Old cars are better for the environment

[isuzurover]

NOT

I would have replied to one of the other threads, but I didn't know where to start in correcting all the drivel.

As I have posted before, the consensus of life cycle studies is that, based on an average lifespan of 12 years (approx.), the "USE" phase of a vehicle's life accounts for 90% of the emissions. If the vehicle were used for longer (e.g. my 1968 SIIA), then the use phase would become even more significant compared to the manufacturing and disposal/recycling phases.

Further to that, at a conference I was at today, leading Australian scientists showed evidence that a switch of 50% of the australian fleet to E10 would result in a healthcare saving of between 50 and 300 million australian dollars. This work was based on a multi million dollar study by CSIRO which measured vehicle emissions from a representative cross section of the australian fleet. Evaluating the Health Impacts of Ethanol Blend Petrol (http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/ethanol-health-impacts.html)

The above shows the affect a minor improvement in vehicle emissions can make. The same authors also showed that between 1986 and now there have been several orders of magnitude improvement in vehicle emissions.

Despite what people, would like to believe, all reliable facts show that emissions during use far outweigh emissions during manufacture. So while I would love to think I was doing the right thing by driving my IIA everywhere, all reputable facts show that is not the case.

p.s. - I will only bother responding to posts which can provide (independant, primary) sources to back up any assertions.

[Crackerjack]

NOT

I would have replied to one of the other threads, but I didn't know where to start in correcting all the drivel.

As I have posted before, the consensus of life cycle studies is that, based on an average lifespan of 12 years (approx.), the "USE" phase of a vehicle's life accounts for 90% of the emissions. If the vehicle were used for longer (e.g. my 1968 SIIA), then the use phase would become even more significant compared to the manufacturing and disposal/recycling phases.

Further to that, at a conference I was at today, leading Australian scientists showed evidence that a switch of 50% of the australian fleet to E10 would result in a healthcare saving of between 50 and 300 million australian dollars. This work was based on a multi million dollar study by CSIRO which measured vehicle emissions from a representative cross section of the australian fleet. Evaluating the Health Impacts of Ethanol Blend Petrol (http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/ethanol-health-impacts.html)

The above shows the affect a minor improvement in vehicle emissions can make. The same authors also showed that between 1986 and now there have been several orders of magnitude improvement in vehicle emissions.

Despite what people, would like to believe, all reliable facts show that emissions during use far outweigh emissions during manufacture. So while I would love to think I was doing the right thing by driving my IIA everywhere, all reputable facts show that is not the case.

p.s. - I will only bother responding to posts which can provide (independant, primary) sources to back up any assertions.

So you spout a load of CSIRO government chat and will not listen to any alternative.
If you listen to propaganda for long enough you will start to believe it.

[BBC]

But....if I only own one car and I don't buy another car (because I have found perfection...a 1967 SWB S2A), how does that compare with the other practise where a person keeps renewing their car every 2-3? years.

Constantly pumping new cars into the world must be more emission costly than people wearing out what they have? Surely?

[3 Sisters]

CSIRO study may be great in theory, but what facts is it based on? Ideals, possibilities, averages? Where they comparing a 1969 F100 or late 80s Falcon to a Suzuki Swift?
I struggle to believe that producing a new car that is slightly better economically(this is arguing in your favor)and recycling the older car(like that really happens efficiently)will use less energy and resources than just driving the older car and maintaining it.
The auto industry is the biggest rort, and use smoke and mirrors to woo people into buying new cars.
Yes in an ideal world, I'm sure cars could be made, and recycled for minimal consumption, but not when laws and profit are not supporting it.

[mudmouse]

But....if I only own one car and I don't buy another car (because I have found perfection...a 1967 SWB S2A), how does that compare with the other practise where a person keeps renewing their car every 2-3? years.

Constantly pumping new cars into the world must be more emission costly than people wearing out what they have? Surely?


I agree. And does it account for the disposal of the vehicle components - tyres, fluids and so on. The study estimated a saving of between 50 and 300 million dollars....that's a pretty big spread.

There's a lot more to it than just the raw data of replacing your vehicle with a 'better' one. The argument outcome would surely be biased toward creating and preserving jobs and industry.

Either way, for most people the decision comes down to whether or not you can afford it and whether you like the option, not an environmental consideration. I like old cars and I don't like (or can't appreciate the value) in buying a new one.

The climate is constantly changing and has done before we were here and will continue to do so long after we're all gone.

