We've seen plenty of tech over the years meant to mitigate our destruction of the environment -- from
greener autos to
Grateful Dead-themed cellphones -- most of which don't really ask us to tone down our consumer impulses all that much. But how about these new "Cool Cars" regulations recently adopted by the California Air Resources Board? By the year 2016, all autos sold in the state must have windows that prevent 60 percent of the sun's energy from entering the vehicle. To achieve this, windows are given a coat of glazing that contains microscopic specs of reflective metal oxide -- which will seriously hamper reception for your GPS, cellphone, and (this is of special interest to Engadget readers) white collar criminal-style work release ankle bracelet. As you can imagine, companies like Garmin are fuming -- although we suppose that if they play this right they can make a killing in the external car antenna business. It just goes to show you -- when it comes to environmental catastrophe, everyone's a victim.
[Via
AutoBlog]
posted Oct 13th 2009 3:27AM
Ka-ching! sounds for the aftermarket external antenna guys.
Or not... the automakers can easily beat them to it by making it 'standard' on all Cali- or US-bound cars.
Two words: Window. Tint.
Problem solved.
i'm all for reducing pollution, but climate change caused by humans is a weak theory poorly supported by scientific evidence.
I remain a skeptic, leaning more towards your views ACER.
I love the picture with the post, the guy in white, in the top left looks like he's having a heart attack
Dude are you serious? CO2 levels have tripled and Carbon-dating has pretty much proved this is not natural. The ice caps are melting and Heat temperatures are at record highs.... no no nothings happening right? its people like you that are causing this problem
lets just say for an example all of this evidence didnt exist right? we have nothing to lose if we try to prevent it our way if we just ignore it, it will get worse. whats the saying? its better safe then sorry?
stop being ignorant and look at the world around us its falling apart because people are to stupid to realize it
The earth goes through natural cooling and warming cycles, in which temperature rises and falls. Whether humans have any significant impact on that has yet to be truly proven to me. Also, there is plenty of conflicting evidence. Consider, for instance, that we are behind schedule on sunspots-- which supposedly forecasts a global ice age in the near future. So what will it be? Will we torch the planet or will it freeze over due to factors we cannot possibly change? To be honest, all I see from these results is media panic-spreading.
But hey, I'm all for alternative fuel and solar power and other green energy movements. I'm sure it is the future, I'm just not sure that it's as urgent as the politicians would have you believe.
Hello ignorant public who apparently know better than most scientists!
From Wikipedia:
"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
'An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
Did you catch that? NO dissenting opinions from national or international scientific bodies!
What in the world do you think happens when man continually pumps heat and crap into the atmosphere like never before in history? Nothing? Where does it all go? What happens when you leave something that generates heat in a room? Does it stay the same temperature in the room? No, it gets hot! I know the atmosphere is more complex, but really, is it that much of a stretch to imagine that global warming is due to human activities, especially after the industrial revolution?
This reminds me of the article I saw on Ars a while ago: "The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions"
"Only 60 percent of the public thinks that science has reached a consensus on its acceptance of the evidence for evolution (97 percent of scientists think so) and half of those who think that species haven't evolved say that science doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs."
The scientists are the ones to trust huh? Who funds the scientists?
Interesting read : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1833902.stm
@JACY - You can't always believe what you read on wikipedia... the site you source which says there have been no dissenting views since 2007 also has a page dedicated to a list of scientists who do disagree with the global warming crowd... whoops I smell contradiction.
Also there is a massive report published against global warming including numerous prominent scientists here's a few quotes:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
Am I in favor of being responsible with the environment... Sure. Do I think that 95% of the enviro-types are out of their heads and using an over-blown story to institute controls on things that aren't needed? Without any doubt at all.
Ahem!
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3413carbon_swindle.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232
PS: good luck! Enjoy paying your lemming.. I mean carbon taxes.
All the stupid arguing aside. Who thinks preventing heat from entering a car to be better for the enviroment? Considering that if we do suffer global warming that reflected light off the car that the light is still stuck in our atmosphere and still heats the planet weather its reflected or not. Now I assume they are doing this to prevent over work AC in cars to recool the car everytime you get in which is in a way a waste of energy. So a better solution would be to assorb the light to prevent it from entering the car itself. And then simple window tints or polorarized windows would be the best solution to this.
First of all many scientists agree that it is natural for the earth to be getting hotter but its doing it alot faster due to human cause
Like i said if we are right we can stop it... if your right we cant.... So you are so stubborn minded that even if there is the smallest chance we are right your not willing to take it to save the entire planet?
i thought the average enagadget reader was a little smarter then this
plus a two year old can put together that all of our Co2 emissions have something to due with why the world is getting hotter
To say Global warming isnt happening to due to human cause is like not believing in evolution, i know some dont but with all of this scientific evidence you really have to plug your hears and scream to not see this
and why not? are you guys that scared of driving an electric car? not getting your energy from solar panel?
whats the harm?
