7 ms·

Unfortunately, production of cars (and consumerism in general) is extremely bad for carbon emissions and for the environment. Carbon emissions from the producti

Unfortunately, production of cars (and consumerism in general) is extremely bad for carbon emissions and for the environment. Carbon emissions from the production of 1 car generally rival the lifetime emissions from the tailpipe [1]. If you have no choice but to replace an old car for new then sure, get a more efficient one. If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Old cars that are running should be incentivized to continue to be on the road, barring any other pollutant or smog issues. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...

ashleyn 8y ago
Ironically, a big reason people buy new cars is because their old one failed emissions screening, and wasn't economical to repair.
- abakker 8y ago
  I always wonder at this. I've seen those expensive repair bills and they're usually expensive relative to the value of the car to be repaired, but they're cheap relative to the cost of a brand new car.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    You can get a loan for a new car, you can't get a loan for repairs. If you manage money well this is rarely a problem, but if you don't then you have no savings to pay for the repairs. The other problem with repair is what else is wrong and what will that cost to repair. I've been told that there are people who trade their cars in when the tires are worn out - it kicks the payments down the road a month (they have to budget next month lower than this month, but it doesn't use cash they don't have) Remember, nearly anyone can get a car loan no matter how bad their credit is. Even a credit card has higher standards. Since we are talking about people who are bad with money it is at least believable.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      My experience has been exactly the opposite. Everyone I know who trades out cars every year or so does it because they want the latest and greatest, or just something new and different, not because they can't afford to repair it. The people I know who have more limited means tend to drive their cars until the wheels fall off, and they are pretty familiar with their mechanic. I'm a little too impatient for that myself, I have a fairly low threshold of 'how many is too many repairs' before I dump a car and get something with less hassle.
  - mgkimsal 8y ago
    Just went through this calculating a few months ago. Had a 14 year old car... 225k miles on it... a couple years ago had put in $1k or so, but the last 18 month had put in less than $500 in repairs (tires, oil changes, some other issues). However, there was an oil leak, and some damage to front-end suspension. Oil leak had been going on for a while, but getting worse. Finding it would have meant taking the engine apart, and the front-end stuff was also expensive. Even without the engine leak, I was looking at probably $1500 to get this to pass inspection this year, and... there's no guarantee that all the fixes wouldn't have left me with something with a broken transmission that needed an overhaul or replacement. Fixing it all would probably have been north of $3k to feel good that it would be road worthy for at least another few years. As much as a I hate change, I bit the bullet, and got a 'newer' car for $11k. 'used' but still relatively new (2016) and it's far more fuel efficient - getting around 40mpg vs the 25 I was getting before. The fuel efficiency won't totally make up for the entire diff in fixing vs replacing, but I have something that's more modern, more comfortable, gets better mileage and better safety features. The 'brand new car' comparison - yeah, but loads of people are fine getting a 'lightly used' car vs 'brand new'. A friend went through similar decision within 10 days of my process, and he ended up getting a lightly used car (2017?) but it was $21k - I just can't bring myself to pay that type of money for a car right now. I was looking sub $10k; my wife pushed me to go a little higher.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jonknee 8y ago
> If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Those 3 year old cars aren't just scrapped, the used car market is much larger than the new car market.
FullyFunctional 8y ago
Consumerism is bad for the planet, 100% true. However the "every 3 years like an average westerner" remark needs citation. In the context of the article (Denmark) it is certainly not true. Cars are so expensive (the 180% tax is absolutely real - I've paid it) that people hold on to cars longer and buy used more. In fact, the number of people with zero cars would be hard to believe if you come from California. Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city). EDIT: typos
- hydrox24 8y ago
  > (the car tax is) paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive. I have been wondering for a little while now if the extreme libertarian position on private roads has been vindicated. I am not sure yet, but it seems possible where once it was ridiculous. Starting with (let us say) World war two, cities and states built out substantial, publicly funded roads and road networks in order to connect up newly developed sub-urban centres that were designed for car owners. These new centres were affordable for the emerging middle classes, who migrated there en-masse. This co-incided with the baby-boom, which was partly possible due to cheap housing. But this left the inner cities to die slow deaths where immigration was not high. (Side note: This is more true of American towns, in Australia I don't know that we had the dramatic changes seen in the highly industrialised centres of the USA.) So it possibly boosted the middle class at the expense of the lower class (?) and it created huge urban sprawl. Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above? I am spitballing here, and it is a little off-topic, but please indulge me!