Matt.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Hmmm.....

Pretty interesting...

"The benefits reduce with time as newer vehicles enter the fleet. For 2011 it is estimated that the quantified health benefits for Urban Australia are approximately $20 million for a 50% take up of E10, $37 million for a 100% take up of E5, and $42 million for a 100% take up of E10. Despite there being more petrol-driven vehicles and a higher population predicted for 2011, in most cases the quantified health impact differential between ULP and ethanol fuelled vehicles drops from 2006 to 2011. This is because modern petrol vehicles, with lower emissions than their older counterparts, will make up a higher proportion of the fleet in the future. Hence the beneficial effects of reductions in particulate matter become less significant as the fleet as a whole produces lower emissions."

So, what they are saying is that newer cars have better emission controls and it isn't a problem with them. However the older cars don't have as good emissions and these cars are the problems. By the time the ethanol blend is in they will be disappearing from the roads anyway. So this is largely pointless.

Also, I didn't have time to read it all but in a quick search there was no reference to actual fuel consumption. There are many references to pollutants per KG, but no reference to the amount of fuel used, which increases with ethanol as it has less energy per kg. I feel this is a clanger.

Anyway, it's a good bit of research. It looks like it's set up to justify something though. I don't know what.

[JDNSW]

Unfortunately any such calculation involves so many assumptions that it is possible to get virtually whatever answer you want to. As an example, the energy costs of development and tooling, apportioned per vehicle, will vary enormously both on how many vehicles are built to that design, and how much of the design is shared with other vehicles. Any blanket conclusion will clearly not apply to any specific vehicle.

John

[clean32]

ok interesting, i have always assumed that keeping an older vehicle on the road would be beneficial. but just a quick google tell me that 2 ton of co2 per ton of steel produced and there is 3.2 KG of co2 per KG of petrol burnt.

so if petrol = .73 kg per litter then 1 kg is 1.27 lters simple 3.2kg X .72
= 2.3 KG

2 ton of co2 = 6.4 ton of co2 = 8128 ltrs of fuel

so say at and average of 17 ltrs per 100 consumption = 47811KLM

so to my thinking the original poster is about correct.

[abaddonxi]

Chuggle - learn a new word every day.

Interesting to see that emissions didn't seem to be significantly different between highway and congested city driving.

[VladTepes]

I agree. And does it account for the disposal of the vehicle components - tyres, fluids and so on.

and all those bleedin' Prius batteries......


Seems that the study is focusing on the CO2 emissions, but ignores other environmental issues like

disposal of batteries (leeching into groundwater possible leading to adverse health effects
How to get rid of the tyres...
and so on.

Also it's making a case based on numerous ASSUMPTIONS which may or may not relate to the real-world experience as to how often cars are replaced and so on.

Look - the study may be bang on, hwoever the danger is that people forget it's only a PART of the big picture.
By focusing on one aspect of a problem, people attack only that aspect.

In this case that could lead to government bringing in higher taxes on old cars (for example) using this sort of thing as "justification".

Sigh.

[p38arover]

I really don't care. I'll be dead before the world is.

[F4Phantom]

Ethanol is an excellent idea. I put it in my tank this week and noticed I got about 10% BETTER economy. Thats fine with me. Another reason its good is because its achievable now, with exsisting cars.

However in the end none of this is all that important compared to the real issues in emissions which is large outputs in other countries and coal burning.

Transport emissions reductiuons by better economy are largely unimportant when screwing around with 5 and 10% reductiuons with the latest model (its all BS anyway, cars never meet claimed fuel consumption figures). We still burn the same amount of fuel we were burning per vehicle a long time ago. There are changes though and they have been forced by governments (electric cars). Without governments the car companies would not be making any changes at all and we would still be hearing about hydrogen cars in 2030. Now we have an electric mitsubishi turning up hear next year (hopefully) and most companies have a pure electric car in the pipeline, some sooner than others. Lazy companies are going on about diesel and LPG like holden do here.

Zero emission cars get power from coal but its is still a hugely more efficient way of burning. And zero emission cars realy do make a difference, a lot more so than the latest 6.0L commodore with new cats.

