Global Warning Score

Global warning score? We don’t need no stinking global warning score in Washington to help decide which new car or truck to buy, do we? I cannot answer the questions of whether we need the score or how much it influences a purchasing decision, but I can say that a global warning score, along with a smog score, is provided on a window sticker on new Toyotas—and probably on other makes too.

I drove my neighbor to Heartland Toyota yesterday to pick up his beloved white 1994 Celica, which had been in for clutch work. While we were there of course we had to check out the 2010 Tacomas. He’s wanted a new truck for some time, and I like to keep current on Heartland’s selection and prices in case anything catastrophic happens to my 1999 Tacoma.

The global warning score came about because of a law passed in California in 2008. The law makes it mandatory for new cars and trucks to be labeled with a number, on a scale of 1 to 10, that shows how the vehicle compares with other new vehicles. A higher score means the vehicle contributes less to global warning, taking into account emissions from fuel use and production. The average score is 5. The smog score is not new. It also uses a 1 to 10 scale to rate cars on smog emissions, with 10 being best and 5 as the average.

If Washington requires such labeling I haven’t heard about it. But with California and now New York (as of 2010) requiring it, perhaps it’s easier for automakers just to label all vehicles regardless of which state they are going to. The scores are displayed on a green-and-white “Environmental Protection” sticker that thoughtfully reminds consumers to “Protect the environment. Choose vehicles with higher scores.” The big black numbers are hard to miss.

The score received is relative. So even if the model you are saving for improves its gas mileage over the next few years, the score might not go up if other models improve too. Your dream car or truck could be below average now and remain there. Your parents probably told you to strive to be above average, but that goal might conflict with other factors you consider important when purchasing a new vehicle.

New Tacomas get disappointing (some say borderline irresponsible) gas mileage. My neighbor was eyeing a 6-cylinder 4-wheel-drive model with an automatic transmission rated at 16 mpg for city driving and 20 mpg on the highway. The model I would buy today, if I had to replace my truck, a 4-cylinder automatic, wasn’t much better: 19 city and 25 highway. If those figures don’t make you feel a twinge of guilt, the Environmental Protection scores might. All Tacomas, with a rating of 4, are below average on the smog score. On the global warning scale, 4-cylinder models got the average score of 5, while the better-selling 6-cylinder Tacomas limped in at 4.

By contrast, a Prius, darling of the save-the-planet crowd, rated a 10 on global warning and 9 on smog emissions. Tundras, Toyota’s full-size pickup, came in at 2 and 3.

I asked myself if I would buy a vehicle that is average or slightly below on the global warning scale. The answer is yes. I just wouldn’t take the guilt trip the score implies. I would buy the model I wanted (currently a Tacoma best fits my lifestyle and quality requirements despite Toyota’s recent rash of recalls) outfitted with the most fuel-efficient engine it comes with.

As for future improvements to the Tacoma’s fuel economy, that’s up to Toyota and buying decisions by consumers. But don’t hold your breath. Tacomas used to be small thrifty pickups. A few years ago they morphed into mid-size trucks that are bigger, heavier, and less fuel-efficient (by about 10 percent) than the older models. Toyota would say they are giving Americans what we want. My view is that Toyota makes more money on the mostly high-end models that flood dealers’ lots. The new fuel-economy standards mandated by the Obama administration last year will help improve the gas mileage of the new car fleet overall, but I doubt if they will cause Toyota to return the Tacoma to its older design.