Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the try-only-driving-at-night dept.

Earth 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.

cancel ×

685 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Black cars. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347681)

In before racist comments.

Global Warming Theater (2, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347697)

Bruce Schneir would be proud.

Re:Global Warming Theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348317)

So would Bruce Schneier

W-T-F (5, Funny)

Timberwolf0122 (872207) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347707)

Come on, what next Vermont only allowing black cars so the climate systems don't have to work as hard in winter?

There is no way this can pass legislation.

Re:W-T-F (4, Insightful)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347983)

If it was any state except CA I'd agree that it won't pass.

Re:W-T-F (4, Insightful)

antirelic (1030688) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348753)

You just insulted the liberal Mecca. Prepare to have not only this thread, but all your historical threads, get modded into oblivion.

Re:W-T-F (1)

swaq (989895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348011)

Cars are heated by excess heat from the engine, while air conditioners require extra power from the engine (and hence fuel) to run the compressor. So requiring black cars in Vermont would save much less (if anything) than banning them in California. However, I imagine the color really doesn't have much impact when most the heat comes through the windows.

Re:W-T-F (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348173)

Which is a great point. The windows. They let in a lot of heat, you can tell this because the trunk of a black car is still not nearly as hot as the rest of the car. So we should really have white interiors, and heavily reflective or tinted windows that allow us to still see out. Actually I wonder if this wouldn't be a good application of LCD windows that would turn mostly opaque when the car was off and be clear when the car was running so that cops can still peek inside and you won't have a hard time driving. Those windshield blocking things really do help, but are such a pain in the ass. If we could do that automatically, that would help a lot, I would think.

L

Re:W-T-F (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348721)

How about the same coating as those one-way mirrors? (unless that's what you meant by "highly reflective windows")

Re:W-T-F (3, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348401)

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:W-T-F (1, Informative)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348769)

Compressors turn off while you're accelerating hard, so you don't notice. Try turning it on/off while doing a slower acceleration... on every car I've had it feels like molasses when the compressor is running. Way more than the couple % you're claiming. Did you mean 5 hp overall for a trip, including when it's off?

Re:W-T-F (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348169)

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.

Re:W-T-F (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348361)

Engine temp is regulated by the thermostat, and probably computerized by now(god help us). The heater has no effect other than closing the thermostat a little bit if the engine temp decreases.

Re:W-T-F (1)

Mc_Anthony (181237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348209)

Don't give them any ideas!!!

20% solar reflectivity (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347721)

Won't that mean lots of glare? Is the plan to reduce carbon emissions by causing everyone to crash into each other?

Re:20% solar reflectivity (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348219)

That was my thought. I've been blinded by people's chrom and over-polished (or camera-light-avoiding) license plates.

Living here in California, what I think would make a bigger difference than telling my wife her Prius can't be black is getting the old, beat-up, emissions-test-failing cars off the road. But then there are issues with that, too.

Re:20% solar reflectivity (4, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348505)

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:20% solar reflectivity (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348729)

Gets cars off the road. A wrecked car uses no gas.

Overboard (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347739)

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.

Re:Overboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348211)

This is what I've been warning about - Government shifting from banning things whose negative consequences are immediately obvious, to banning things whose negative consequences are not immediately obvious.

Ignore the protestations of scientists who say the problem is real - revolt against the coming dictatorship before it is too late! Defend your right to own cars with a low index of solar reflectivity!

Re:Overboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348765)

That slope got slipped on a long time ago.

Enjoy the unintended consequences! Wheeeee!

Ford saying - modified (4, Funny)

Erioll (229536) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347757)

Henry Ford (modified) : Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is not black. (wiki [wikimedia.org] )

Re:Ford saying - modified (2, Funny)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347795)

Borat: This car isa NAAHHHHHHT black.

Ban black people too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347771)

They have to consume more food because they need to use more energy to maintain their homeostatic balance. Dark skin makes it harder to keep one cool. The increased food intake causes the release of more greenhouse gasses, as all that extra food needs to be manufactured, processed, packaged and shipped.

