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

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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe