Don’t people already know burning gas causes climate change?

This question may be irrelevant. Beyond transparency and public education, the labels play an important “prompting” role. Research shows repeated exposure to a message such as “gas burning contributes to climate change” makes people more likely to retain and use the information. 

However, research shows many well-educated lay people fail to appreciate key facts that global warming is primarily due to increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2, where the single most important source of CO2 emissions comes from the combustion of fossil fuel. Research on popular understanding of these linkages also shows most people don’t understand the lasting, and thus cumulative, nature of CO2 from fossil fuel burning. Most  people also don’t understand the public health effects from burning transportation fuels (particularly diesel) which kills more people globally from upper respiratory disease than does smoking.

Shouldn’t EV charging stations also have these warning labels especially since, the energy that supplies them mostly comes from fossil fuels?

Transportation emissions are a downstream source of emissions and thus occur mostly through the tailpipe of the vehicle. Thus labels at the pump intervene at the main source of emissions in transportation; the gas customer. As noted in Q1 and the increasing affordability of alternatives to ICE vehicles, the people consuming these fuels are the ones who most need the information.  

While the country of Sweden has a climate impact label on EV charging stations (as well as all petrol stations), their program emphasizes where the energy comes from, which incentivizes the utility to supply cleaner sources of electricity (notice the dark green indicator line giving the energy source ‘the greenest’ rating).

Doesn’t the production of EVs cause more environmental damage than regular vehicles?

The proposal for warming labels is agnostic about EVs and is not a policy prescription for them. They specifically regulate the climate and health effects from burning petroleum-based transportation fuels. 

We would support, however, vehicle environmental impact labels — a separate regulation — that disclose the environmental effect of sourcing and manufacturing the vehicle.  

Don’t we need better, low-emissions transportation options right now; like improved access to public transit, etc. Aren’t these labels just a distraction?

This question ignores the central role everyday people will play in a successful low carbon transportation system. Going back to Q1 and broad climate apathy, labels will increase consumer awareness gas burning harms health and thus people’s decision making capacity. This is a key basis for a comprehensive shift away from conventional fuels where the public en masse, will need to approve and adopt permanently, a low carbon transportation lifestyle.

How do labels work (why do we need them)?

Labels are tools of social norms where public attitudes about the climate crisis do not reflect the urgent need to cut emissions now. Referring back to improving consumer decision making capacity, social norms marketing schemes (e.g., climate-health warning labels on gas pumps) are frequently used when social, political, and economic environments occlude the more aggressive action needed. Labels are a baseline regulation for gas markets that don’t currently pay the true climate-health price of gas.

They are specific market mechanisms we can utilize now to permanently shift attitudes about fossil fuel. Repeated exposure to the labels remind people others agree burning gas has harmful effects on the climate and public health which increases this certainty.

Consumers of these fuels have a right to know about the invisible and harmful effects from burning fossil fuel. Physicist Drew Shindell estimates burning 1 gallon of unleaded fuel contains $6.50 in hidden climate and health related costs; $8 for diesel.