Re:Ban black people too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348109)

lol. I really doubt this is the case, or dark skin would be kind of a maladaptation despite the UV resistance. People actively seek shade whereas cars have to drive on the open road in direct sunlight, and in that shade darker skin will be more efficient at radiating heat. Black-body radiation ... literally.

Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347777)

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).

Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (3, Insightful)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347987)

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.

Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (1)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348373)

Well, none that I heard of, but hot pavements increase the mean temperature of the city, contributing to global warming.

You can also notice that pavements tend to have huge termal inertia, making them a very efficient heater for the rest of the city.

Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (2, Insightful)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348701)

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:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (5, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348507)

I heard a representative of the concrete industry on NPR a couple months ago (and double-checked here [concreteresources.net] ) saying that the city of Atlanta reduced its average temperature by six degrees, just by switching to lighter-colored concrete instead of darker-colored asphalt. That will affect the cooling requirements of buildings, even without any change to the buildings themselves.

Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348095)

That's why they are painted with reflective silver paint. Though some choose not to do so either out of ignorance or monetary reasons. We had a shoddy contractor promise to paint a newly installed large roof after it had set for a week. They never came back to do so. Roofers charge big bucks and do the most slipshod work possible. Out of three roofers we used including one large "trusted" operation, all did a crap job and never wanted to hear about problems afterward.

Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348509)

Or plant more trees. My friends who spend all day working on such things say that planting trees in cities is a net cost-saver, because they're cheap to plant and maintain, and significantly reduce the wear on roads from weather.

Also they look pretty.

Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348531)

And then the water evaporates and makes clouds that reflect. Problem solved by nature.

Let's ban blue jeans next. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347845)

After all, they absorb more sunlight than khakis. Heck, let's just ban all clothing and require citizens to wear nothing but a thick slathering of SPF-9000 sunscreen. Won't someone think of the planet.

Retardifornia (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347901)

Is California where all the stupid people go?

Re:Retardifornia (4, Informative)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348075)

YES

Re:Retardifornia (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348575)

Lets just say they are expecting your visit.

Re:Retardifornia (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348629)

No, not all of the stupid people...

They hold my hand when I cross the street too? (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347919)

Jesus, pretty soon you're going to need a special license just to take a shit in California.

Re:They hold my hand when I cross the street too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348097)

You ... didn't get a license?

Oh dear.

Re:They hold my hand when I cross the street too? (2, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348451)

Well, you're just gonna have to hold it until you pass the smog test, and you know what that entails, right? Oh, and don't forget to bring proof of insurance.

Is A/C Mandatory? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347929)

My old VW's climate control system was my windows. How's that gonna work harder in a black car?

Re:Is A/C Mandatory? (5, Informative)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348347)

In a black car, you have to roll the windows down further to keep it cool. That means more drag on the motion, and the engine has to work harder, resulting in more pollution, and an increased consumption of fuel.

Re:Is A/C Mandatory? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348499)

Opening the windows increases drag thus reducing your mileage. Operable windows shall be banned also.

Take Action for the sake of Taking Action (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347933)

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.

Re:Take Action for the sake of Taking Action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348627)

California legislature: Dumbest bunch of goddamn liberals on the planet. If they can screw something up, they will. Just look at their recent budget fiasco.

lolw00t? (2, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347935)

"From my cold, dead hands!" --Quiet Riot

This is so stupid... (1)

Diracy (1497469) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347953)

I don't know about you, but driving a car with a black INTERIOR not EXTERIOR, I make every attempt NOT to leave it parked in the sun for a couple of hours. Also: Crack a window, open a sunroof, tint your windows.

Re:This is so stupid... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348259)

If you tint your windows, you meet the requirement under this law.
Hint: Summary is wrong.

Article is WRONG... (5, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347971)

It isn't a ban on black cars. It is a requirement that at least some fraction of all solar radiation be reflected so cars don't heat up that much.

A car with "black" paint, as long as that paint reflects UV and IR, and at least scatters some light (You want a glossy paintjob anyway), combined with UV/IR reflective window treatments, will meet the requirement.

