January 8, 2009

Carbon Dioxide from Cars

U.S. states are beginning to attack another major source of global warming pollution besides power plants: your car. David Biello reports

SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Earth

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Cars in California offer a new kind of sticker shock this year: carbon. In addition to the familiar smog ratings, labels on new Cali cars rank them 1 to 10 based on greenhouse gas emissions.

The best, a perfect 10, will emit less than 200 grams of greenhouse gases per mile. The bad ones more than 520.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Vermont will also begin offering the labels next year. And the 11 states that compose the northeastern region of the U.S. are also attacking the problem at the source: fuel. The states plan to develop new standards for biofuels and other alternatives that will reduce the greenhouse gases emitted when burned in a car, a furnace or a factory.

These states already cooperate in a cap-and-trade scheme to limit the carbon dioxide emitted by power plants. Other regions, including California and other western states, are copying that plan.

U.S. power plants released roughly 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007 generating our electricity. But our vehicles were the second largest source of America’s greenhouse gases. Tailpipes spewed out 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from burning gasoline.

The easy-to-interpret labels—10 is great, 1 is bad—aim to change that. By reminding us to keep emissions in mind next time we buy a car.

—David Biello

60-Second Earth is a weekly podcast from Scientific American. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American