Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Passenger Vehicle Fleet Dirtier After 2008 Recession
MTorrice writes The 2008 recession hammered the U.S. auto industry, driving down sales of 2009 models to levels 35% lower than those before the economic slump. A new study has found that because sales of new vehicles slowed, the average age of the U.S. fleet climbed more than expected, increasing the rate of air pollutants released by the fleet.
In 2013, the researchers studied the emissions of more than 68,000 vehicles on the roads in three cities—Los Angeles, Denver, and Tulsa. They calculated the amount of pollution released per kilogram of fuel burned for the 2013 fleet and compared the rates to those that would have occurred if the 2013 fleet had the same age distribution as the prerecession fleet. For the three cities, carbon monoxide emissions were greater by 17 to 29%, hydrocarbons by 9 to 14%, nitrogen oxide emissions by 27 to 30%, and ammonia by 7 to 16%.
In 2013, the researchers studied the emissions of more than 68,000 vehicles on the roads in three cities—Los Angeles, Denver, and Tulsa. They calculated the amount of pollution released per kilogram of fuel burned for the 2013 fleet and compared the rates to those that would have occurred if the 2013 fleet had the same age distribution as the prerecession fleet. For the three cities, carbon monoxide emissions were greater by 17 to 29%, hydrocarbons by 9 to 14%, nitrogen oxide emissions by 27 to 30%, and ammonia by 7 to 16%.
Vehicles are emission-tested based on specifications determined for their model-year of manufacture. In emissions-testing areas, those vehicles still have to meet those requirements for at least 25 years post-manufacture, sometimes they must meet them, PERIOD. We emissions-test everything 1967+ that was not exempt at manufacture.
Even if they're dirtier than they were when brand-new, they're still within-spec.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The question is if replacing the fleet would have triggered production based pollution that offset any gains. Making new cars isn't a pollution free activity after all. The net result may have been a reduction in worldwide pollution instead.
From the actual abstract:
The article shows that the actual 2013 fleet is dirtier than the hypothetical 2013 fleet where the age distribution matches the 2007 fleet age distribution.
It does not show that the actual 2013 fleet is dirtier than the actual 2007 fleet. It's a question not addressed by this study, but I would be surprised if actual 2013 was dirtier than actual 2007.
Now what would have been the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting all those cars, and disposing of the ones they replaced?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Just wash them!
Next!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
But from a raw amount, the price of gas dropped since fewer people were driving to work, and fewer goods were being shipped, so I'd have to guess that the total number of miles driven during that time dropped as well. The per-mile amount of pollutants that went out may have been higher, but the total amount that went out may have been far less than a few years before.
The cost of replacing a vehicle today.
When manufacturers are offering 72 and 84 month financing on a car it might indicate the prices are a tad out of line with the income of the buying public. My 13 year old pickup still runs well and is in pretty good shape rust wise (one spot on the drivers door). The kicker is, it's paid for. A repair now and then is nothing compared to the $30k+ cost of replacing it.
Given that economic slumps are becoming more severe, the recession of middle class and car prices out pacing inflation....the auto industry is definitely in a long, downward spiral.
Did you know in the current spending bill up for vote TODAY, House speaker Boehner has a provision in the bill that PERMITS BANKS to ONCE AGAIN carry on the SAME RISKY investments and be insured by the US Taxpayer? It is true. This provision overturns a 2008 law that requires BANKS to not include risky investments with other, insured (by US) investments. Your government - working for Wall Street. Aren't you proud!
They also forgot to mention that these buses are also 30% larger and thus the output is reduced ((( sigh )))
Buses get bigger, less buses have to travel, you reduce overall CO2.
