Climate Change Warning Mandated At Gas Stations For First Time, Good News For EVs?


Coming Soon To A Pump Near You? (via Our Horizon)

Coming Soon To A Pump Near You? (via Our Horizon)

For the first time in the history of North America (and perhaps the world) a city has legislated that local gas pumps now need to affix climate change warning stickers to serve customers.

Climate Change Warning Stickers Headed To First Gas Pumps Ever In North America In Early 2016

Climate Change Warning Stickers Headed To First Gas Pumps Ever In North America In Early 2016

Passed unanimously by North Vancouver (Canada) city councillors last Monday, the new program will take effect in early 2016.

North Vancouver Mayor, Darrel Mussatto said at the bylaw meeting that enacted the change:

“It is 2015 and we need to talk about how we are going to move forward as a society on a reduced carbon or carbon-free diet and it is going to be a challenge.”

As one would expect the gas companies, and local gas station owners are thrilled with the changes.  Global News spoke with Andrew Klukas with the Western Convenience Stores Association:

“British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has mandatory pre-pay. So to have a negative image on that very valuable piece of real estate right around the pump, we would rather put something positive there.”

The move (and first win) was spearheaded by Our Horizon, which describes itself as “a national not-for-profit organization that’s working with municipalities to require climate change labels on gas pump nozzles.”

Currently, many city councils across North America have this proposition (or one very similar) on their agendas to discuss, so we imagine North Vancouver won’t stand alone with this decision very long.

The final designs of the stickers, expected to cost about $5,000 to produce, have yet to be decided – but will likely range from climate change issues, to EV rebates available in the province (up to $5,000) to fuel saving and conservation tips.

Whatever your opinion on the public gas station warnings, one thing is for sure…it ain’t going to be bad thing for EV sales.

Hat tip to Bill R!

Category: General


47 responses to "Climate Change Warning Mandated At Gas Stations For First Time, Good News For EVs?"
  1. GasKilla says:

    I’m kind of shocked a city in California wasn’t the first to adopt such a measure. But I think gas pumps in CA still have the “this product contains ingredients known to the state to cause cancer” can’t really confirm this because it’s been so long since I’ve been to the pump.

    1. jerryd says:

      And another one with all the pollution, healthcare, military, etc costs that increases our income taxes 15%.
      Say like
      ‘Oil costs $2/gal in higher taxes’
      ‘Oil supports oil dictators, Terrorist and Putin’
      along with
      ‘EV’s cost 80% less to run’
      And switch them around like for cigarettes.
      So hits them from different ways how bad oil products are and their real costs.

  2. David Murray says:

    Probably pointless. I seriously doubt those similar warnings on cigarettes ever stopped anyone from using it. I guess the difference might be that there are no real healthy alternatives to cigarettes, where there is a viable alternative to gasoline.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      You are probably right about the greater “climate change” message getting people to fill up less, it is the optional alternative that might sway a few drivers.

      One does imagines that promoting the incentives dollars available off a new EV (in this case $5,000) would have a payback of some magnitude…especially for those current shopping for a car, or more specifically a hybrid.

      Put another way, if every American driver was forced to look at a promotional sticker saying they could $7,500 off a qualifying plug-in (at least inside a lease) for 2-3 minutes, ~4 times a month at the pump, that would probably have some magnitude of return…at least everyone would know they exist, (=

      1. Josh says:

        Haha, that is a great idea.

        Promo something like:

        “You can get $7,500 of the purchase of an electric car, and never have to stop at this pump ever again.”

        I think the Convenience Stores association would have stronger words if that was the promo.

        1. kdawg says:

          I was thinking it could say something along the lines “For the amount of money you just put in your gas tank, you could drive 4 times farther on electricity. Check it out! –>”


          1. John says:

            I like the idea of InsideEVs stickers.

            EV owners often tells that people ask info to them about their cars. If I would own an EV I’d add a sticker with the main info on it (e.g. “100% electric, range x, x $ for 100 miles…” and acceleration too for Tesla). InsideEVs could provide these stickers for the main EV models and add their url 😉

            1. oldevguy says:

              I’ve taken a test drive in a P85D Tesla S and sure it is unreal but my 2013 Leaf does way more then you would expect from an 80KW motor. If you haven’t test driven an electric give it a go.

          2. Nix says:

            insideevs would have to hire 10 more people just to ban all the trolls that would attract because of the backlash.

            1. Jhon says:

              That’s probably true, but it would attract also a lot of genuinely interested people. I noticed that often EV trolls are just uninformed people. They just don’t know the technology progress of the last years (e.g. rapid charging) or which cars models exist. Then, when I quietly post them some links to this or others web site they become more reasonable.

            2. kdawg says:

              No such thing as “bad internet traffic” if you own a website 😀

      2. wavelet says:

        Nice idea, Jay!
        (Though I suspect that if it were implemented there would be lawsuits complaining the gub’mimt was interfering in free trade by doing EV vendors advertising for them…)

        1. Jay Cole says:

          I can’t really take credit for that idea.

          Notice of available EV incentives is actually one of the main suggestions for the new stickers in this case, and likely will be part of placement rotation.

    2. m hovis says:

      Might not sway the adult at the pump, but it might have an impact on the kids watching/reading the pump. This ole marble of ours is pretty incredible, and we certainly don’t understand how all the variables effect it to the nth degree.

      What we do know is all the elements on the periodic table are constant. We know the measure of each proton, electron, and neutron. We know that when certain elements bond to form asymmetric compounds aka two hydrogens and an oxygen or two oxygens and a carbon, they warm when exposed to infrared light. This we know and can measure. We can measure how much CO2 we input and though we don’t know all the offsetting variables, statistically speaking, it doesn’t end well…

      I want be on the wrong side of history on this one.

    3. Just_Chris says:

      I disagree I think that if you have spent the night in hospital with you child having an asthma attack and you go to fill your car up the next day and there is a sticker that reads:

      “Use of this product may cause asthma”

      It will be pretty powerful. 13% of Canadian children have Asthma, there is a pretty good chance you’ll reach a good percentage of Canadians with that simple message.

      The other warning that I would like to see would be:

      “Use of this product can result in premature birth or miscarriage”

      or the old favorite of the smoking warnings:

      “Smog may lead to impotence or impaired fertility”

      1. Just_Chris says:

        I see these messages as preaching to the convertible – People who want to do good but who don’t know how or who don’t know what they are doing is bad. There are a substantial amount of people who don’t care what they drive to work. They choose cars for all sorts of crazy reasons why not give them a good reason to buy one car over another.

        I guess the only thing that is missing is the line telling you what to do, the web link should tell you how to go electric, perhaps provide a list of electric vehicles or ultra-low emission vehicles (i.e. PHEV’s).

      2. m hovis says:

        I agree Chris. I think you misinterpret my comment. I think the sticker is a great idea, and I think your point is spot on. It not only is killing the planet, it is shortening lives as we speak.

        1. Just_Chris says:

          Sorry my disagreement was with David’s comment who suggested that these stickers may be pointless (which might be true for a good percentage of the population).

          David, Jay and the following posters suggest that a message about the financial and tax benefits would be more powerful. I suspect they are right but wish they weren’t.

    4. przemo_li says:

      In my country (Poland), You will find more and more young people who simply do not smoke ’cause “its stupid!”

      So I think people overestimate short term and largely underestimate long term.

      For smoking its addiction, which btw by definition mean denial of reality, stickers on cigarettes included.

      For ICEs its too “impossibility” factor, of simply not affording to switch. When EVs take off, ICEs will loose value. A lot. Meaning poorer people (with older and more environment and Your sister/mother/daughter damaging), wont switch. In fact ICEs will be good enough, cheap enough solution.

      But change will come. ICEs will start to break down. Parts wont be produced. Used EVs will become dirty cheap.

      Switch will be made WITHOUT “landscape” changing much 😉 Just like “smoking landscape” in my country change so little with so profound effects.

      It just take time.

    5. RexxSee says:

      Tobacco have people addicted hard. Give us an alternative to fuel cars, and nobody will look back.