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    Japan has a majority- privatized highway network, funding it requires tolls way higher than would be politically feasible in any western country. Gas and tolls make taking the bullet train cheaper for some distances if you're alone (the equation changes if you load up your family). I live here and have to pay the tolls but I still prefer it from a "user pays" justice POV. It doesn't have to be privatized though - Singapore is introducing a GPS-distance-based congestion charge on their roads ("ERP 2" if you want to Google it)
bodas 8y ago
That would be fine except that cars release poison into the air, old cars especially. Eventually banning ICE cars is an essential public health measure.
- meguest 8y ago
  That's a shame because there are some remarkable cars, both modern and classic, that will no longer be able to drive on the roads if we ban all ICE. It would be the equivalent of banning steam engines, which although no longer in normal use, are still running as tourist attractions and remarkable pieces of engineering that are fantastic to see and experience.
  - abakker 8y ago
    I think this policy would ban new sales, not outright ban all old cars.
    - simias 8y ago
      Both policies exist actually. For instance old cars and motorcycles are getting banned in Paris (outside of weekends IIRC). Even if as the grandparent points out making a new car generates a lot of pollution at least it would reduce the more local problem of having a heavy smog on windless days (and all the health issues that go along with it).
      - wongarsu 8y ago
        Banning old cars from inner-city driving is a nessesity. With how densly cities pack both cars and buildings, suspended particulate matter is a serious public health risk. But we can still allow them everywhere else where we aren't already struggling with keeping particluate levels at a reasonably safe level.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    No real need to ban old cars, they tend to quickly phase out on their own. Heck, the state I live in has uninstalled all the expensive dyno equipment they used for pre-OBD2 cars because there just aren't enough left on the road to justify maintaining the test. They still sniff, because that's cheap, but not on a dyno. Given that we still allow horses and Model T's on the roads (aside from freeways, due to inability of century-old cars to maintain that speed), I can't imagine why we'd bother banning them. The nostalgia is nice and their impact is negligible.
IB885588 8y ago
All the Life cycle analysis I've seen (don't have the sources handy) have shown that the vast majority of an ICE's car's impact is from the fuel that is burned and not from production, usually around 80% driving and less than 20% production.
- IB885588 8y ago
  If you look at page 29 of this LCA by Audi, you can see that they show an ICE car's impact at about 20% manufacturing, 80% usage, and around 1% recycling at the end of life: https://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-responsibility/product/audi_a6_life_cycle_assessment.pdf https://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-responsibi...
  - radicalbyte 8y ago
    When the factories and steel production run on green power that 20% will drop very low. The problem is that the fossil fuel lobby has been exceptionally successful in putting the transition back by 30 years. Had they expended the same energy pivoting to green power then we'd be having a totally different discussion now.
  - zepearl 8y ago
    Mmmhh, Audi is Volkswagen (and Audi's cars were involved as well in the emissions scandal), so I'm kind of sceptic about their credibility (meaning "let's not forget too quickly"). As they have as well a direct interest in saying "buying new/our cars isn't that harmful as you think", their doc makes me even more sceptic... :)
    - IB885588 8y ago
      There are many other LCA studies, go find them. They all say similar things, and it makes sense when you think about how many gallons of gasoline or diesel a car can burn over its useful life (15-20 years).
      - zepearl 8y ago
synecdoche 8y ago
This is why I consider my 1990 Volvo a comparatively environmentally friendly car. Very reliable and much cheaper to maintain and repair than a new electronics laden alternative.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  However, it's not great for local air quality. If you live in the countryside and rarely visit towns, it's a reasonable choice. If you regularly drive slowly through a city, it's awful!
- thedaemon 8y ago
  My 1995 Volvo 940 Wagon (Estate for you EU?) is probably the best car I've ever purchased. It's comfortable, reliable, easy to work on and doesn't drink that much gasoline. I've had new cars, old cars, fast cars, slow cars, and the Volvo is seriously my favorite. Purchased for $800 a year ago and immediately drove across the USA with it. Only issue was a short in the tail lights. :) Maybe I shouldn't be sharing this information.. I don't need them to become expensive!
  - amingilani 8y ago
    But you do. An increase in price means your car's resale value will go up.
wil421 8y ago
>If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Do you have any sources for this claim? I think I only know of a single person who changes cars in 3 years due to leases and only did it once. According to the US government the average age is 11, almost 12 years.[1] [1]https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...
skookumchuck 8y ago
Which is why the "Cash for Clunkers" program was a giant environmental disaster. There's no way the fuel efficiency gains made up for the fuel burned manufacturing the car.
- tlb 8y ago
  I think the motivation was reducing pollution. A small minority of badly running cars emit most of the particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution. In certain areas like Los Angeles in the 1980s, smog (caused by nitrogen oxides) was killing people, and removing a few clunkers made a significant difference.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    I recall the motivation was improving fuel efficiency. "intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
    - stephengillie 8y ago
      I think part of the motivation was preventing open rebellion by a hurting voter base. Those were bad years.

