This past month, the term “carbon footprint” has become the new eco buzzword. One source estimates that an average American produces 7.5 tons per year of CO2. You can calculate your footprint here.
I have to scratch my head about some of the calculations and advice some of these websites dish out, like how not eating red meat can reduce your carbon footprint.
But, the one thing these people have dead wrong is their stance on cars. Manufacturing a new car takes up a HUGE amount of carbon, and it only increases if the vehicle has to be transported from overseas. Also, these transport ships that cross the Pacific Ocean still use high Sulfur fuels. Also, hybrids and other vehicle technology like battery packs is not exactly the most environmentally friendly stuff to manufacture or recycle.
It got me thinking about how the Mennonites view their cars. Yes, some Mennonites own cars. They are a simple people that share some of the views about technology as the Amish. If you visit some of their communities, you will see old cars that look new, except for the chrome, which is sometimes painted black.
To them, waste is a sin, and not being considerate to their neighbors (no matter where on the planet) is another sin. So they take care of their cars meticulously because they do not want to create waste or pollute the world with their garbage.
It got me thinking about hybrid owners. The bought the car for its low fuel mileage and eco friendliness. Technically they are reducing their direct contribution of carbon. But, in my opinion if you counted the amount of carbon it takes to manufacture and ship the car against them, they would have a huge carbon footprint. In my opinion, if they would have kept their old car and maintained it properly, their carbon footprint on the world would have been a lot smaller.
For shops, can you imagine selling a service and telling the customer that it will reduce their carbon footprint by a certain amount?
5 comments:
Thank you for being the only other person with sanity, other then myself. The carbon footprint of a new car will take over 50 years to match even a 2 mile per gallon increase in gas mileage. My 1995 Buick Roadmaster gets better mileage than 60% of the new cars sold today. Hybrids are even worse.The most environmentaly friendly thing is to keep your car forever. Look at the 60 year old cars still driving around in Cuba.
You know what is wierd. This is the only post I could easly find discussing this topic. I believe what you are saying is true. Do you have stats to back this up? I just look at the price of gas versus a new hybrid. Say I go from 25 mpg to 40 mpg, and drive 15000 miles per year it would take 40 years for any saving to kick in. I am also estimating the price is $25,000 us for the new car and the car I own is worth 0. Saying both cars last 40 years. My conspiracy is that this "green" is all about another "green." I recycle as much as I can, take public transportation when I can, and try to be more "green" but I think 90% is pure marketing. Plus I really like my SUV. The red meat thing is all about the methane animals produce and also the ratio of protein in protein out. I don't know the exact figures but it has to do with farming and producing the huge amount of grain for a cow. Personally I like killing my meat myself, and the meat is much healthier than store bought. Hunters were the original health food nuts, and the first to care about the earth.
I too find it almost impossible to discover how much energy it costs to manufacture a vehicle - never mind re-cycle it after it's worn out. I suppose this information is undestandably closely guarded by the motor-manufacturing industry; but the nearest I've got is (a) the median amount of energy consumed to manufacture a 'typical' vehicle (i.e. neither a 60-mpg diesel Polo, nor a large SUV) is 6.9million Btu each. I don't know how that translates into CO2, etc.; but I expect it's quite significant. (b) In the UK, roughly the same energy is used by the motor-manufacturing industry as is expended on generating our electricity. And (c) if we buy a new car every 5 years or so, then each car represents an enormous amount of carbon footprint, regardless of its mpg in actual use (or its difficult-to-recycle batteries, or whatever). My SUV, which is 13 years old and still running fine at over 200,000 miles, is at least still amortising the energy required to build it - not to mention the energy which has NOT been used building the other 2 vehicles I might statistically also have bought during its lifetime so far. And because it is well-maintained, it regularly comes in below the annual emission standards required of it. ( My other car would have had ELEVEN cars built as well as it during its 55-year lifetime. )
Does anyone know how to quantify manufacturing-energy-per-vehicle, related to CO2 in particular, and thus contribute to a slightly more rounded, less-prejuduced, debate on the real issues around carbon foorprints and the like?
The money you save by buying a cheaper car can be applied to carbon offsets. A hybrid like a new Toyota Prius might cost AUD$5000 (USD$3200) per year more to own and operate than a cheaper car like a Hyundai Getz. Yet, for just about AUD$10 (USD$8) you could offset the emissions difference between these two cars. Or, you could get an even more efficient new car, or, better yet, an efficient used car. I wrote up some thoughts about this Does it make financial sense to buy a hybrid vehicle to reduce carbon emissions?.
I am so glad I found this. You were the first to bring this up, that I could find. I just bought a USED 1990 car with only 41k miles on it for this reason! Not only that I saved a ton! Good for my pocket, good for the earth, good car too. IN fact i expect to keep this car to at least 150k miles. I jsut found a link on a bout.com that says in Japan they attribute 28% of the carbon footprint to manufacturing alone - that is a lot of carbon!
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentfriendlyautos/a/new_old_cars.htm
Post a Comment