It was a juicy story, wasn’t it? Yet another California state agency run amok. Then it turns out ARB had eliminated that section of the reg, not in response to public outcry mind you, if that section ever existed in the first place. They might have just been yanking our chain all along.

You can go to their website and check out their revised release for yourself and their response to the dust-up here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool-paints.htm.

Of note, the proposal now specifies solar control requirements

only for new vehicles windows (glazing).  The original proposed

regulation contained requirements for both vehicle paint and

windows to improve their ability to reflect heat from the sun. 

The intent of the paint requirements was to introduce reflective

paint (currently used in architectural paints to keep houses and

businesses cool) into the automotive arena. The requirement was

never at any point to limit consumer color choices or ban any

colors. Based on input from the automotive industry, paint,

pigment suppliers, and comments from a public workshop held on

March 12th, ARB staff has determined that a clear path to achieve

solar reflectivity for the darker colors has not yet been

identified. We are planning to address the paint-related portion

of the proposal in a future regulatory action.

For another take on the issue you can visit: http://www.techcrunch.com

So, did the bureaucrats really intend to ban black cars, only to be foiled by an outraged citizenry? That’s hard to say. Young notes that it’s not unusual for CARB to get an earful over its proposed regs, and in this case, “it wasn’t exactly opposition” that killed the paint initiative. “It was an appraisal that the technology was not yet mature enough to deliver what we hoped to achieve.”

Moreover, the CARB PowerPoint presentation that got everyone’s fan belt in a twist never actually recommends that black cars be banned. It merely — “sinisterly,” Rush might say — notes that “jet black remains an issue.”

Still, the timing is interesting. Although the workshop at which the paint plan was discussed was held on March 12, the decision to drop the idea wasn’t made until this week, according to Young — the very same week, sinisterly enough, that Limbaugh referred to the CARB rule makers as tyrants.

For more information on the vital function this Board serves,visit their website below. This is not a fun loving group and often-times their pursuit of things GREEN ends up costing way more than any supposed benefit to the environment. They are currently on a campaign to enforce tire inflation mandates and are delighted to be levying hefty fines against local businesses and trucking firms. Then there’s that mandate for new capture devices to be installed on ALL gas pumps by 4/1/09. Stations that don’t comply, or can’t comply due to the cost of retrofit, will be shut down on that date. It is estimated that anywhere from 25% to 33% of the states gas stations will not be in compliance and may be forced to close. That’s good for California businesses right now. That’ll help a lot.

This is the same state board that mandated arbitrary levels of emissions from wood furniture and products that has driven all but two furniture manufacturers either out of business or out of state.  That’s been a big help for business too.

No it’s not a fun group.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm

Today, the Air Resources Board (ARB) is reminding owners of California’s approximate 11,000 gas stations to avoid penalties by making sure their dispensing systems meet state emission standards by April 1.

The required improved nozzles and vapor processors will eliminate the daily release of up to ten tons of smog-forming compounds from spillage and fugitive emissions.

“These more efficient dispensers reduce smog forming emissions and protect the environment,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols, “all for less than a penny per gallon.”

Ah well then, we’re closing in on those dastardly fugitive emissions. That’s gotta be good. 10 tons of sh** out of the air every day, imagine that. I wonder how you’d measure that, exactly? These have to be some pretty smart folks here. They wouldn’t just arbitrarily make things up in pursuit of some ethereal goal, would they? No, I didn’t think so.

Of course that’s just my $.02. I could be wrong.

Attending the latest CAR Mid-winter business meetings it became readily apparent that the GREEN movement has become today’s Beanie Baby, the ‘Save The Whale’ of the 2000′s, the latest cause du jour. It’s the same ’cause & effect’ crowd updated from the 70′s – for every effect in the world, somebody will join the cause.

Back then we used to debate, in all seriousness, the prevalent trend toward ‘global cooling’ caused by pollution and greenhouse gases. Somewhere during the mid-90′s, AlGore decided he needed a new career to hang his battered hat on and found enough sycophants to produce a PowerPoint on ‘global warming’ that won a Nobel Prize. By and large it was the same hack science (and some of the same hack scientists) leading the cooling cause that subsequently lead the warming cause.

But now that that theory is falling into some disfavor, the cause has shifted to ‘global climate change’. This is a much mo betta cause because it is at least couched in reality – the global climate does change. Of course the fallacy of this is that humans are almost totally responsible for it. This self-indulgent and self-centered way of thinking smacks of so much hubris and ego it would be laughable except for the fact that it is and will continue to cost us millions to chase unreachable goals based on unprovable ‘science’.

Yet everybody from our President to our Governor and much of our media is on the bandwagon because it’s the ‘in’ thing to do. I was reminded of this last week when a gentleman of some stature in our state association boldly stated that in the pursuit of environmentally correct goals, cost was really irrelevant. He was advocating for sweeping mandates that would force every California homeowner with a pre-1979 home to undergo an energy audit (much like the onerous bill from Fabian Nunez we defeated last year). He specifically targeted single pane windows making the bold claim that installing dual pane windows in the estimated 7 – 9 million California homes that still have single pane would have a very noticeable and beneficial effect on OUR PLANET.

OMG! What a set of cajones on this croaker,eh? I wanted to ask him what the resulting carbon off-set would be against the 15 billion or so Chinese burning coal on open hearth fireplaces but I was afraid I’d be stoned by the PC crowd. The PC crowd was much easier to deal with when they were just getting stoned themselves, but even that nostalgic event has gone up in (CO2 emitting, particulate laden) smoke.

If you’ve read my rants before, you are awarer that I am as much in favor of conservation and responsible use of our resources as the next person (as long as that person isn’t Ed Begley, Jr.) But it seems that every hack legislator or hack inventor of some widget or gizmo may now be assured success simply by applying the GREEN appellation to their particular vice, whether or not it makes sense. If it breaks the bank, who cares – we owe it to the environment. If the science is weak – don’t worry trust us. If the supporting statistics don’t extend more that 30 or 50 or even 100 years, well it just doesn’t matter.

Every living thing exacts a toll on nature for it’s existence. Man is the only creature that has the luxury of feeling guilty about it. Will that guilt change the outcome? Not one wit. Our planet exists on a geological scale measured in millennia, not decades or even centuries. Right now based on environmental conditions, man is the dominant species on the planet. It was not always so – and will likely not always be so. Dinosaurs once ruled the planet but in spite of not driving Hummers, not emitting greenhouse gases and not spraying DDT, they disappeared from everything but the history books through no fault of their own. Sad to say but at some future date humanity, as we recognize ourselves, will also be remembered only through some historical record.

And the history books will not indicate whether or not my home had single pane windows.

Well, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.