My wife and I were both laid off within a week of each other during the tech bubble bursting in 2001. That was a real wake-up call to do things differently with respect to money and spending. She was lucky and got another job two weeks after being laid off, it took me seven months. During that time, we really cut back on a lot of stuff and really started watching the money coming in and out. When the economy was on the mend and our positions seemed pretty secure, we replaced our old cars when new ones -- mine in 2002 and hers in 2007. I'm still driving the 2002 (it just clicked over 200K miles) and hers is still ticking along fine at 120K. Both vehicles have a few cosmetic problems (scrapes, dents, etc -- general aging, nothing horrible), but are still reliable and have been fully paid off for years. We have cash in the bank to procure replacements when they need to be replaced. As long as they are reliable and safe, there's no real compelling reason to get new ones. Even when we have to sink some money into a repair (maintenance doesn't really count -- you'd have to do that on a newer vehicle, too), the money spent on repair is generally far less than the X number of months since we had to repair something if we had a car payment. I'm also reasonably handy so I can do a lot of the work myself, which keeps the cost down -- when the windshield washer motor went out recently, I was able to replace it for under $20, no paying a mechanic $80/hr plus $20 for the part. I do turn big jobs over to the mechanic (like the timing belt), but routine stuff I can do.
When the car starts having serious trouble (e.g. electrical faults, won't start reliably, etc), a major component goes (e.g. engine/transmission) or if it becomes unsafe to drive (corrosion -- we live in the rust belt, although rust isn't nearly as bad as it used to be), we'll get a replacement. But until then I'm fine putting money away and letting it work for me and driving the thing as far as I can without having to spend the money on a replacement.
So we soldier on with our 13 year old car and 8 year old car, that would have been rust bucket jalopies when I was a kid, but due to better technology they are still quite viable as reliable transportation.
Wasn't Cash for Clunkers supposed to change this? I know I've read that the supply of cheaper used cars went down last time I was looking for a car because so many cars were junked instead of being traded in....
This is why we should keep the gas tax even after implementing a mileage fee. In fact, the cost of dirty air is up to $1,600 per person annually in medical costs and lost work days. Shouldn't the polluters pay those costs?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
And in my state at least, it's only the newest cars that are held to any emission standards at all. Older cars can be as ghettotastic as they want
I wonder if they could do a similar study for housing. Older houses probably use more energy for climate control and they would need more things replaced. Though there was probably an increase in cohabitation (couples, people moving in with parents, getting roommates to save on rent) which might offset anything else.
The idiots enviromental activists don't seem to grasp that caring about the environment is directly proportional to wealth. Look at poor countries and tell me how many of them give a dam about the environment? Exactly.
So going on a crusade against the evil capitalist corporations that actually keep us from being that dirt poor... accomplishes what? Ironically it makes us all pollute more because we stop caring about the environment as we start having issues feeding ourselves.
Rule ONE of EFFECTIVE environmental activsism:
DO NOT make the host society poorer in the process. Violations of this rule will result in instant proportional decreases in everyone caring about the environment. Anyone that doesn't already grasp this clearly doesn't pay any of their own bills. Which makes everything clear since most environmental activists tend to be teenagers or trust fund kids.
This is not to say that I don't care about the environment or don't think we should do something to protect it. HOWEVER, if you fuck up the economy in the process get ready for everyone to start giving you just as much attention on the issues as the Chinese government. That is, at best you'll be humored/patronized while the people actually making real choices will quietly and systematically ignore everything you've said.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Exactly.
Manufacturing a car produces a significant amount of pollution. If the recession means that fewer cars were sold, and instead the existing cars were used longer, this would reduce pollution.
Unless this effect is accounted for, the headline here is meaningless.
from www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/E_Overview2.htm:
"Historian Mark Foster has estimated that “fully one-third of the total environmental damage caused by automobiles occurred before they were sold and driven.” He cited a study that estimated that fabricating one car produced 29 tons of waste and 1,207 million cubic yards of polluted air. Extracting iron ore, bauxite, petroleum, copper, lead, and a variety of other raw materials to process steel, aluminum, plastics, glass, rubber, and other products necessary to construct automobiles consumes limited resources, uses great amounts of energy, and has serious environmental repercussions."
see also:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If you really want cleaner air, the best thing to do would be to get as many old cars off the road as possible, so that people will be driving new cars. The new cars are so much cleaner than the old cars, it's amazing.