  3. Ambulator says:

    “it ain’t going to be bad thing for EV sales.”

    I’m not so sure about that. This sort of feel good measure is just the thing to get the neutrals rallying against it.

    1. SparkEV says:

      For some idealogues, it might have negative effects. They might’ve been considering fuel efficient car, but they’re so against anti-climate change message that they end up buying a gas car that use more fuel.

      Even for EV advocates who don’t think climate change is the worst thing, stuff like this would have us cringe.

      Far better would be “drive EV to save $10,000 from your tax” in CA, $7500 in most other US states. Money communicates far more effectively.

      1. Michael Will says:

        I would get rid of the incentives and add the carbon tax to gas instead.

        1. pjwood1 says:

          BC, Canada BTDT:

          Their KWh prices are also around 8-9 cents, AFAIK. Think hydro in WA and OR, and go north.

          1. BraveLilToaster says:

            It’s actually been the most effective method so far at using economics to prod industry and civilians alike to use less fossil fuels.

  4. Breezy says:

    A great idea, like the Surgeon General’s/Health Canada warning on cigarettes. It will reach some people.

  5. Bobby sweet says:

    Dumb a waste off money this will not help ev’s sale at all ev’s need to quit talking about being good for the Environment and talk about how there cheap easy to use no maintenance fun
    To drive and just better then fossil fuel

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      Agreed. I don’t want to be lumped in with the liberal agenda when it comes to driving an EV.

      1. Bobby sweet says:

        Yea I went to a ev rally ment a old guy in suspenders with a don’t tread on me sticker on the back of his leaf The first thing out of his mouth was my leaf was built in Tennessee and it runs on American energy
        Now that is the best comeback against ignorant people that are against EV’s

        1. Just_Chris says:

          Each to there own, perhaps there should be a selection of stickers that the gas stations can choose from some that highlight economic or political issues (like a sticker that reads “30% of this product is sourced from an OPEC nation” or “The people of Saudi Arabia would like to thank you for keeping the income tax in their nation below 5%”) with others being more environmental or health related.

  6. Mark C says:

    So, with this kind of message affixed to the pump by unanimous vote, those elected officials all have their own personal Electric Vehicle, or at least an EREV/PHEV?, or are all talk and no substance?

    1. Anon says:

      In this case, “Substance” means taking physical action that informs / educates people who would never give a second thought about the repurcussions of their daily routine (i.e., smoking cigarettes, or in this case– pumping & burning gasoline or diesel in their cars). Understanding is the first step in correcting bad choices.

  7. Lad says:

    This message wouldn’t have an effect on those who understand the technology; however, there are many who don’t and over time it might get them to consider the alternatives, especially if it’s time to trade.

  8. Trollnonymous says:

    They already have GSTV at gas stations…

    Why not just throw the 2 minute adds in when the pump starts.

    But that would be counter productive to the Gas stations purpose……lol

  9. Trollnonymous says:

    Couldn’t this be construed as government driving them out of business?

  10. kdawg says:

    Too bad we can’t repurpose the gas stations into EV stations.

  11. Richard says:

    I would add a time tax, where every 6 month you add 5 minute of wait time before fulleing up, after a while a 30 charge will be the fast option.

  12. kubel says:

    Are they doing the same thing for the livestock industry? When I go pick up some ground beef, is there a warning on that saying consumption of livestock contributes to global warming? An individual eating meat, milk, and eggs is causing more global warming with his average American diet than his F-150, but no one feels comfortable addressing the topic of the global livestock industry causing more global warming than transportation.

    And for the record, I burn gas AND eat meat. 😛

    Most people aren’t ignorant of their personal environmental impact. They just don’t care. And knowing myself, if I were to see this from the government, I would be more inclined to let my car idle, just because.

    These gas station stickers will do NOTHING to improve global warming. No one is going to see a sticker and say, “Hey! I’m causing global warming, time to trade in my F-150 for a Prius!”.

