Once again “new” media reporters on blogs has proven no better at getting facts right than “old” media reporters.
Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch gets a cheap laugh at a proposal to “ban black cars” by the California Air Resources Board.
Of course the vast majority of the comments piled on with silly comments about the “left coast” and “nutty environmentalists”, but apparently no one bothered to actually read the proposal or understand the problem.
Except that isn’t at all what the proposal actually is.
Briefly, dark colors absorb heat. And take a long time to radiate. Go down to LA in July some time. 95+ degrees. In stop and go traffic, without an airconditioner, the car will never cool off.
And if anybody bothered to actually read the presentation it says:
data indicates 20-25%
more likely achievable range for dark
colors for automobiles ( page 8 )
By 2016, all colors must meet the 20%
reflectivity requirement” (page 9)
And the benefits are:
Reduced interior temperatures can reduce a/c capacity and likelihood of a/c use
Smaller a/c or less operation results in less
fuel used ( page 4 )
So in other words, by 2016 the paints must meet a reflectivity standard that is *less* than what is possible for dark colors (except for jet black). If a Jet Black paint can meet the standards, the paint is o.k.
So ARB made sure to set an achievable goal that would not “ban” a color. But Mike needs his cheap shot and nothing was going to stand in his way.