With the above in mind, I don't think the government should tighten up emissions standards even more. All the easy gains are gone, and now it takes engineering and expense to make cars pollute even less, which means that cars will be more expensive. If the government forces all the cars to be cleaner, all the cars get more expensive so it's fair as far as car makers go; but making new cars more expensive means people are more likely to keep driving dirty old cars.
There is a good discussion here: http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/19/understanding-the-presidents-cafe-announcement/
Thus, while it may seem counter-intuitive, I believe the best way to get the air cleaner is to leave the standards right where they are and try to get the cost of a new car to drift downward.
The new cars are much safer than the really old cars also, so getting more people into new cars will also save more lives than making the crash standards tougher.
I think that within 20 to 30 years, the majority of vehicles will be electric anyway, and emissions will be very much reduced. (The reason I think that: improved solar technology and new storage technologies will bring down the cost of electricity; and battery costs will come down, especially due to the Tesla "giga-factory". I know I'd be happy with an electric vehicle, and rent a gas vehicle for my occasional long road trip.)
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
These are good for the good to the oil billionaires because recession means that people drive cars the use more gas and can't just jump for a higher paying job elsewhere.
If you're part of the .1% its a great time!
While I agree with the sentiment about newer vehicles, etc, the last thing I need or want is another loan.
IMHO this is 99% of this discussion...
For the millions out there who drive vehicles 10+ years old(such as myself), one of the main reason we keep them instead of getting something newer is the obvious fact that THEY ARE PAID OFF.
Rocket Science, eh?
Unfortunately for the environment, I will stick with my old truck that gets 10mpg for the aforementioned reason.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Sorry but that's just how it is going to be. Buying a newer car doesn't make any sense. They are far too expensive and they lose their value far too quickly. Even with occasional repairs for an older car and gas being expensive a new car is still just a money sucking black hole.
If you are worried about the price of gas just buy a smaller old car. If you are worried about the environment you probably shouldn't be thinking about a new car anyway.
The materials and parts are mined and built in separate places all over the planet. Your car probably has probably traveled more miles right off the factory line than it will in the first 10 years it is driven. Pollution was generated all along it's path. So.. if you are worried about the environment keep driving the jalopy and give some of the savings to an environmentally friendly charity.
Cash for clunkers was nothing but a thinly veiled donation to the auto industry.
I just bought the gas guzzling SUV everyone complains about because it was thousands cheaper than a more economical one and the price difference will buy my gas for many years. Since I bought one already 9 years old I don't plan on keeping it past that. Burning twice the amount of gas I could be using because it is personally cheaper to do so.
I have a good use case for electric but at 3 times the price the economics are nowhere close to practical. I might do 100 miles a day a few times a year and have access to a company truck. But I drive so few miles it never makes sense.
Bigger cars mean more fuel is spent. Given the low fuel prices in US (I'm from Europe), if there was no 2008, you guys would continue to buy big trucks. The study takes into account only the polutants per kg of fuel, but it does not take into account the amount of fuel which would be spent by cars in a hypothetical 2013, or the average MPG rate of those cars.
And, regarding the other comments. Come on. Buying a car on a loan? I know two people from Europe who had to get a loan to buy a car. And almost all commenters here say they had to get a loan for a car. You should be all retired after 10-15 years of working, and not whining about car loans.
Probably because washing your car every week is a luxury.
Unless you actually are advocating for policies to help poor people
Yes I am. This is one of a thousand stupid ideas that slice at the little bit of money poor people have.
