California to reduce carbon emissions by banning black cars?
by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Mar 25th 2009 at 11:56AM 
In yet another case of Regulators Gone Wild, California legislation may soon restrict the color options for your next car. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: black. What resentment could California possibly harbor against black cars, you ask? Apparently, the 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. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate. Similar legislation already exists for buildings and has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.
So, what's the problem? Paint suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20 percent solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and it's not 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? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.
When we first heard of this issue, an internal debate immediately began as to whether this might be an elaborate April Fool's joke. Sadly, it isn't. Read through CARB's complete Cool Cars Standards and Test Procedures here (PDF link). Thanks for the tip, Joaquin!
[Source: CARB (PDF link); Wards | Photo: 7mary3]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Quantumphysics 12:02PM (3/25/2009)
As much logic as it would make to ban absorbant colors... there is something moraly wrong about banning colors... especially black.
Can't science design a highly reflective paint using nanoparticles?
Reply
Yikes 10:55AM (3/26/2009)
Doesn't matter. Do you really think California politicians like Nanzi Pelosivich would understand nano technology?
David Robison 12:11PM (3/25/2009)
Look, the reality is that car color is unimportant. Cars are a transportation device and if changing the color will help us save our coastal cities, potable water, etc., then I'm all for this type of regulation.
It's time we, as a species and as citizens of the most carbon-producing country, do what we can to improve the situation.
Reply
Throwback 1:58PM (3/25/2009)
Why stop at cars? Let's ban dark clothing. What else can we ban in the interest of of the planet? The government doesn't make mistakes let's have "them" make all decisions for us lowly individuals. It worked well for the old USSR, didn't it? Out of shape people breath heavier than in shape folks, causing more CO2, can we ban them?
David Robison 4:03PM (3/25/2009)
1. Slippery slope arguments are sloppy rhetorical devices.
2. Cars are transport devices, they are not clothes or personal metabolism.
Mike!!ekiM 6:03PM (3/25/2009)
California is being hit Hard by Extreme Weather - Global Warming. There's a Global Drought going on, and yet, we don't hear about it from NBC, CBS and ABC, while the "Clean Coal" campaign runs.
They have to do whatever it takes to save their agricultural base. The South-West is also being hit by drought conditions. This is just the beginning.
Yikes 10:58AM (3/26/2009)
Why stop at banning colors.
Ban sunroofs.
Ban all the windows that let all the heat into the car.
Force car makers to put video cameras inside your white bubble.
Vic 12:49AM (3/29/2009)
Hey Dave,
I have an idea, let's ban black PEOPLE from CA as well, I mean they must be hurting the environment just be virtue of their skin color, right?
Vic
brandon 12:14PM (3/25/2009)
This makes me want to move to another state, as this has gone too far / is rediculous. Seriously? There are parts of CA that can get pretty cold in winter (don't laugh, CA is a big state), and a black car on a cold day would make more sense than a white one. This idea just reeks of some politician who doesn't like black cars.
Reply
slk23 1:25PM (3/25/2009)
But waste heat from the engine is used to warm the car interior, resulting in no additional energy (fuel) being used. If that heat isn't used for keeping your feet toasty it would be transferred to outside air via the radiator. Cooling (AC) on the other hand requires additional energy to be consumed.
However, there's lower hanging fruit than banning dark car colors when it comes to saving fuel.
Tim 12:26PM (3/25/2009)
The evil of Statism knows no boundries.
Good vs. evil:
Good does NOT want the power to judge or be judged. Good knows they will be judged later. Good wants to be left alone. Good wants to leave others alone.
Evil wants the power of judgment. Evil wants to "help" others even when they don't want to be "helped" because it wants control. Evil thinks that it is good because it "helps" others. It thinks it’s smarter and thus has the right to control others “for their own good”.
Evil thinking that it is good because it "helps others" is the most destructive lie of all.
Those evil Statists who wish to “help” control us for our own good are pure evil no matter the “party affiliation”! To preserve good liberty, this fascism must be dealt with. That's why we have the 1st. and 2nd. Amendments.