And true, it may cost $50/car to $150/car more, but on the other hand, the cars won't get so miserably hot when sitting in the sun. So it would actually benefit most consumers.

Re:Article is WRONG... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348111)

The problem, according to the article, is that the paint makers haven't been able to make "black" paint that meets those requirements.

Re:Article is WRONG... (1)

sokoban (142301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348301)

I would imagine that window treatments and a white or otherwise highly reflective roof would get you most of the benefits since what you're worried about heating and cooling really is the passenger compartment. The hood is over the engine which will be hot no matter what when the car is on, and in fact a hotter engine compartment at start up may increase the fuel efficiency since the time to fully warm up the engine will be less. The doors of the car will likely get relatively little direct radiative energy, and the trunk may get hot, but could be isolated from the cabin better I guess.

Re:Article is WRONG... (4, Funny)

haystor (102186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348119)

I'd solve it by making the car a flat black, absorbing heat so it doesn't reach the interior. The heat would be dissipated through the giant fins which will soon be all the rage (again).

Re:Article is WRONG... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348193)

If this bill cause fins to come back in style, I am all for it.

Re:Article is WRONG... (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348171)

You must be from California...

Re:Article is WRONG... (1)

grocer (718489) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348291)

Not exactly, they can't make reflective black paint that doesn't look mud brown...yet...but it's phased in and manufactures have until 2016 to come up with non-black black paint. I personally don't see how a 20% increase in reflectivity can't include some part of the visible spectrum, making black no longer black...

Re:Article is WRONG... (2, Informative)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348311)

Problem is that there is no current known way to produce paint which meets these requirements with for black paint or many other dark tinted paints. The end result is a mud-brown for black paint.

If the technology existed, then I would be all for this. However, at this time, it does not exist. And for the small, minuscule, savings this will produce for emissions, I have to say that this is ridiculous. You will save more on emissions by forcing all cars sold in the state to have limiters on their engines to restrict it from reving past 4000RPM and limiters on the max speed of 65MPH (or whatever the speed highest speed limit in the state is), than by banning cars with paint schemes that do not reflect 20% of UV and IR just to reduce the amount of time the AC has to turn on due to the heat added to the car from UV and IR light.

I don't think they really thought this through. And I hope that real scientists grill them on this because I can't believe that a reduction of 20% UV and IR will make any real difference on the temperature inside a vehicle when compared against the other primary sources of the heat (ambient temperature, radiated heat from the engine/exhaust, number of occupants in the car). And even then, the overall factors in how much this will reduce emissions has more to do with the efficiency of the AC in the vehicle and the temperature settings that the occupants use than how much sunlight is absorbed by the car's paint!

Re:Article is WRONG... (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348391)

A car with "black" paint, as long as that paint reflects UV and IR, and at least scatters some light (You want a glossy paintjob anyway), combined with UV/IR reflective window treatments, will meet the requirement.

So then are you going to be taxed for not washing your car?

Re:Article is WRONG... (4, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348491)

Just leave the base color black, and cover 20% of the car in white-ish spots that look like bird droppings. Then if it ever does get bird shit on it, no one will know.

Re:Article is WRONG... (1)

Rog-Mahal (1164607) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348711)

That's good to know, it seems a bit more reasonable (if somewhat inane). I'd like to see some number estimates of the potential benefits of such a law. The pdf linked to in TFA is totally vague.

Better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347995)

I'm still unclear how black paint will affect the temperature of a car.
Having never lived in CA, maybe their physics is slightly different then everywhere else but I distinctly remember that it is the solar energy through the windows that seem to heat up the passengers in the car not the color of the paint. In fact they can actually use a darker colored paint to help create breezes in the car using similar principle to desert dwellers wearing black robes. But then again, maybe I'm just doing this silly thing of actually using science to fix problem. Sorry, my bad.

Good Idea. (0)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347999)

I think that banning black cars is a very bad idea. On the other hand, banning black cars from the roadway is a very good idea.

In addition to eating energy, black cars are less visible and therefore more likely to kill bicyclists (people like me).