ashleyn 8y ago

Ironically, a big reason people buy new cars is because their old one failed emissions screening, and wasn't economical to repair.

abakker 8y ago
I always wonder at this. I've seen those expensive repair bills and they're usually expensive relative to the value of the car to be repaired, but they're cheap relative to the cost of a brand new car.
- bluGill 8y ago
  You can get a loan for a new car, you can't get a loan for repairs. If you manage money well this is rarely a problem, but if you don't then you have no savings to pay for the repairs. The other problem with repair is what else is wrong and what will that cost to repair. I've been told that there are people who trade their cars in when the tires are worn out - it kicks the payments down the road a month (they have to budget next month lower than this month, but it doesn't use cash they don't have) Remember, nearly anyone can get a car loan no matter how bad their credit is. Even a credit card has higher standards. Since we are talking about people who are bad with money it is at least believable.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    My experience has been exactly the opposite. Everyone I know who trades out cars every year or so does it because they want the latest and greatest, or just something new and different, not because they can't afford to repair it. The people I know who have more limited means tend to drive their cars until the wheels fall off, and they are pretty familiar with their mechanic. I'm a little too impatient for that myself, I have a fairly low threshold of 'how many is too many repairs' before I dump a car and get something with less hassle.
- mgkimsal 8y ago
  Just went through this calculating a few months ago. Had a 14 year old car... 225k miles on it... a couple years ago had put in $1k or so, but the last 18 month had put in less than $500 in repairs (tires, oil changes, some other issues). However, there was an oil leak, and some damage to front-end suspension. Oil leak had been going on for a while, but getting worse. Finding it would have meant taking the engine apart, and the front-end stuff was also expensive. Even without the engine leak, I was looking at probably $1500 to get this to pass inspection this year, and... there's no guarantee that all the fixes wouldn't have left me with something with a broken transmission that needed an overhaul or replacement. Fixing it all would probably have been north of $3k to feel good that it would be road worthy for at least another few years. As much as a I hate change, I bit the bullet, and got a 'newer' car for $11k. 'used' but still relatively new (2016) and it's far more fuel efficient - getting around 40mpg vs the 25 I was getting before. The fuel efficiency won't totally make up for the entire diff in fixing vs replacing, but I have something that's more modern, more comfortable, gets better mileage and better safety features. The 'brand new car' comparison - yeah, but loads of people are fine getting a 'lightly used' car vs 'brand new'. A friend went through similar decision within 10 days of my process, and he ended up getting a lightly used car (2017?) but it was $21k - I just can't bring myself to pay that type of money for a car right now. I was looking sub $10k; my wife pushed me to go a little higher.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jonknee 8y ago

> If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Those 3 year old cars aren't just scrapped, the used car market is much larger than the new car market.

FullyFunctional 8y ago

Consumerism is bad for the planet, 100% true. However the "every 3 years like an average westerner" remark needs citation. In the context of the article (Denmark) it is certainly not true. Cars are so expensive (the 180% tax is absolutely real - I've paid it) that people hold on to cars longer and buy used more. In fact, the number of people with zero cars would be hard to believe if you come from California. Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city). EDIT: typos

hydrox24 8y ago
> (the car tax is) paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive. I have been wondering for a little while now if the extreme libertarian position on private roads has been vindicated. I am not sure yet, but it seems possible where once it was ridiculous. Starting with (let us say) World war two, cities and states built out substantial, publicly funded roads and road networks in order to connect up newly developed sub-urban centres that were designed for car owners. These new centres were affordable for the emerging middle classes, who migrated there en-masse. This co-incided with the baby-boom, which was partly possible due to cheap housing. But this left the inner cities to die slow deaths where immigration was not high. (Side note: This is more true of American towns, in Australia I don't know that we had the dramatic changes seen in the highly industrialised centres of the USA.) So it possibly boosted the middle class at the expense of the lower class (?) and it created huge urban sprawl. Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above? I am spitballing here, and it is a little off-topic, but please indulge me!
- kalleboo 8y ago
  Japan has a majority- privatized highway network, funding it requires tolls way higher than would be politically feasible in any western country. Gas and tolls make taking the bullet train cheaper for some distances if you're alone (the equation changes if you load up your family). I live here and have to pay the tolls but I still prefer it from a "user pays" justice POV. It doesn't have to be privatized though - Singapore is introducing a GPS-distance-based congestion charge on their roads ("ERP 2" if you want to Google it)

bodas 8y ago

That would be fine except that cars release poison into the air, old cars especially. Eventually banning ICE cars is an essential public health measure.