And thus there are a thousand good ideas that could remove those slices. My experience is that anonymous cowards who shout "it will hurt the poor!" about any possible tax actually don't give a damn about the poor, they are knee-jerk anti-taxers. But you can prove me wrong: simply respond to this post stating "I believe we should put the federal inheritance tax back in place, and also that we should increase the tax rate on the top earners." That would do it.
Have you ever been poor? I have. Many in my family have. It sucks.
Last time I was poor-- which admittedly was a very long time ago, in a previous millennium-- I didn't have a car, so gas price was almost irrelevant to me. Not completely irrelevant-- my technique for transportation at the time, if it was somewhere that was too far to walk (I was within walking range of a grocery story), was to find a friend with a car and say "hey, can you give me a ride to XX?" Most of my friends didn't have cars either, but some did. I suppose if the ride needed had been more than a few miles, the answer would have been "if you buy gas."
How much you drive is something that you have some amount of control over.
At a minimum, the fees and taxes for operating a car should pay for all externalities of operating a car, including highway maintenance (at the moment they don't), all effects of pollution, and for that matter all costs relating to automobile accidents. If they don't, then car owners are getting a subsidy at the expense of taxpayers.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Unexpectedly.
Who voted for Obama and the asshats anyway? ask /.
So, prosperity is good for the climate.
But due to the recession, people drove less and fewer goods were delivered via truck. What was the effect of that?
in LA, where you already have a significant population of individuals who think things like "identification" or "citizenship" rules are completely optional, no one should be surprised when those individuals also find things like "maintenance", "insurance" and "smog testing" also completely optional and nothing more than impediments forced upon them by "racist gringos trying to hold down the poor Latino".
If you've ever had a renewal sticker or license plate stolen, and seen the bridge toll/impound records of the vehicle carrying your former tags, or know someone who has, you know of what I speak.
the rest will either imagine it, or deny such a thing exists while going out of their way to make sure their license renewal (which most places in CA is only issued if bi-annual smog testing is passed) tag is scored in such a way that it cannot be peeled off....
Adding more and more of such individuals each year, who also are not gonna fill out a credit application to finance and insure a new car, certainly in no way contributes to an *improvement* of the emissions average. Or traffic, or water usage, or housing....
So cite some sources yourself.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Roads need to be paid for somehow-- you do seem to admit that. You seem to be saying, well, rather than a gasoline tax, let's invent some vastly more complicated method of paying for roads. Or something. Maybe a new supplemental sales tax-- that will help the poor because you seem to think that gas taxes are regressive but somehow sales taxes aren't. Or invent an entirely new form of rapid transit-- reinventing personal transit from the ground up has got to be easier than figuring out how to pay for maintaining what we already have.
Sure. Let's make things complicated. That always helps. Taxing gasoline is just be too simple; it couldn't possibly work.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Was that factored in? Did it actually do anything, or was it just a way to make money disappear?
Feeling larger and more powerful than other vehicles on the road is particularly important for that sad second group.
So, is it loaded up with tools and material, or compensation?
Couldn't you afford something better, or at least less ugly?
Then this certainly applies to the Tesla and Hybrid driver, who paid extra for smugness. What about the mini-van with one woman in it? The Cadillac with the V8, same as a pickup?
What about the weekend warrior who wants to haul his dirt bike? Also has small p*nis?
Murphy was an optimist
What the article didn't factor in is that new car sales are currently almost at pre-recession highs, and still growing (http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-marketplace/sales-data ). Cars that would have been purchased in 2009-2011 are being purchased now. Given that most cars are on the road for at least 10 years, you have to factor in that in the next decade we are going to have a younger, more efficient automobile fleet than we would have without the recession.
You obviously do not live in a rural area otherwise you would understand that without garbage pick-up, a pick-up truck is very nice to have when hauling your own garbage to the local dump.
You see, your categories (Might) kind of work for city slickers, but for people in the country who just want a general vehicle that can do it all, well nothing beats a good pick-up truck that can also haul trailers (of trash if need-be) and go camping and so many other uses that yea city slickers do not understand.
