Climate 411

Flickr phot by: Helen Taylor

As we’ve reported here, here, and here, EPA has designed and released for public comment two options for new information labels one of which will go on new cars in 2012.  Both labels have a slick new look as well as helpful information comparing fuel efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, tail pipe emissions between vehicles, and annual fueling costs.  Label Option 1 contains additional information, a letter grade that reflects fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions and fuel savings over a five year period based on average use.

Letter grades make car buying easier.

1. It’s simple: Focus groups and market experts alike emphasized the need for a simple, easy-to-understand label format.  The letter grades achieve this by providing a central focus to the label that gives information on the performance not just of that vehicle but relative to other vehicles. 

2. It’s familiar: Letter grades for new vehicles, like health and safety grades for restaurants, provide you with a single piece of data that is instantly familiar and thus meaningful to you.

3. It’s informative: The label with a letter grade contains more information not less than the alternative.  The letter grade simply provides an easy-to-remember representation of the more detailed information contained in the rest of the label and the website.  This doesn’t mean you haven’t checked the numbers for yourself; it means you now have a single representation of all those details.

4. It’s Easy to Remember: Imagine this scenario.  You’re discussing the front runners in your search for a new car with your partner.  This is a big purchase so you’ve done some background research on all the candidates but you have a lot of numbers swimming in your head.  Would it be easier to have one fuel efficiency letter grade to refer to that represents multiple numbers which you remember easily?  Or do you want to pore over a spread sheet with city mpg, highway mpg, not to mention miles/kwh etc. for electric vehicles?

New labels will help consumers and the environment.

5. First national environmental metric for vehicles:  EPA focus groups show that nine percent of consumers currently consider environmental impacts in their car buying decision.  With the information clearly displayed right on the sticker, maybe it will be easier now to factor the environment in without having to research the issue extensively.

6. Easy comparison between vehicles: EPA focus groups also show that consumers don’t tend to limit themselves to one class or type of vehicle when shopping.  Most vehicle manufacturers wanted comparisons made only within a class of vehicle.  EPA’s new labels give you what you need and set fuel efficiency, environmental performance and fuel costs in context among all vehicles.

Let EPA know what you think about the new labels here.

EPA Label Option 1

This week, U.S. EPA proposed something that could change the way consumers spend car-buying dollars—labels that make sense.

For 30 years, the federal government has required new cars and light trucks on sales lots to carry labels that show consumers the miles-per-gallon performance of that particular car or truck model. These labels have been somewhat helpful, but they don’t provide as much information as this consumer, at least, would like.

Now the agency is preparing to improve the label performance. It has unveiled two proposed approaches. Both of the new labels would tell consumers how the vehicle stacks up against others for greenhouse gas emissions and other tailpipe pollution. Both of the proposed labels also report how much it costs to fuel the vehicle each year. Only one of the labels—dubbed Label Option 1 by EPA—provides two other very important pieces of information: It also tells how much a consumer will save in fuel costs over five years, and it provides a letter grade that reflects how the vehicle performs on tailpipe emissions and efficiency.

Think about how this grading system could affect you. You could shop for a car without bringing along back issues of Consumer Reports or reams of computer printouts about auto efficiency comparisons. You could quickly scan the field and go for the A and B cars and avoid the D vehicles that spew more pollution and will cost more to fuel.  If you do happen to want a bit more information than is available on the label, EPA has taken care of that too.  Each label contains a QR code that allows many smart phones to access a web page where buyers can compare cars and personalize estimates based on their own driving habits. Department of Energy also provides some really helpful information on its fuel economy website, fueleconomy.gov.

Great idea? We think so. But the auto industry is already complaining about the grading system, trying to compare it to childhood memories of failing or passing.

EPA Label Option 2

We think of this system as being more comparable to the grading system health departments have used for restaurants for years. You’ve probably noticed the placards. They protect diners from unhealthy food preparation practices and encourage high performing restaurateurs to keep up the good work.

Grades mean something. They’re easy to read and understand. They can steer you quickly toward a smarter car purchase. They are, in short, consumer friendly.

Some states already require cars and light trucks to carry information about pollution levels on their sales labels. EPA’s proposal significantly improves on that model.

You have a chance to weigh in on all of this. EPA is inviting everyone—not just policy wonks and auto industry representatives—to voice an opinion about the labels. The agency needs to hear from consumers who care about good value and a clean environment. The agency will be taking comments for 60 days, which means you need to submit your thoughts by the end of October.

The final version of the new label will be adopted by the end of the year, and the new label will appear on new cars and light trucks beginning in the 2012 model year.

This Stephen Colbert clip on oil companies and the environment is fall-over funny and dead-on right.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml" width="332" height="316" fvars="videoId = 186475" fversion="8" loop="false" play="false" menu="true" quality="best" wmode="transparent" /]

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold an important hearing on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address global warming under existing law. Unfortunately, EPA’s progress has been stymied by stiff winds blowing from the White House.

Environmental Defense Fund has uncovered a document that provides a disturbing look at the White House’s views on global warming science, views that were revealed as part of White House efforts to interfere with progress at EPA. On June 20, the White House Office of Management and Budget transmitted a fax to EPA with numerous comments on a critically important EPA technical document examining how global warming endangers human health and the environment.

The summary below highlights a few remarkable examples from the White House fax [PDF].

Read More »

Nearly 7 million passenger vehicles on the road today are in commercial operations. These vehicles are driven hard, averaging nearly double the mileage, fuel consumption and emissions of personal vehicles. As a result, fleets are not only expensive to operate, but are also a major source of global warming pollution.

Environmental Defense Fund has been working with some of the largest commercial fleets – including Fortune 500 titans Abbott, DuPont and Owens Corning – to identify ways to reduce fuel consumption, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. Our efforts have delivered results. Fleets that fully implemented the program outlined below reduced their emissions by an average of 14 percent, and reduced lifecycle operating costs by 4 percent.

Read More »