meguest 8y ago
That's a shame because there are some remarkable cars, both modern and classic, that will no longer be able to drive on the roads if we ban all ICE. It would be the equivalent of banning steam engines, which although no longer in normal use, are still running as tourist attractions and remarkable pieces of engineering that are fantastic to see and experience.
- abakker 8y ago
  I think this policy would ban new sales, not outright ban all old cars.
  - simias 8y ago
    Both policies exist actually. For instance old cars and motorcycles are getting banned in Paris (outside of weekends IIRC). Even if as the grandparent points out making a new car generates a lot of pollution at least it would reduce the more local problem of having a heavy smog on windless days (and all the health issues that go along with it).
    - wongarsu 8y ago
      Banning old cars from inner-city driving is a nessesity. With how densly cities pack both cars and buildings, suspended particulate matter is a serious public health risk. But we can still allow them everywhere else where we aren't already struggling with keeping particluate levels at a reasonably safe level.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  No real need to ban old cars, they tend to quickly phase out on their own. Heck, the state I live in has uninstalled all the expensive dyno equipment they used for pre-OBD2 cars because there just aren't enough left on the road to justify maintaining the test. They still sniff, because that's cheap, but not on a dyno. Given that we still allow horses and Model T's on the roads (aside from freeways, due to inability of century-old cars to maintain that speed), I can't imagine why we'd bother banning them. The nostalgia is nice and their impact is negligible.

IB885588 8y ago

All the Life cycle analysis I've seen (don't have the sources handy) have shown that the vast majority of an ICE's car's impact is from the fuel that is burned and not from production, usually around 80% driving and less than 20% production.

IB885588 8y ago
If you look at page 29 of this LCA by Audi, you can see that they show an ICE car's impact at about 20% manufacturing, 80% usage, and around 1% recycling at the end of life: https://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-responsibility/product/audi_a6_life_cycle_assessment.pdf https://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-responsibi...
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  When the factories and steel production run on green power that 20% will drop very low. The problem is that the fossil fuel lobby has been exceptionally successful in putting the transition back by 30 years. Had they expended the same energy pivoting to green power then we'd be having a totally different discussion now.
- zepearl 8y ago
  Mmmhh, Audi is Volkswagen (and Audi's cars were involved as well in the emissions scandal), so I'm kind of sceptic about their credibility (meaning "let's not forget too quickly"). As they have as well a direct interest in saying "buying new/our cars isn't that harmful as you think", their doc makes me even more sceptic... :)
  - IB885588 8y ago
    There are many other LCA studies, go find them. They all say similar things, and it makes sense when you think about how many gallons of gasoline or diesel a car can burn over its useful life (15-20 years).
    - zepearl 8y ago

synecdoche 8y ago

This is why I consider my 1990 Volvo a comparatively environmentally friendly car. Very reliable and much cheaper to maintain and repair than a new electronics laden alternative.

Symbiote 8y ago
However, it's not great for local air quality. If you live in the countryside and rarely visit towns, it's a reasonable choice. If you regularly drive slowly through a city, it's awful!
thedaemon 8y ago
My 1995 Volvo 940 Wagon (Estate for you EU?) is probably the best car I've ever purchased. It's comfortable, reliable, easy to work on and doesn't drink that much gasoline. I've had new cars, old cars, fast cars, slow cars, and the Volvo is seriously my favorite. Purchased for $800 a year ago and immediately drove across the USA with it. Only issue was a short in the tail lights. :) Maybe I shouldn't be sharing this information.. I don't need them to become expensive!
- amingilani 8y ago
  But you do. An increase in price means your car's resale value will go up.

wil421 8y ago

>If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Do you have any sources for this claim? I think I only know of a single person who changes cars in 3 years due to leases and only did it once. According to the US government the average age is 11, almost 12 years.[1] [1]https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...

skookumchuck 8y ago

Which is why the "Cash for Clunkers" program was a giant environmental disaster. There's no way the fuel efficiency gains made up for the fuel burned manufacturing the car.

tlb 8y ago
I think the motivation was reducing pollution. A small minority of badly running cars emit most of the particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution. In certain areas like Los Angeles in the 1980s, smog (caused by nitrogen oxides) was killing people, and removing a few clunkers made a significant difference.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  I recall the motivation was improving fuel efficiency. "intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    I think part of the motivation was preventing open rebellion by a hurting voter base. Those were bad years.