    Start electrifying products that people want to buy, and make them better than the gas cars they are replacing, and people will switch. Could you imagine if Ford took the Tesla approach to their pickups, and built a BEV or PHEV F-150 or Ranger that had more horsepower, more torque, and better fuel economy than their gas competitors? They would probably sell really, really well not because “those poor animals on the sticker”, but because “my truck is better than yours”.

  13. Anthony says:

    Forget the climate aspect…

    “It is known to the U.S. Federal Government that ISIS spreads its global jihad in-part through oil sales. By purchasing this product you support the global oil market and help fund terrorism.”

    1. kubel says:

      Blowback isn’t caused by driving a Suburban. Blowback happens because of US interventionism in the Middle East for the purpose of securing our strategic interests in an oil rich region to ensure the survival of the state in the event of significant war. The US military and CIA isn’t over there because we are addicted to oil. It’s because they are addicted to oil. War requires oil.

      You can drive a Suburban and Muslims would be happy to sell you their oil. So would the Canadians. But if you started dropping bombs on Canadians, invading and occupying their land, assassinating their citizens, installing puppet government, and creating an environment for civil war- I’m sure there would be a few Canadians that would come down here to start blowing shit up. What the Canadians don’t have, however, is an extreme religion backing it. And that’s unfortunately in abundance in the Middle East.

    2. Djoni says:

      True and false.
      Yes a small part of ISIS fund come from petroleum, but it isn’t the biggest one.
      Bribing and extortion of high level is the major part.
      What about the friendly relation between occidental and Saudi Arabia that promote third century civilization with no right to woman except enslaving them and the 2 000+ religious channel that jut intoxicated all aspect of their society.
      Still, we like them so much because they sell us gas.
      In my view, ISIS, are meaningless compare to the influence of Saudi Arabian.
      Nonetheless, I really thing those sticker are great and should be mandatory on every gas pump.

  14. Just_Chris says:

    Just thought of a great new label:

    “You are 1000 times more likely to die from the smog produced by the fuel terrorist sell than the bombs they make”

    It’s not quite true as not everyone who sells oil is funding terrorism but the number of deaths from terrorism to pollution is about right for most western economies.

  15. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “Climate Change Warning Mandated At Gas Stations For First Time, Good News For EVs?”

    I suppose it will help EV sales, altho I wouldn’t try to guess how much. Maybe a lot, maybe an infinitesimal amount.

    But it might well create a political backlash, too. I’m sure it will in the USA, if any State moves to follow.

  16. Just_Chris says:

    Was reading about Asthma in Canada when I came across this highlight:

    “The Conference Board of Canada estimates that in 2010 chronic lung diseases including asthma cost $12 billion including $3.4 billion in direct health care costs and $8.6 billion in indirect costs.”

    Ref: Lung disease imposes major costs on Canada’s Economy. The Conference Board of Canada, New Release. March 15. 2012.

    That’s a lot of money and would justify a significant increase in funding of EV incentives to my mind. have a great deal of interesting information on Asthma in Canada ( Looking through this you guys have a pretty strong case for improving Canadian air quality.

  17. Mister G says:


    1. BraveLilToaster says:

      We have a regional website that’s far more helpful actually…

  18. BraveLilToaster says:

    To answer the question in the title, no, and this is the reason why.

    This label doesn’t suggest any alternatives. It just says “this product is bad for you”. Everyone already knows that. Would *you* drink gasoline? Would *you* lock your garage and breathe deeply while your (gas) car runs? Of course not, unless you were *trying* to kill yourself.

    But people buy gas not because they want to, or they like it, but rather see it as a necessary evil. Every single time the price of gas goes up, I hear people bitching all over Facebook about how they’re trapped into buying gas at extortionate rates. *Trapped*, I tell you.

    People don’t need more reasons to stop using gas. They have every single reason to stop. But they either literally don’t know that you can buy an EV (no, really, my wife gets this all the time at her work, and she’s been telling *everyone*), or they think that it’s “too inconvenient” because it takes 15 minutes longer to recharge when travelling longer distances.

    Either way, people just feel like they’re being told the thing they need, they shouldn’t buy. They don’t care.

    I think a far more effective sticker would be along the lines of “If you owned an electric car, you wouldn’t need to be here”.