Hundreds of years ago scientists proclaimed the sun revolved around the earth and anybody disclaiming that were outcasts. This is what's been happening with global warming for the last decade. If you come out and say that man isn't the cause the powers that be cast you out by cutting off funding and giving it out to the guy who theorizes that squirrels are contributing to global warming (some poeple actually believe this).
People seem to forget that there's this gigantic ball of fire in the center of our solar system that completely determines whether we live or die, that sustains life. And those that do remember that there is a sun for some reason believes it burns at an absolute constant all the time. That's astonishing!
You hear about carbon this and carbon that but how come nobody brings up the fact that the most abundant and most effecting greenhouse gas is water vapor? Is it just more profitable to blame carbon? How about methane which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas? Nyah, let's just blame carbon since that'll allow the government to tax the hell out literally everything.
I'm all for alternative fuels only because we need to get the hell out of the middle east and other country's affairs and also because oil supplies aren't infinite. You think we're at war now for oil? Wait till all the oil wells dry out.
nice post jimbo, i'd also like to add this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
this man made global warming is a hoax at best. like what was said before, that giant fireball in the sky warms this earth more than someones car tail pipe. i'm all for reducing pollution, but don't force it upon people.
If we do something and it turns out this IS our fault then we have a chance to fix it. If it isn't our fault then at least we've reduced energy wastage, helped lower airbourne pollution and extended our fossil fuel longevity.
If we do nothing and this IS our fault, then we're killing our own planet, if it isn't then we're still poisioning our air and devouring a rapidly dwindling resource.
In short doing SOMETHING is a win-win decision, doing nothing is a lose-lose decision.
considering we're playing with our own future here i'd recommend going for the win.
I don't see the point in this, are there too many burnt asses in the ER or something?
Watch you reputation fade into oblivion!
It wouldn't be that bad now would it? Engadget is just blowing it out of proportion.
If any GPS can work indoors through a few brick walls and a window somewhere nearby then it won't have trouble getting through a few an extra layer of film of tint.
My guess is that the material blocks out em waves more effectively than concrete walls. Either way, this shouldn't be an issue as workarounds can be done.
What GPS device can do that? Sure, cell phones can find their general location inside buildings, but that's only by triangulating using cell towers. My stand-alone GPS device has trouble finding it's location inside even when it's right next to a window. GPS practically works on line of sight to the satellite anyway, as the signals are so weak by the time they reach the ground. I doubt that windows will have that much effect, since my GPS device has no trouble finding it's location even in the center of a car, away from all the windows.
Lookup the meaning of Faraday Cage.
Alright CA, we get it, you love the trees, air, electricity, and every little ant on the ground, but don't you think you are going mental?
You enact one crazy law, somehow get it passed, but it's NEVER enough. If you somehow cram this down peoples throats, you will say that's not enough and make up some crazy law that all tires must now be made of recycled pencil erasers.
Why should people support this? All it does is add to the cost of the car, subtract from it's usefulness, and piss off a lot of gadget owners in the process. All so you can save a few oz of fuel? You could black out the windows and it will still be hot as hell if you let your car sit out long enough. How about instead of worrying how hot MY car gets you do something important like solve your immigration problem, budget crisis, try to solve the whole water problem. What I would love to see is EVERY major auto manufacturer pull out of CA. Does CA think it's so important that the world should design cars based on their hippy dreams. Thank god I don't live there.
Should we really be letting a state that's bankrupt with no plan be "leading" the increasingly absurd "green" movement. As the saying goes "if you give a mouse a cookie...." well, you know the rest.
"What I would love to see is EVERY major auto manufacturer pull out of CA. Does CA think it's so important that the world should design cars based on their hippy dreams."
There are about 8 million cars sold in America every year. 1.5 million of them are sold in California (that's about 20%).
You want the auto makers to boycott 20% of their market? I thought conservatives were supposed to understand the market.
As CA goes, so does the rest of the country. These kind of green/ enviro standards or initiatives usually begin there and quickly spread out.
This is not such a big deal - its not like we'll be growing plants in our cars anyway. Simply place the receiver or antenna elsewhere.
no really, what happens when you give a mouse a cookie?
@ Timmy
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22if+you+give+a+mouse+a+cookie%22+story
Hit the first link.
about this gazing coat used on cars, i think it will decrease 3G internet coverage too, maybe FM radio also.
The coat is probably tin oxide. Probably nano-crystalline. Probably probably.
Your FM radio antenna is on the outside of your car.
Yeah, but I'm sayin', that TruCoat, you don't get it and you get oxidization problems. It'll cost you a heck of lot more'n five hundred--
See, they install that TruCoat at the factory, there's nothin' we can do.
Holy hell. Only in CA..