[isuzurover]

ok interesting, i have always assumed that keeping an older vehicle on the road would be beneficial. but just a quick google tell me that 2 ton of co2 per ton of steel produced and there is 3.2 KG of co2 per KG of petrol burnt.

so if petrol = .73 kg per litter then 1 kg is 1.27 lters simple 3.2kg X .72
= 2.3 KG

2 ton of co2 = 6.4 ton of co2 = 8128 ltrs of fuel

so say at and average of 17 ltrs per 100 consumption = 47811KLM

so to my thinking the original poster is about correct.


Like your work!

Note that the above is just on a carbon basis. Older vehicles are much worse than newer in terms of:
Particulate emissions
VOCs - both evaporative and "tailpipe" - including many carcinogenic species
fuel economy (e.g. my 2.25D IIA is lighter than a new defender, has a much lower top speed and acceleration rate, yet uses more fuel). The change from IDI to DI diesels produced a hugh reduction in fuel consumption, and similar gains have been made in petrol vehicles.

While I agree with JD that many of the health figures and financial calcs are somewhat rubbery, there is a very strong (dare I say irrefutable) body of evidence on the effect of air pollution on health. On that basis alone it seems that old cars are worse, let alone when you consider the carbon side of things.

So in case anyone missed it above - the main basis of the above is EMISSIONS/AIR POLLUTION, not CO2. The bottom line is that even if your (old) car is perfectly tuned, the fact that the ADRs were less stringent back then results in a HUGE difference in emissions. The difference between 1986 and 2006 vehicles is scary...

I am sure there may be some agenda behind the CSIRO work, however it was an extensive study, and whatever else you want to say about CSIRO, they do good science.

[87County]

But....

............Constantly pumping new cars into the world must be more emission costly than people wearing out what they have? Surely?

Havn't people been listening to the economic managers and political leaders who got us into the GFC....?

We need to produce ! !, .... more cars must be sold and cyclists will be safer when we get these old bangers off our roads...

Some countries (eg Germany) even subsidise you into a new car (or subsidise the car manufacturers, depending on which way you look at it) to get your 5+ yr old "old banger" off the raod !

[THE BOOGER]

No such thing as a zero emission car the emissions are just moved to a different part of the life of the car, for an electric car its probuction and disposal. Has anybody noticed the change from "global warming" to "climate change" they are two very different things one can be show to be occuring the other cant;)

[VladTepes]

You should all know that Ben..

1. Knows a thing or two about pollution;
2. Knows a thing or two about germany
3. Owns a cocker spaniel that goes by the name of "Mr Ed".






(Well I might have made number 3 up).

Anyway I'm still unconvinced but I do like Ron's pragmatic way of looking at the situation !

[Dave_S]

Not really on point, but for me the idea of a "daily driver" in an urban environment is fast becoming unsustainable. I only have an Isuzu County and there's no way I'm driving it for a peak hour commute. It is great for camping, 4WDing, carrying mountain bikes and other bulky/heavy stuff. I'm never going to pretend it would stack up as an environmentally friendly vehicle against something more modern, but I own it and I like it. Because I don't use it much, I don't plan to feel guilty about it. Besides, I don't have the cash for a new substitute.

I would like to telecommute for work, but my boss thinks this is on a par with marrying your sister. So I ride a bicycle to work (and all you losers who hate cyclists can come over and suck on my Isuzu's exhaust) and sometimes take the train. I only buy fuel once every 6 to 8 weeks, so I can live with the shame.

At the end of the day, detailed emissions data and environmental modelling is a perfectly valid input for government and large scale corporate policy, but is of little relevance to my personal circumstances.

[DeanoH]

I really don't care. I'll be dead before the world is.

X2

The kids keep harping about global warming. I give them the same answer as Rons and tell them to be thankful to the previous generation for giving them challenges to overcome as this will make them better people and advance civilisation in general.

As for ethanol in fuel, in Qld there's signs on the fuel pumps extolling the virtues of ethanol in fuel and in Victoria there's signs on the fuel pumps assuring you there's no ethanol in the fuel. Let the Qld'ers be the guinea pigs, I'll wait and see.


Deano

[Barefoot Dave]

G'Day all : ))

I was admittedly crap at chemistry but:
How can you get 3.7kG of CO2 from 1.27 kG of petrol?
I know that the carbons from the Benzene combine with the oxygen in the air, but that seems pretty high.
Thanks in advance.
Dave.

[JDNSW]

G'Day all : ))

I was admittedly crap at chemistry but:
How can you get 3.7kG of CO2 from 1.27 kG of petrol?
I know that the carbons from the Benzene combine with the oxygen in the air, but that seems pretty high.
Thanks in advance.
Dave.

