2 ms·

> what is missing is an analysis on I highly doubt it that this is missing - it's just not mentioned in the article. Also, this argument sounds a bit like sun

> what is missing is an analysis on I highly doubt it that this is missing - it's just not mentioned in the article. Also, this argument sounds a bit like sunk cost fallacy to me: the car already exists, so whatever embodied energy it has is irrelevant. It is likely to stay on the road for decades if not encouraged to be removed. Meanwhile the embodied energy of an ebike or escooter is tiny by comparison, can in principle be powered by renewable energy, and the difference in energy footprint is so huge that I would be very surprised if it doesn't earn itself back long before the expected life-time of the car ends. On top of that there's reduction of traffic congestion and air pollution, and less pressure to create infrastructure (like parking space) for cars. All of which is the kind of externalized cost that isn't actually externalized if you're a government.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
You have a very high opinion of politicians and policy-making. Perhaps too high an opinion, I fear. It's not that uncommon for such policy decisions not to be fact-based because "of course it's better", so I'll keep my critical stance on governments' policies. > Also, this argument sounds a bit like sunk cost fallacy to me: the car already exists, so whatever embodied energy it has is irrelevant. No this is not the point. It costs energy and resources to scrap a car and to produce and distribute its replacement so this should be taken into account. Keeping a car longer reduces the need to produce more cars and to scrap existing cars. If I scrap my car every year than a car must be scrapped and a new car produced every year. If I keep my car for 20 years then this process occurs much less often, which is much more economical in terms of energy and resources. The cost of the subsidy could also be spent on something else that may or may not have an higher impact. I am just saying that this is the sort of decision that cannot be judged at face value, which seems to be what many people do ("great decision", "of course it's positive", etc), without digging quite deep into the numbers. And I must say that your comment goes in the same direction. So, maybe it is positive and useful, maybe not so much. They would need to show the numbers for anyone to make an informed opinion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  > You have a very high opinion of politicians and policy-making. Perhaps too high an opinion, I fear. Could we please not use personal accusations like these? I disagree with your viewpoint, fine. To point at that as if this must mean it is an unreasonable and naive opinion, without giving any factual back-up of your own viewpoint isn't going to get us anywhere. > It costs energy and resources to scrap a car and to produce and distribute its replacement so this should be taken into account. - the scrapping of said car is an eventual cost regardless - the replacement is not another car
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    I don't understand the reason for arguing and turning aggressive here. My only viewpoint is to reserve judgement on these policies if the facts are not known and to state that governments do not always make fact-based decisions on these issues (all issues in fact) because these are difficult and technical issues and that politics dictates a level of showing that something (anything) is done. If this policy is indeed fact-based then very good. If it is, and will be, assessed on clearly defined metrics then even better.
sokoloff 6y ago
If you destroy a useful asset before the natural end of its usefulness, I do think you should account for the portion of “embodied energy” that you waste at that moment. It might still make sense, but to treat that energy and emission as entirely consumed in the first meter of car’s operation instead of over its useful life seems a misapplication of the sunk-cost fallacy.
- rrobukef 6y ago
  But from the perspective of the government, the asset has already outlived its usefulness. Every further use (regardless of scrapping) of the car is perceived as pure loss. This may be different from the owner who may be unable to buy a new car, or who sees an individual gain. The subsidy aligns the perspective of the owner and of the government.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

You have a very high opinion of politicians and policy-making. Perhaps too high an opinion, I fear. It's not that uncommon for such policy decisions not to be fact-based because "of course it's better", so I'll keep my critical stance on governments' policies. > Also, this argument sounds a bit like sunk cost fallacy to me: the car already exists, so whatever embodied energy it has is irrelevant. No this is not the point. It costs energy and resources to scrap a car and to produce and distribute its replacement so this should be taken into account. Keeping a car longer reduces the need to produce more cars and to scrap existing cars. If I scrap my car every year than a car must be scrapped and a new car produced every year. If I keep my car for 20 years then this process occurs much less often, which is much more economical in terms of energy and resources. The cost of the subsidy could also be spent on something else that may or may not have an higher impact. I am just saying that this is the sort of decision that cannot be judged at face value, which seems to be what many people do ("great decision", "of course it's positive", etc), without digging quite deep into the numbers. And I must say that your comment goes in the same direction. So, maybe it is positive and useful, maybe not so much. They would need to show the numbers for anyone to make an informed opinion.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vanderZwan 6y ago
> You have a very high opinion of politicians and policy-making. Perhaps too high an opinion, I fear. Could we please not use personal accusations like these? I disagree with your viewpoint, fine. To point at that as if this must mean it is an unreasonable and naive opinion, without giving any factual back-up of your own viewpoint isn't going to get us anywhere. > It costs energy and resources to scrap a car and to produce and distribute its replacement so this should be taken into account. - the scrapping of said car is an eventual cost regardless - the replacement is not another car
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  I don't understand the reason for arguing and turning aggressive here. My only viewpoint is to reserve judgement on these policies if the facts are not known and to state that governments do not always make fact-based decisions on these issues (all issues in fact) because these are difficult and technical issues and that politics dictates a level of showing that something (anything) is done. If this policy is indeed fact-based then very good. If it is, and will be, assessed on clearly defined metrics then even better.

sokoloff 6y ago

If you destroy a useful asset before the natural end of its usefulness, I do think you should account for the portion of “embodied energy” that you waste at that moment. It might still make sense, but to treat that energy and emission as entirely consumed in the first meter of car’s operation instead of over its useful life seems a misapplication of the sunk-cost fallacy.

rrobukef 6y ago
But from the perspective of the government, the asset has already outlived its usefulness. Every further use (regardless of scrapping) of the car is perceived as pure loss. This may be different from the owner who may be unable to buy a new car, or who sees an individual gain. The subsidy aligns the perspective of the owner and of the government.