According to my soldering tools, as long as I don't live in California I won't get cancer.
Only in california does a politician see this: http://belladia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/08/dsc_0049.jpg and see a demonic baby killer.
ps. ferrets are completly illegal in california because they will destroy all you know and love, aparently.
Only in california does a politician see this: http://belladia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/08/dsc_0049.jpg and see a demonic baby killer.
ps. ferrets are completly illegal in california because they will destroy all you know and love, aparently.
Why "prevent 60 percent of the sun's energy from entering the vehicle"?? On colder days people may need this extra heat... and they'l turn their heater on... in turn using more energy and increasing pollution.
Not that I'm defending this stupid law, but heat for cars comes from the coolant loop. No extra fuel is burned if you have the heater on.
a colder day will probably be overcast so there'll be little heat coming in anyway.
A car's heater uses the heat naturally produced by the engine to heat up the air. The only power it needs is to run the fans, so the impact on gas usage and the environment is minimal. A/C on the other hand...
Am I the only one whose eyes were immediately drawn to the "zima" logos?
Not at all. My first reaction to that picture was "HOLY CRAP! ... They still make Zima?"
I don't care if it's the wussiest drink this side of an appletini... I liked Zima. "Liked" being the operative word since nobody seems to sell it anymore.
Annnnyway, in regard to the point of the article, I understand the purpose of this legislation, but it seems overreaching. Maybe if people learned to take their chihuahuas and toddlers out of their vehicles before locking them up and shopping for the latest trendy baubles, this wouldn't even be necessary. One oven-baked two year old is all it takes for the government to fly off the handle and push through a law like this.
Kind of ironic given that it is illegal to tint front car windows in CA. So are we to believe that there will be reduced heat entering the car (even on cold days) but that there will be no impact to visibility? I'll take that bet.
This comes into effect in *2016*, by which time the auto manufacturers will have figured out a simple way of routing external antennas to solve phone/ GPS/ whatever signals. Give the engineers some credit people.
@Nicallica: energy efficient windows also tend to be good at keeping heat in where necessary (http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid37.php) so if done properly this will reduce your heater usage. This bill is basically trying to introduce the same kind of energy efficiency to vehicles that smart people are fitting to their homes.
How about a law that only allows white vehicles to be sold? Can you imagine how much fuel will be saved?
Of course people will have to have a GPS tracking device to find their car in the mall parking lot....
You need to watch some Mythbusters. You'd know the temperature of the inside of the car has nothing to do with its color outside.
They should just replace the windows and windshield with solar panels. Not only is that keeping the heat out, it's helping to power the car!
-_-
Wait, so if these "Cool Cars" interfere with cellphone reception, then people won't be able to make/receive phone calls or send/receive SMS messages. Wouldn't that make driving in CA safer as well?
Yes.
inb4 idiot hanging out of the window trying to text.
Those of us with a Sunshield windshield have had this problem since the mid-90's. No one cared then. You learn to live it with.
Beside, I think too many people rely too heavily on their GPS. It's like they go stupid when they get one. The focus way to much on it and what it's showing then on driving. It's WORSE than a cell phone because they don't feel like it's wrong for them to look at a map while driving so they stare at the damn things and ignore everything else.
Hey, here's an easy fix for the problem. Put an antenna pass-through on the cars too. That's so obvious that you have to think the CA regulators didn't mandate too it on purpose.
Yeah so its kinda early still and I'm tired. I read that line as "white-collar criminal oxide which will seriously hamper . . " I need coffee.
"It just goes to show you -- when it comes to environmental REGULATION, everyone's a victim."
That is more like it, engadget.
Love that zima looks like a sponsor of this.
CARB (the CA Air Resources Board) Had about as much to do with clean air when I lived in that state as Bernie Madoff had with Robin Hood. CARB doesnt care about clean air, CARB cares about imposing control. When I was living in that state the archaic smog laws placed on auto owners made no sense. If you made ANY change to the fuel system on a car that was required to pass smog and CARB hadnt been br... errr paid for an exemption for that device for every year make and model car the Manufacturer . of the after market compnent wanted the device sold for, you were in violation even if the device could be PROVEN to reduce emissions. Case in point after market fuel injection has been availible for decades, it can be retrofitted on to older cars however if that Manufacturer didnt pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to see if your 75 Dodge Dart would pass emissions with the device on, you cant use it. Even if you take it in and they do a tailpipe sniffer test and show the device reduces emissions by 300%.
The energy has to go SOMEWHERE. Right? What doesn't get absorbed into a dark car goes where?
Darn Hippies, always effing things up for the end consumer in the name of the "environment" (or any other arbitrary cause). All their naive idealism is going to screw us all over someday.
I will be greatly disappointed in 2024 when I am in the market for a 2016 model car.
I'm all for this. I can leave my dogs in the car all day without cooking them.
