw black or dark colors. Instead, it would force companies to develop new paints that are both dark and reflective.
The key is:
“Direct solar reflectance” or “Rds” means the ratio of reflected solar
flux to the incident solar flux, i.e., the ratio of the solar energy that is
reflected outward by the paint or glazing system to the amount of
solar energy impacting the paint or glazing system, usually
expressed as a percent. Rds includes ultraviolet, visible, and
infrared reflectance.“Infrared Reflectance” means the ratio of infrared solar energy
which is reflected outward by the paint or glazing system to the
amount of infrared solar energy impacting the paint or glazing
system, usually expressed as a percent. The infrared wavelengths
are considered to be those falling between 780-2500 nanometers.“Total Solar Transmittance” or “Tts” means the ratio of the
transmitted solar flux to the incident solar flux, i.e., the ratio of the
amount of solar energy that passes through the glazing (including
energy absorbed and subsequently re-radiated to the interior) to the
amount of solar energy falling on the glazing, usually expressed as
a percent.
For those of us who primarily look for whether the car can hold a Big Gulp cup and has seat warmers, this may be a bit to complex. However, the manufacturers would be given an incentive to develop cars that would be better for both the owners (not as hot cars in the summers) and the environment. Once again, California appears to be ahead of the curve with the EPA far behind. A national standard would appear the best way to go in such technology. Likewise, it would be an excellent issue for the EU to consider. The key is not to prohibit colors but paint that has very low reflectivity.
For the “cool car” regulations, click here.
For the full story, click here.
“The facts are very troublesome for the Von Troll family,” amen Rafflaw.
The manure is written by Jack Coleman, and spread around here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2009/03/27/maddow-guest-turns-hanging-judge-zeal-bush-show-trials
“While you consider harsh interrogation of terrorists “the most well-defined and publicly known crime I’ve seen in my lifetime,” I’ll risk a gentleman’s C by citing a greater monstrosity — 9/11.” I’ve got to agree, but for different reasons. Bush was at the ranch in Texas for the 4-5 weeks leading up to 9/11. Not once did he speak to Tenet while he was out to lunch at the ranch.
cadrl,
your troll name here is much easier to read than the name you used on the bio thread. And since you used the very same quote in this thread it is easy to remind you that Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes because they both have admitted in public to authorizing waterboarding. Waterboarding is a crime under US law and International law. As you can see, the facts are very troublesome for the Von Troll family.
Bob,
Those were pretty funny, especially the one that took too damn long to read. 😀
Buddha,
I got indigestion just reading your menu! I am not a big fan of this paint color mandate. Living north of Chicago where we are expecting 6 more inches of snow tomorrow night, I would think the dark color cars and interiors will be useful for at least several more weeks.
Still chuckling…
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/everything_taking_too_long
Buddha,
Thought you might like this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_troops_in_iraq_excited_to
And to further Bob’s point, I’d think the methane off gassing created by the consumption of Mexican food adds up to be a greater emission hazard by volume alone than the tiny bits of fuel consumed in this transaction. So you can have your carnitas but not your refritas? No. This is weak science attempting to masquerade as a weak law.
“Once again, California appears to be ahead of the curve with the EPA far behind. A national standard would appear the best way to go in such technology. Likewise, it would be an excellent issue for the EU to consider. The key is not to prohibit colors but paint that has very low reflectivity.”
Are you kidding me?
Professor Turley, are you really that enthralled by this idea that you haven’t fully considered the inverse nexus between the between paint reflectivity and carbon dioxide emissions?
Sure, this sounds just peachy in a ‘no-snow state’ like California, but have you considered the effects of less reflective paints in ‘the cooler states?’
Would someone in Fargo North Dakota benefit from a darker less reflective car in the Fall, Winter & Spring months; i.e. using less gas to warm up his car before driving?
Does everyone use A/C?
I’m sorry, but it seems to me that basing a law on the nexus between carbon dioxide emissions and car paint reflectivity is about as tenuous as basing it on the nexus between carbon dioxide emissions of soda pop.
Yeah. This is just silly.
“This strategy is based on measures to reduce the solar heat gain in a vehicle parked in the sun. A cooler interior would make drivers less likely to activate the air conditioner, which increases carbon dioxide emissions.”
Give me a break.