Re:Good Idea. (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348431)

A black car on a lit day is easy to see, and a black car in the evening with its lights on is also easy. It's only hard to see a black car at night with the lights off, but only idiots do that, so shouldn't we really ban idiots?
-Taylor

Re:Good Idea. (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348481)

Since most cars have driving lights on, and most motorcycle/car crashes are the car claiming to not seeing the motorcyclist, I am not convinced that is a valid argument. The larger risk is the car not seeing you.

So maybe the correct response to cars not killing bicyclists would to ban all black spandex biker outfits!!!

Except on attractive women of course. I always see those.

Re:Good Idea. (2, Insightful)

Sunrun (553558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348579)

I would think they'd be less visible only at night. In the daytime they're actually the most visible.

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.

Explain why this is a good idea? (1)

neBelcnU (663059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348655)

But would you explain to me how a lo-vis automobile is an increased risk to a bicyclist?

If the problem is the bicyclist hitting an unseen car, isn't that a bicyclist problem? If the problem is the unseen car hitting the bicyclist, isn't that a driver problem? And how do black motorcycles fit in here?

I'm really having a problem understanding the idea of stealthy cars posing any more danger to bicyclists than orange ones festooned with strobes.

Please show me what I'm missing...

fake (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348007)

Fake news, must be one of those Republican dirty tricks to make climate science look stupid.

Just a thought.. (5, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348025)

..but if the California's legislatures spent as much time trying to find a way out of their financial crisis as they do coming up with asinine bills like this, they just *might* come out with a budget surplus some day..

Why not just ban inefficient cars? (5, Insightful)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348029)

I'm pretty sure that a white hummer is worse for the environment then a small black sedan.

Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348435)

I'd much rather see them do this.

If you've ever gone down the freeway in a major city, you'll see all of these shiny trucks that never met dirt that are lifted above the roof of my car. I could be racing with the A/C on and get better gas mileage.

Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (1)

800DeadCCs (996359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348565)

And I'll beat you both on a black motorcycle than only gets 60 mpg.

Thank gods I don't live in CA.

Re:Why not just ban inefficient cars? (2, Insightful)

dupup (784652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348479)

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? (2, Insightful)

SeePage87 (923251) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348501)

Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...

One More Thing to Add to the List (0, Redundant)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348039)

I officially hate California now.

Yes, I've lived here my whole life and there's lot wrong that we all complain about here, but this is too much.

P.S. what if your car doesn't have A/C?

Mythbusters confirms it! (3, Informative)

Pitr (33016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348079)

Mythbusters did a bit about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)#Biscuit_Bazooka_Spinoff [wikipedia.org]

Now mind you, it only came out to a 9 degree F difference, windows up etc., so really it's not particularly significant, and the law's still dumb.

Re:Mythbusters confirms it! (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348233)

uh..I hate that show so damn much. Granted I have only seen about 10 episodes, but in every 'test' they overlooked a critical part of what they were testing.
It's horrible.

The Golden State... (2, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348093)

They should make goldenrod the official state color all vehicles to match the governor's Hummer [commondreams.org] . Oh, wait a minute. He gave up the Hummer [thenation.com] to go green.

Maybe they should call California the Green State and make green the official state color. Plus I don't have to change the paint job on my car. :P

Banning car windows next? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348137)

Anyone ever get into a car with lots of windows that's been sitting in the sun? Sunlight gets in, and the light is converted to IR as it heats the insides. The glass doesn't let the IR back out so the insides heat up. This is going on whether the car is running or not and happens regardless of the color. Not to mention that glass is heavier than sheet metal, so you save on the energy required to accelerate and decelerate all that glass and the roads have less wear and tear, requiring less asphalt over time. So lets ban windshields and windows as well. Tinting you say? But aren't tints made from petroleum products? Even natural based tints require oil to extract, refine, and produce. You might burn as much oil to make tints as you might save over the life of the car. Not to mention the reduced visibility.

/sarcasm

California is the home of LA, possibly the only city in the US to have a fashion police, so I wouldn't be surprised if they banned yellow, lime green, and other obnoxious car colors, all in the name of global warming (they don't contribute to heat sequestering like the darker paints used to.)