The California car market is so big that this stupidity means that all cars sold in the US will have this by 2016. Everything tthat CARB has mandated is now on all US vehicles.
Not only inside GPS units but also radar detectors, E-Z Pass, I-Pass, Sun Pass, etc., etc., etc.
And guess who is going to pay for this technology.
I'm a huge fan of making things more environmentally friendly.
Pretty sure everyone driving with their windows down on the highway so they can figure out where they are going and so they can get cell phone calls will probably negatively impact their fuel consumption. Are you sure this isn't a proposal by the Oil Industry to get back at us for moving towards hybrid cars?
I'd like to call bs on this. A few months ago I got the windows tinted on my Prius. I tinted all the rears windows and hatch back in accordance with California state law.
When I got my tinting done I was given the option to spend an extra $80 to upgrade to ceramic based tint instead of metallic tint. Benefits of the upgrade are greater efficiency of the tint (keeps the car cooler than the same darkness level of metallic tint) and no interference with radio devices. I opted for the ceramic because I like efficiency (hence the Prius) and I also like gadgets (again, hence the Prius). I have built in bluetooth hands free as well as built in GPS in the car and I am an occasional ham radio operator. I have never had any problem whatsoever with the ceramic tint and my radio devices.
So why don't we hear people talking about using the ceramic based window treatment versus the metallic? Because it doesn't make for exciting headlines like "OH NOES, CALI TREE HUGGERS KILL FUN FOR EVERYONE AND PUPPIES!"
The CARB decision, unlike some of CARB's other decisions (Hydrogen vs. Electric, anyone?), is smart and well intentioned. Mass production of ceramic based tint will bring the price down, and smart engineering will solve the rest. I've often wondered why it wasn't already a requirement for all cars to come with some greater degree of window tint. Good tinting is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to make your car more comfortable and efficient regardless of whether it's a hybrid or a Hummer. Most SUVs come tinted - why not the rest?
You do know that even if your windows were made of solid lead it would have no effect on a bluetooth headset right? (unless of course you keep your phone outside of the car while driving)
The point is that:
* It makes no significant difference
* It is no business of the state government to tell me (if I was a Kalifornian) whether to put tint on my windows or not. That should be my choice, and what kind of tint I get (whether it's a dyed purple film all the way to a fancy ceramic film) should be my choice as well. Maybe California would be better off actually making a real budget.
This will cause the death of the Californian car market as everyone will go to other states to purchase vehicles that aren't under such clearly mislead regulations.
and we all know what that means: BAILOUTS!
Evidently you arent all that familiar with the draconian smog laws in california. If you bring a vehicle from out of state without 'california emissions' on it then you pay huge fees IF you can even bring it in.
@Zero, you're erroneous use of then and than and your and you're is killing me. Don't question other people's intelligence until you sort it out.
Also, you're the typical anti-anthropogenic global warming enthusiast. Someone says they don't believe man is causing and you state that of course this means that they don't want electric cars or fuel effient cars or alternative energy sources. That is far from the truth. I would wager everybody is in favor of alternative energy if done correctly, and not because a lobbyist paid the right price. Oil won't last forever.
Just remember that because X number of scientists believe it DOES NOT make it true. Question everything until there is hard fact and there hasn't been any inconclusive proof yet. In fact more solid proof disprooves it. If we as a society only believe what a majority of scientists believe and subjugate those that believe otherwise we'd still be riding around in horse drawn carts, the world would still be flat, the sun would revolve around the earth, the sun is actually a god, and dammit, if you leave meat out in the open, maggots will grow on it like magic. Question everything.
Not to mention if you have a built in GPS likely the antenna is not sitting inside the cabin. Garmin's argument was because of the handheld ones that are inside. Also, a HAM radio usually has an antenna outside the cabin as well. Pretty much everything you listed would not be affected by the metal tinting. Now if you said you can make cell phone calls from inside the car with all the windows up that's another matter.
Isn't this state bankrupt? I think they have their priorities all screwed up.
@ first i thought it was the ---Ghostbusters vehicle---
LaRouche links in the Engadget comments?
Anti climate change astroturf bullshit on a sciene/gadget site.
Fuck that.
Where are the Obama Nazi posts?
I live in Florida where everyone tints there windows because the sun is so intense.
I think the coating is a good idea, but in addition to mobile phone and GPS reception issue there will be problems with Toll Transponders like SunPass and EZPass. Apparently its already a problem with certain vehiles (see http://sunpass.com/windshields.cfm)
They use this stuff on the windscreen of many european cars already.
There is a small section of the windscreen left clear of the film so that you can stick your toll tag there and it won't effect the transmission.
I thought it was illegal for cars to have more than 50% of light blocked on the front windows of cars. And I believe most car windows have already reached 50% of light blocked.
energy is reflected, not light