It is high, but not all that high.

each carbon represents 14/46 or 30% of the weight of a molecule of CO2, or putting it another way, the mass of CO2 produced is 328% of the mass of carbon input. If we assume that petrol is octane, then 86% of the mass of the petrol is carbon, so 1.27kg of petrol contains 1.09kg of carbon. Fully burnt, this gives 3.58kg of CO2. But I'm not sure you haven't got other figures confused.

John

[one_iota]

:rolleyes:

Must be time for a tea break:

High-speed racing car is load of old rubbish | COSMOS magazine (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2989/high-speed-racing-car-load-old-rubbish?page=0%2C0)

[clean32]

G'Day all : ))

I was admittedly crap at chemistry but:
How can you get 3.7kG of CO2 from 1.27 kG of petrol?
I know that the carbons from the Benzene combine with the oxygen in the air, but that seems pretty high.
Thanks in advance.
Dave.

carbon atomic weight is 12.0107. oxygen atomic weight is 15.9994

so CO2 = 12.0107+15.9994+15.9994= 44.0095 thats 3.66 times heavier than just the carbon
if we look at petrol ( octane) C8H18
so thats 18 X 1.00794 hydrogen plus 8 X 12.0107 Carbon etc

but then petrol has other stuff in it as well sulphur, lead etc etc but it is a small percentage

[Blknight.aus]

call me pedantic....

but my old rover is running on a fair whack of waste cooking oil , burns the same amount of fuel as the wifes deefer (but the deefer gets there quicker) has almost no plastics in it. It also doesnt need exotic coolants or exotic oils or expensive high production cost tyres. It uses basic metalurgy and is in essence made almost entirely out of parts that were left over from other projects.

compared to a new car which has all the exotic plastics, metals and needs higher performance parts which cost more to manufacture and if used to potential wear out quicker (like say tyres).

heres the kicker because mines a diesel (and this applies to all cars anyway) its really quite easy to reverse engineer emession control systems onto them, in my case simply fitting a 3 way cat and a particulate filter will bring my emissions up to the standard requried to day (or should that be down). But I dont do it because there is no requirement to and its not likely to ever be made a requirement for the simple reason that if it was ever mandated then people would spend the piffling required to put these systems onto their old vehicles and not buy new vehicles. This means less revenue and no-ones going to legislate that.

[dickyjoe]

Know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado,
hot-****in'-pink, with whaleskin hubcaps and all-leather cow interior and big
brown baby seal eyes for headlights... yeah! And I'm gonna drive around in
that baby doing 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon, suckin' down
quarter pound cheeseburgers from McDonald's in the old-fashioned non-
biodegradable styrofoam containers... yeah! And when I'm done suckin' down
those greaseball burgers I'm gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the
side, and there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

[DeanoH]

carbon atomic weight is 12.0107. oxygen atomic weight is 15.9994

so CO2 = 12.0107+15.9994+15.9994= 44.0095 thats 3.66 times heavier than just the carbon
if we look at petrol ( octane) C8H18
so thats 18 X 1.00794 hydrogen plus 8 X 12.0107 Carbon etc

but then petrol has other stuff in it as well sulphur, lead etc etc but it is a small percentage

I once asked no 2 son the rhetorical question, "Why is the sky blue". With the benefit of several years of expensive private education he proceded to give me an answer. I clipped him over the ears.

I'm with one_ioita


:rolleyes:

Must be time for a tea break:

High-speed racing car is load of old rubbish | COSMOS magazine (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2989/high-speed-racing-car-load-old-rubbish?page=0%2C0)

Wouldn't park it near the goats though.

Deano

[abaddonxi]

Know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado,
hot-****in'-pink, with whaleskin hubcaps and all-leather cow interior and big
brown baby seal eyes for headlights... yeah! And I'm gonna drive around in
that baby doing 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon, suckin' down
quarter pound cheeseburgers from McDonald's in the old-fashioned non-
biodegradable styrofoam containers... yeah! And when I'm done suckin' down
those greaseball burgers I'm gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the
side, and there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

Dennis Leary?

[jerryd]

I'm sure I read somewhere that a one way flight on a 747 going from London to America, created the equivalent pollution as 40,000 cars travelling from Lands End to John O Groats and back :eek

But they don't seem to pick on airlines do they.......