Interior vs exterior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348145)

If you want to reduce car A/C use thereby reducing car fuel use, wouldn't lighter colored upholstery be a better idea than the paint job for reducing summer car cabin temperatures?

Instead of restricting color choices, how about giving tax credits to people who install tinted windows? That would be a bit less totalitarian and would keep car cabins a bit cooler.

A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348161)

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:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348533)

Sadly, this happened long before you or I existed. Freedom in America has been an illusion for quite awhile.

Isn't it a violation of car's civil rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348167)

I mean blatant discrimination based on color. What next, white only color for cars? Separate lanes for black and white cars? (may be with dividers, so that black and white cars don't "accidentally" bump into each other and produce illegitimate cars by illegal transfer of pigments). Of course, black cars should oppose separate but equal theory of lanes.

Offensive (3, Insightful)

thule (9041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348177)

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.

Re:Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348229)

Especially the african-americans!

Welcome to the Nanny State (2, Insightful)

Mc_Anthony (181237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348195)

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!

more Californication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348225)

It's no wonder that people refer to California as the Land Of Fruits And Nuts.

Kazi (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348273)

this is what's known as Kaliforniansozialismus, or Kazi for short.

Stupid but there is a better solution than a ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348277)

First let me say this nanny state attitude they have in California ticks me off and I am a Liberal Democrat. It seems you give an inch they need to take a mile.

There is a reasonable solution to this that is well suited for electric cars. Why not use photovoltaic paints. The blacker the better as these convert light into energy. That should offset the climate control cost and power the battery when climate control is not needed.

One thing that does surprise me is that they are missing an obvious issue in Northern California where it is cold most of the year. Remember in SF it can be 60 in the middle of summer. I wonder how often people will need to turn the heat on in lighter cars in these locations. I would bet it offsets much of the gain.

The interior color makes a bigger difference. (2, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348319)

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.

Convertibles? (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348385)

What about convertibles? My roof comes off when it's hot, so the car heating up has little to do with the internal temp of the car. Especially since it's a cloth top.
-Taylor

Is this the work of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348407)

MANBEARPIG!!!

Can I get an exemption (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348423)

... if I only drive at night?

Why not ban air conditioning entirely? (1)

SeePage87 (923251) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348433)

Why not take it a step further? Think of the emissions you'd prevent if you banned air conditioning entirely. Come on CA, everybody's got to do their part.

Kanye moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348477)

Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't care about black cars!

Idiots (1)

GunDawg (1365295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348521)

Don't they know that cool people only drive their black cars at night???

Seriously, isn't ALL California cars supposed to be CFC free?

(Anybody else sick of this Democratic Party cram-down of legislation, day in and day out? I just want to live my life dammit.)

Roll down the window for the first 2 minutes (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348589)

Seriously, get in the car, roll down the windows, drive out of the parking lot or down the street until cold air starts coming out of the AC (or until you start moving fast enough that air through the windows causes too much drag) and then close them for the rest of the drive.

solar panels/fans (1)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348623)

the new thing is to incorporate a small solar photovoltaic panel in the roof of the car to power a fan that removes heat from the car on hot days.

i've seen this on the prius and the mercedes E-class for sure and possibly other manufacturers will follow suit.

i think the minimally fair thing to do would be to allow an exemption for cars with this feature to be painted black.

I'll settle for a ban on black cars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348681)

...as long as they agree to ban the black helicopters while they're at it.

Global Warming is now an ideology (0, Troll)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 5 years ago | (#27348709)

When a political idea goes from a narrow focus to providing mandatory advice with regards to every single political decision an individual or society makes it becomes an ideology.

I think we are now at that point with Global Warming.

Next up - should you walk on the cracks in the sidewalk? What would a believer in Global Warming advise?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27348771)

I have two questions:

1. If cars can't be painted black, what color will police cars in California be?

2. How will this effect California's car economy when those that want a dark colored car go to Arizona or Nevada just to buy the color of car they want?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>