Reply
PabloKoh 12:39PM (3/26/2009)
Love the post, just take it further. Why must we regulate everything? Give the people information. When people are presented with information they tend to make a wise choice for themselves. Solution: info on sales window sticker, "Dark colored vehicles may lead to higher fuel consumption than noted above." If the buyer still wants a dark car fine but you had access to the information.
Tim 1:12PM (3/26/2009)
PabloKoh,
I don't think people are that stupid. If I did, I would suggest that we put a label on every leaf stating:
“Picking this leaf may reduce atmospheric O2, increase atmospheric
C02 and cause global warming. Pick this leaf at your own risk.”
Or, if I needed some money for a “helpful program” I could say:
“Picking this leaf may reduce atmospheric O2, increase atmospheric
C02 and cause global warming. Pick this leaf results in a $1.00 fine.”
Now that we have warning labels on every leaf on the planet, what else can we label "for our own good"? Are labels good enough? What about all that pollution caused by making the labels? Perhaps we need MORE regulation? How many regulations are enough? When will we reach the point where the people will just ignore the regulations which lead to anarchy? Can you hold a child’s hand too tight?
The answers depend on how stupid you think your neighbor is and how much you like control over others. Remember, the desire to control others and destroy their "free will" IS pure evil. Then again, so is Statism…
ebow 12:32PM (3/25/2009)
Setting aside the Big Brother-ish aspect of this...
The problem does not seem to be black cars per se. It's that the paint manufacturers have not yet developed a black paint that meets the reflectivity CARB is proposing. If the additives didn't turn black paint into "mud-puddle brown", then there would be no problem with black cars from a CARB-proposal perspective. Blue cars would probably face the same potential problem if the additives turned them an unappealing tint.
What they really should be doing is designing more parking lots with shade trees along each row so there are fewer acres of shade-free parking to suffer through. And hand out cardboard sun-blockers for windshields--they do a decent job in reducing a car's internal temperature, at least when the windshield is facing south and a window is open very slightly.
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 1:02PM (3/25/2009)
ebow, yes, it's a technical hurdle... CARB isn't specifically targeting black paint, but it is the least reflective of solar rays.
Since some people obviously purposely choose NOT to buy a black car due to its propensity to get hot... might some purposely choose black because it DOES get warmer inside? As mentioned, not all of California gets that hot.
Thomas Tobiason 1:48PM (3/25/2009)
I lived in Saudi Arabia for 5 years where it is very hot. I'm not sure if I ever saw a non-white car or small truck. Virtually every pickup is white. The only non-white vehicles were large water trucks.
When it gets hot enough, white will be more popular ...
Reply
Steve-O 12:56PM (3/25/2009)
Unbelievable. Give me a break, this ought to outrage people! Wow.
Reply
Chris M 12:59PM (3/25/2009)
Now this is getting downright silly. CARB is paying no attention to engine size or weight or aerodynamics, all of which have a far FAR more significant effects on fuel economy, but instead focus on paint color? The effect on fuel economy is insignificant, compared to numerous other factors that CARB is ignoring.
The additional warmth in wintertime would slightly improve cold weather fuel economy, balancing out the slight loss of fuel economy in the summer. Also, improved insulation under the skin of the car would pretty much minimize heat gain or loss from a dark finish.
The ultimate irony is that this idiot rule would outlaw any photovoltaic finish that might be developed, as by nature a photovoltaic finish has to be highly light absorbing!
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:03PM (3/25/2009)
CARB already pays a ton of attention to fuel economy. They have sued the federal government for the right to control CO2 emissions (fuel economy). You've created a fallacious argument.
This wouldn't bar photovoltaic finishes. This article specifically speaks of the energy absorption of the car surfaces, if the car surface turns energy into electricity, it is not absorbed and so photovoltaic finishes would actually help a car meet this standard.
Max 2:01PM (3/25/2009)
Chris M
"The additional warmth in wintertime would slightly improve cold weather fuel economy, balancing out the slight loss of fuel economy in the summer"
Says who? No it won't balance out anything, the air conditioner consumes a huge amount of power, vs the heater. Besides, there is little sun in winter, so the temp difference of a white vs black car sitting under an overcast sky at 30F is none.