[clean32]

I once asked no 2 son the rhetorical question, "Why is the sky blue". With the benefit of several years of expensive private education he proceded to give me an answer. I clipped him over the ears.

Deano

LOL point. but then i didn't know before, i just googled the periodic table etc, i couldn't believe that the use of a vehicle would produce bore CO2 than the manufacture. seems that i am wrong.

education isint all its cracked up to be, i have NZCE and a BE and a BA.
i am currently working 6 hours a week as a cleaner.
i am told that i have to much experience therefore i will not stay in the job, or i have the experience but not a stable work history ( thats what happens when you get sent 1/2 around the world) 62 CVs sent, 5 interviews 3 secondary interviews no job. still have to feed the family some how

[awabbit6]

An interesting topic and as many have said, the study is only a small part of a bigger picture.


...
As I have posted before, the consensus of life cycle studies is that, based on an average lifespan of 12 years (approx.), the "USE" phase of a vehicle's life accounts for 90% of the emissions. If the vehicle were used for longer (e.g. my 1968 SIIA), then the use phase would become even more significant compared to the manufacturing and disposal/recycling phases.


Do you have a link to the source of these statistics? The reason I ask is to qualify the meaning of emissions in the above statement as I would expect the emissions during production to be different to those during use.

To add to the bigger picture, I think a significant consequence of suggesting that we should all be driving newer cars is the additional stress placed on families and individuals by the financial commitment that has to be made to buy and insure a newer car. Often the decision to drive an older car is a financial one.
The many ways that financial stress affects people sometimes seems to be overlooked when "initiatives" are introduced. Below are a list of some consequences from government studies (http://www.aifs.gov.au/afrc/bibs/financialstress.html)
Substance abuse Family breakdown Gambling Domestic violence Poor parenting behaviors


I'm sure that the impact that the above may have on society and the health system would certainly affect the savings made in through the health system by driving newer cars with lower emissions.

I'm not suggesting that having to buy a new car will be the sole cause of the above, but it will contribute to financial stress just as exhaust emissions contribute to health problems.

Just some thoughts ...

[dullbird]

Like your work!

Note that the above is just on a carbon basis. Older vehicles are much worse than newer in terms of:
Particulate emissions
VOCs - both evaporative and "tailpipe" - including many carcinogenic species
fuel economy (e.g. my 2.25D IIA is lighter than a new defender, has a much lower top speed and acceleration rate, yet uses more fuel). The change from IDI to DI diesels produced a hugh reduction in fuel consumption, and similar gains have been made in petrol vehicles.

While I agree with JD that many of the health figures and financial calcs are somewhat rubbery, there is a very strong (dare I say irrefutable) body of evidence on the effect of air pollution on health. On that basis alone it seems that old cars are worse, let alone when you consider the carbon side of things.


So in case anyone missed it above - the main basis of the above is EMISSIONS/AIR POLLUTION, not CO2. The bottom line is that even if your (old) car is perfectly tuned, the fact that the ADRs were less stringent back then results in a HUGE difference in emissions. The difference between 1986 and 2006 vehicles is scary...

I am sure there may be some agenda behind the CSIRO work, however it was an extensive study, and whatever else you want to say about CSIRO, they do good science.

yet in your title you say old cars are good for the enviroment and then state not:confused:

so are you talking about specifics in here like emissions/air pollution or are you talking about the environment?

I hear what your saying....but in terms of the environment I think your talking drivel as your not looking at the bigger picture..as others have pointed out in terms of how often new cars ( I reckon 2-3yrs is about right I know people that do this so I would imagine many others do) are brought and the materials that go into them.....and the materials that are wasted because of them.

If cars where so much more friendly to make these days why are they planting bloody trees to make themselves feel good in return by offsetting there carbon foot print:p:D

Disclaimer: I have in no way any government evidence to back up my claims, I also can't think of any letters to put together to make it look like I go to meetings and read scientific findings so please I only ask you take this as a fair and honest opinion from myself and what I watch on the ACA :lol2:

[isuzurover]

An interesting topic and as many have said, the study is only a small part of a bigger picture.



Do you have a link to the source of these statistics? The reason I ask is to qualify the meaning of emissions in the above statement as I would expect the emissions during production to be different to those during use.

