The Shotgun Blog
« Liberal MP Keith Martin to propose marijuana decriminalization in private member's bill | Main | The biggest perk of being a former Tory PM »
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
No more black cars in the Golden State?
So rumour has it that California is thinking about banning black cars.
Yes, you read that right. No, I'm not making it up. It's not an April Fools story. Man, do I wish it was an April Fool's story.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has decided that non-reflective cars get hotter in the sun, which makes air conditioning systems work harder, which uses more gas, which increases greenhouse-gas emissions.
California legislators say that they have not called for a ban on any paint colours and have only said that cars must have reflective paint by legislated dates. Representatives for the automakers say that they can't meet CARB's demands without eliminating dark-coloured paint. Snopes tries to clear things up:
The rumor arose as the board considered requiring reflective car paints and windshields. The premise was that a cooler car would require a driver to use less air conditioning, which would require less gasoline, which would mean fewer greenhouse-gas emissions.
Several groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which lobbies for the big automakers, complained that a draft proposal to change the car-painting process to make vehicles more reflective would "eliminate a significant number of vehicle colors" because darker colors absorb more heat." Even the ARB itself, in a PowerPoint presentation on the paint proposal, stated, "Jet black remains an issue," though it never said the color should be banned.
So to be fair to the legislators, they have not outright banned dark colours for cars, but the argument is that that's what's going to have to happen for automakers to fall in line with regulations.
Another auto blog elaborates on the paint problem:
According to Ward's, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren't looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it?
I'm sort of inclined to believe the automakers over the legislators since they know the business better, and legislators are typically inclined to pass legislation that sounds good without considering the unintended consequences. Obviously, though, both sides have vested interests.
If you ask me, what California needs is some legislation (or elimination of legislation) to make it CARB-free. Ha ha. Get it? (I'm sorry, that was awful.)
Still can't believe it? Read more about the depressing (or maybe it's hilarious... I really can't decide) truth here and here.
Posted by Janet Neilson on April 1, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
That would be an effective way to control gang violence.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-01 10:05:58 PM
Will the Gino Vanelli song go out of style if this happens?
Posted by: Realist | 2009-04-01 10:13:27 PM
Let's face it, when it comes to nut legislation, California has always been the front runner. The sad part is that "california north" (BC) Will now adopt the same stupidity. Does not matter that black paint will absorb more heat, therefore needing less energy to heat the vehicle in a colder climate. The energy saved either way would'nt amount to one tankfull a year.
We are drowning is a sea of stupid rules and regulations covering every aspect of daily living. I would vote for anyone whose platform is "Get a life"
Posted by: peterj | 2009-04-01 10:41:44 PM
Wouldn't work, DP. They'd just get it repainted out of state. I would like to see the piece of legislation that requires all people moving to California from another state to repaint their cars.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-01 10:53:40 PM
The sad part is that "california north" (BC) Will now adopt the same stupidity.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-04-01 10:41:44 PM
You're assuming Toronto won't get to it first!
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-01 11:19:15 PM
You're assuming Toronto won't get to it first!
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-01 11:19:15 PM
True janet. McGuinty may be a gullible fool, but at least he has'nt brought in a Carbon Tax like that twit Campbell has. Nothing like being taxed on nothing.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-04-01 11:38:45 PM
You're assuming Toronto won't get to it first!
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-01 11:19:15 PM
The mayor of Toronto is an American from San Francisco.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-04-02 8:53:25 AM
The mayor of Toronto is an American from San Francisco. - Suddenly, it all makes sense. Granted, he left when he was only two. And who would have believed that he graduated summa cum laude in Economics, from Harvard, no less? Just goes to show you that a university degree is no guarantee of good sense.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-02 9:50:16 AM
Any wonder why California is broke? They cannot grasp that by driving out all the true wealth producers, they end up running out of money to redistribute and to pay for nut schemes.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-04-02 11:16:52 AM
Funny how Miller's official biography makes him out to be English-born, not American.
http://www.toronto.ca/mayor_miller/mayor_miller_bio.htm
Incidentally the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is also American-born.
Maybe where one was born makes no difference as to success in life. The sheer incompetence and stupidity of the people of Toronto for re-electing that moron is ample proof of that.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-04-02 11:34:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.