3 ms·

“Cars last longer, require less fuel to operate and are better for the environment.” That emissions chart looked good. Half as much as 1970. Too bad we have 5

“Cars last longer, require less fuel to operate and are better for the environment.” That emissions chart looked good. Half as much as 1970. Too bad we have 5 times as many vehicles There were 250 million vehicles in the world in 1970. 1.3 billion today and we’re projected to go to 2 billion by 2035. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#Ownership_trends https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#Ownership_tren...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Population has approximately doubled while simultaneously huge swaths of the globe have gone from "only the rich can afford cars" to "the middle class can afford cars." While the CO2 certainly isn't good one would need to do some Olympic level mental gymnastics to argue that an increase in wealth to the point where billions more people can afford an expensive complex good like a car is a bad thing overall.
throw0101a 6y ago
> That emissions chart looked good. Half as much as 1970. Too bad we have 5 times as many vehicles Yes, which is a problem environmentally, but from a basket-of-goods measure for the individual consumer, the number of cars is irrelevant: we as buyers are getting a better product.
PhaedrusV 6y ago
Also, all those changes were wrought by government fiat, and have been accomplished almost completely by reducing the weight of the cars, not by quality improvements as the article implies.
- mrfredward 6y ago
  >have been accomplished almost completely by reducing the weight of the cars This is entirely false. All the work in materials to make cars lighter has been countered by added amenities (from power seats all the way to chilled cupholders), additional safety measures (extra airbags), and (in the U.S. at least) shifting preferences toward trucks and SUVs. From the first google result on the subject, slate: "The average new car weighed 3,221 pounds in 1987 but 4,009 pounds in 2010." Much of efficiency gains are coming from improved engines which have better control of the combustion process to make sure fuel burns more completely and less energy is wasted, or in other words, engines are better quality.
  - PhaedrusV 6y ago
    Fair enough, I was mistaken

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Population has approximately doubled while simultaneously huge swaths of the globe have gone from "only the rich can afford cars" to "the middle class can afford cars." While the CO2 certainly isn't good one would need to do some Olympic level mental gymnastics to argue that an increase in wealth to the point where billions more people can afford an expensive complex good like a car is a bad thing overall.

throw0101a 6y ago

> That emissions chart looked good. Half as much as 1970. Too bad we have 5 times as many vehicles Yes, which is a problem environmentally, but from a basket-of-goods measure for the individual consumer, the number of cars is irrelevant: we as buyers are getting a better product.

PhaedrusV 6y ago

Also, all those changes were wrought by government fiat, and have been accomplished almost completely by reducing the weight of the cars, not by quality improvements as the article implies.

mrfredward 6y ago
>have been accomplished almost completely by reducing the weight of the cars This is entirely false. All the work in materials to make cars lighter has been countered by added amenities (from power seats all the way to chilled cupholders), additional safety measures (extra airbags), and (in the U.S. at least) shifting preferences toward trucks and SUVs. From the first google result on the subject, slate: "The average new car weighed 3,221 pounds in 1987 but 4,009 pounds in 2010." Much of efficiency gains are coming from improved engines which have better control of the combustion process to make sure fuel burns more completely and less energy is wasted, or in other words, engines are better quality.
- PhaedrusV 6y ago
  Fair enough, I was mistaken