To add to the bigger picture, I think a significant consequence of suggesting that we should all be driving newer cars is the additional stress placed on families and individuals by the financial commitment that has to be made to buy and insure a newer car. Often the decision to drive an older car is a financial one.
The many ways that financial stress affects people sometimes seems to be overlooked when "initiatives" are introduced. Below are a list of some consequences from government studies (http://www.aifs.gov.au/afrc/bibs/financialstress.html)
Substance abuse Family breakdown Gambling Domestic violence Poor parenting behaviors


I'm sure that the impact that the above may have on society and the health system would certainly affect the savings made in through the health system by driving newer cars with lower emissions.

I'm not suggesting that having to buy a new car will be the sole cause of the above, but it will contribute to financial stress just as exhaust emissions contribute to health problems.

Just some thoughts ...

Sources here: http://www.aulro.com/afvb/1054139-post13.html

Very insightful post.

Please note that I never proposed to be presenting a complete sociological/tbl analysis. NOR am I proposing that everyone should go out and buy a new car (I for one certainly am not about to).

There seems to be a general consensus on here that an old landie is the best vehicle you can drive environmentally... However the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence says the opposite - either on a life cycle/carbon basis or a pollution/emissions (non CO2) basis, new cars are clearly in front by a long margin...

EDIT - hopefully this will help, but this shows the HUGE improvement in emissions over time:
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/air/vehicles/contentpix/passenger_vehicle.GIF
NOTE that emission s have continued to increase for newer vehicles.

Also, emissions during manufacture have increased at a similar rate, here are some figures from Toyota:
http://www.toyota.com/about/enviroreport2008/images/05_air/04_Figure_O_sm.jpg

So, while an old car may only use ~10% more fuel to travel the same distance as a newer car, it may produce orders of magnitude more PM, VOCs, NOx, carcinogens, etc...

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I'm sure I read somewhere that a one way flight on a 747 going from London to America, created the equivalent pollution as 40,000 cars travelling from Lands End to John O Groats and back :eek

But they don't seem to pick on airlines do they.......

Interesting. I'm not sure about that but a key point is that like cars, jet and aeroplane technology has improved too. Modern designs are far more fuel efficient than the old airframes and low-bypass engines.

I read somewhere that a fully laden 747 uses about 3.6 l/100 per passenger. Thats pretty darn good. They are an efficient way of transporting people.

The problem is that they make travel so quick and easy that we can now travel far more than we ever would before...

I flew to Sydney last week for a concert... I wouldn't have bothered if I had to drive for 24 hours!

[JDNSW]

I would also point out that the average annual mileage travelled by new cars is very much higher than that covered by older cars, and the mileage per year decreases the older the vehicle is.

The factor that makes the most difference to emissions of all types is the amount the vehicle is driven, not the vehicle characteristics. This applies whether you are talking about air pollution or CO2 emissions. A good example would be to compare the carbon or air pollution footprint of the driver of a new hybrid car who commutes daily 150km round trip into Sydney with the inner city resident who is vilified for owning an old four wheel drive in the inner city - but commutes a few kilometres by rail and drives a few kilometres on weekends and maybe a few thousand on an annual holiday.

Replacing old cars which travel low mileages with new cars that travel low mileages is not going to help - especially if it encourages the owner to do more driving.

John

[2stroke]

I've often wondered when the calculations are made regarding emissions involved in the production of new "efficient" vehicles do they take into account the mining of raw metals, transport of miners to work, the enormous environmental cost of washing/refining the metals and coal, transport to the dock, shipping to countries across entire seas, electricity involved in the actual manufacture, plastics, paint. Then it's shipped back to Australia, where the consumer works (polluting in the course of working) for a year or more to pay for it? All of my cars would have been landfill by now if I hadn't recycled and reregistered them, I'd rather convert them to electric than buy a new car but that's just me (some call me a caveman... yabba dabba do !)

[Scouse]

NOT

I would have replied to one of the other threads, but I didn't know where to start in correcting all the drivel.

Well done Ben.

It took you 2 weeks to come up with your internet research.

4 pages of replies in one day - I can tell what it'll be full of without even reading it.


Sorry to waste your 2 weeks of hard work but I couldn't be bothered reading your version of "drivel".

Actually, in appreciation of your obvious dedication to this cause, I've given you a 'thanks'.
Enjoy :)

[isuzurover]

I would also point out that the average annual mileage travelled by new cars is very much higher than that covered by older cars, and the mileage per year decreases the older the vehicle is. \

Very good point if true - any source/verification for this???


Scouse - I pity your closed mindedness. You must have a terrible time cleaning out the sand from your ears.

No "internet" research. I attended a leading international conference and heard the details first hand from the people who did the research.

[Scouse]

Ahh, an international conference.
Well, there you go. I'll give you another thanks for that.

Gee, 2 in one day. Lucky you :).

[DeanoH]

LOL point. but then i didn't know before, i just googled the periodic table etc, i couldn't believe that the use of a vehicle would produce bore CO2 than the manufacture. seems that i am wrong.

education isint all its cracked up to be, i have NZCE and a BE and a BA.
i am currently working 6 hours a week as a cleaner.
i am told that i have to much experience therefore i will not stay in the job, or i have the experience but not a stable work history ( thats what happens when you get sent 1/2 around the world) 62 CVs sent, 5 interviews 3 secondary interviews no job. still have to feed the family some how

????????????????.........................

Obviously I havn't explained myself properly here.

The reason I clipped the young bloke was a/. it was a rhetorical question and b/. he knew quite well I wouldn't understand the answer. Actually I was quite proud of him for knowing the answer,
The analogy I was trying to make here was that your answer was about as mystifying to me as my sons explanation of why the sky was blue.

I was not criticising your intelligence or scholastic achievements and apologise to you unreservedly if that's the impression I gave. The issue here is my ignorance in not understanding your answer, not your ability to formulate an answer.

As for..........."education isn't all its cracked up to be". Yes it is.

Again, my apologys.

Deano

[JDNSW]

Very good point if true - any source/verification for this???
...........

Afraid not - I remember it from a news article about the effects of new vehicles on air pollution several years ago, and it does make sense, for several reasons - if you are doing a lot of driving, you tend to look for a new car, and if a car is driven long distances each year, it gets to be uneconomical to repair before it gets very old, and is either scrapped or sold to someone who does not drive very long distances, thus enabling it to be still around when it gets old.

The same article did also point out that a large proportion of air pollution (this would not apply to CO2 emissions, but the article was before this was much talked about) is from a very small proportion of cars which emit very high levels of pollutants. While many of these will be relatively old, it is not a matter of age, but of poor maintenance - the levels we are talking about are off the scale on your graphs.

John

[mark2]

Very good point if true - any source/verification for this???


Scouse - I pity your closed mindedness. You must have a terrible time cleaning out the sand from your ears.

No "internet" research. I attended a leading international conference and heard the details first hand from the people who did the research.
There are plenty of examples of respected scientists who come up with research conclusions which dont agree. The debate regarding the causes of global warming is a case in point. All too often, it ceases to become a debate and more of a 'religion'.

At the end of the day, everyone has an agenda, if you look hard enough.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Are we sure that VOC's are causing these health problems, or is it potentially other lifestyle factors that are associated with life in densely populated areas?

[clean32]

????????????????.........................

Obviously I havn't explained myself properly here.

The reason I clipped the young bloke was a/. it was a rhetorical question and b/. he knew quite well I wouldn't understand the answer. Actually I was quite proud of him for knowing the answer,
The analogy I was trying to make here was that your answer was about as mystifying to me as my sons explanation of why the sky was blue.

I was not criticising your intelligence or scholastic achievements and apologise to you unreservedly if that's the impression I gave. The issue here is my ignorance in not understanding your answer, not your ability to formulate an answer.

As for..........."education isn't all its cracked up to be". Yes it is.

Again, my apologys.

Deano

no problems i must have read your post incorrectly

cheers

[isuzurover]

Are we sure that VOC's are causing these health problems, or is it potentially other lifestyle factors that are associated with life in densely populated areas?

Very good point!

I am not a health/epidemiology researcher, however...

While you are right that it is often very difficult to isolate one cause in such chronic health problem type studies, large teams of researchers have the methods fairly down pat these days.

There is often lab-scale data to draw on (a lot of mice, rabbits, etc have died so we can get a better idea of acute and chronic toxicity of specific pollutants). There are also a lot of studies which have looked at real world data for many years.

During events of poor air quality events in cities, there are measurable increases in heart attacks, hospitalisations due to breathing problems, etc, etc...

In much the same way it was found that smoking and asbestos were harmful so are the health researchers finding similar correlations to other air pollutants.

[JDNSW]

Very good point!

I am not a health/epidemiology researcher, however...

While you are right that it is often very difficult to isolate one cause in such chronic health problem type studies, large teams of researchers have the methods fairly down pat these days.

There is often lab-scale data to draw on (a lot of mice, rabbits, etc have died so we can get a better idea of acute and chronic toxicity of specific pollutants). There are also a lot of studies which have looked at real world data for many years.

During events of poor air quality events in cities, there are measurable increases in heart attacks, hospitalisations due to breathing problems, etc, etc...

In much the same way it was found that smoking and asbestos were harmful so are the health researchers finding similar correlations to other air pollutants.

And another way of looking at it is that the problem is not the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere, but the concentration of very large numbers of people into very small areas - which is largely a symptom of the simple fact behind global warming and most other large scale problems; too many people.

John

[camel_landy]

Ben,

I've bee trying to do some research into this area recently... Do you have any external links to studies which you can post up or PM over?

Cheers,

M

[isuzurover]

Ben,

I've bee trying to do some research into this area recently... Do you have any external links to studies which you can post up or PM over?

Cheers,

M

Which particular info are you looking for?

The link on the first page should take you to information on an extensive CSIRO (Australian Government Research Body) / Orbital (vehicle emissions testing/R&D group) into emissions from vehicles running unleaded and E10. They tested a spectrum of the entire fleet of passenger vehicles on Australian roads, corresponding to each ADR (Australian design rule) change between 1986 and 2008. They then used health/epidemiology data to model the effects of various scenarios. They have made all of their data publically available, so you can access it and do what you wish with it.

Some other papers which may be of interest...


Effects of vehicle type and fuel quality on the exposure risk of toxic emissions from diesel vehicles

Peter F. Nelson

Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. Email: pnelson@gse.mq.edu.au

Environmental Context. Motor vehicle emissions of toxic chemicals are a major contributor to urban air pollution, and to potential human health problems. Diesel vehicles have historically been major sources of smoke and fine particles that contain a wide range of toxic species. In this study the effects of vehicle type and fuel quality on the cancer forming risk of toxic compounds in diesel exhaust are determined. It is found that the major risk is due to toxic compounds such as benzene formed during fuel combustion in the vehicle engine.

Abstract. Diesel vehicles are an important source of emission of air pollutants, particularly toxic compounds with potential health impacts. Current developments in engine design and fuel quality are expected to reduce these emissions, but many older vehicles will make a major contribution to urban pollutant concentrations and related health impacts for many years. In this study the relative inhalation risk of emissions of a range of toxic compounds are reported using data from a study of in-service vehicles driven through urban drive cycles using a range of diesel fuel formulations. The fuels ranged in sulfur content from 24 to 1700 ppm, and in total aromatics from 7.7 to 33 mass%. Effects of vehicle type and fuel composition on the risk of emissions of a range of toxic species are reported. The results show that the inhalation cancer risk is dominated for most of the vehicles and the testing modes by emissions of the combustion derived products, particularly benzene, naphthalene, and formaldehyde, and not by the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo(a)pyrene. Based on the relative risk represented by these toxic species, improved fuel quality does not result in significant reductions in the relative inhalation cancer risk. However, this conclusion may be affected by additional toxic species and fine particles present in diesel exhaust, which were not included in this study.
Keywords: aldehydes, diesels, fuel quality, motor vehicle emissions, PAHs, toxic air pollutants.
CSIRO PUBLISHING - Environmental Chemistry (http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=EN08074)

This is interesting - buying a NEW car may be bad for your health for the first 6 months:
CSIRO - New car drivers exposed to toxic emissions (http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2001/newcars.htm)




And another way of looking at it is that the problem is not the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere, but the concentration of very large numbers of people into very small areas - which is largely a symptom of the simple fact behind global warming and most other large scale problems; too many people.

John

JD - I am sure you get a lot of enjoyment out of being perverse.
Of course if the population and level of industrialisation/poulation concentration were lower then we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we do now.

What do you propose??? Mass genocide and forced relocation to rural areas???

[JDNSW]

JD - I am sure you get a lot of enjoyment out of being perverse.
Of course if the population and level of industrialisation/poulation concentration were lower then we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we do now.

What do you propose??? Mass genocide and forced relocation to rural areas???

For a start, make some attempt at reducing population growth instead of encouraging it, and in particular population growth of major urban areas - for example, major urban areas have heavily subsidised public transport and road infrastructure, where no comparable subsidy is available elsewhere. Other suggestions would include encouragement of telecommuting.

The culture of growth at all costs is proving to have quite a few unforeseen costs.

John