Than there is the safety angle...people who drive MINI cars are kind of like people on motor-cycles in the event of a crash with a larger vehicle . At the very least, in a pick-up truck I am at par or better in most accidents. While those driving mini cars are just driven to the morgue in those situations. Maybe I am selfish to an extent, but when people like you tell me that just because my job is in computers that I must be compensating for something when you have zero comprehension of my life just kind of makes me giggle a little. No, the truth is that people MOST of the time buy the vehicle that works for their lifestyle. It has nothing to do with maybe the one person YOU knew personally who bought one to compensate, or perhaps these people you know actually do actual work with the trucks and you just did not know it? I am guessing you just never saw the point to a pick-up truck or any large vehicle and would rather spend your money instead of on gas and the vehicle on computers. I understand that concept, but don't parade around the world showing your ignorance of why people use pick-up trucks outside of certain professions and do not show how sheltered you are as a city slicker....
Some people live in cities and only ever use the vehicle to get from point A to point B. I use the pick-up truck for all sorts of stuff including cutting my own firewood, hauling garbage, and all sorts of things that are frankly none of your business (and that you would never understand anyway if I had to guess.)
Face it, you are a city slicker who just does not get it. And that is ok I guess, but don't go judging people until you have tried to live their lives. Some of us ENJOY the outdoors and our vehicle simply matches our needs in order to enjoy it. Try driving a compact car onto some of the paths I take in my 4x4 truck to get away from it all. I dare ya. And than the best thing of all: I am still wired with the rest of the world with a nice cheap smart-phone.
EVs are such a trivial fraction of the vehicles on the road that your objection here is pointless. Possibly some time in the future it won't be. But it is now.
As for other vehicles-- the amount of gasoline used, and the amount of road damage done, are both going to be proportional to how far you drive. Road wear will also be proportional to weight (which decreases gas mileage). Therefore, yes, the amount of gas used for transporting stuff tends to be proportional to the amount of damage done to the road. People driving 1000 miles are going to do roughly a hundred times less damage than people driving 100000 miles
Yes, there are other factors. However, your idea to pay for roads with sales taxes addresses none of these other factors. It doesn't have even a vague connection between the amount of road wear used to transport the goods and the amount of tax paid, unless you start with an assumption that all goods have the same ratio of price to mass and all goods are transported the same distance. These assumptions are laughably wrong.
So, basically, you have taken a very simple idea, pointed out an unimportant problem, and then propose solutions that are more complicated... but don't solve any of the problems you point out.
What's the point here? You don't solve any of the problems you mention-- you don't even try to solve any of the problems you mention.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It isn't risk that is the problem, it's leverage. But I'm sure there's some current investment scheme (possibly to be enabled by the current bill you refer to) combined with future law out there that eventually will let someone borrow gobs of money on minuscule amounts of equity. Then we'll get another financial crisis like the many previous ones.
the amount of gasoline used, and the amount of road damage done, are both going to be proportional to how far you drive. Road wear will also be proportional to weight [...] Therefore, yes, the amount of gas used for transporting stuff tends to be proportional to the amount of damage done to the road
NO. NO IT DOES NOT. You in fact have no idea what you are talking about at all.
People driving 1000 miles are going to do roughly a hundred times less damage than people driving 100000 miles
NO. NO THEY ARE NOT. The typical vehicle does basically NO DAMAGE WORTH MENTIONING to the roads whether you drive 1 mile or 100,000 miles. Only the heaviest vehicles actually wear the roads to any degree worth mentioning. A human can actually exert more force per square inch on the pavement than the typical vehicle because of the relative size of the contact patch.
What's the point here? You don't solve any of the problems you mention-- you don't even try to solve any of the problems you mention.
And neither do you. You just wave your hands in ignorance and claim that the existing solution is adequate.
The solution is to accept that road maintenance can not and should not be accounted for with fuel taxes, because you benefit from the existence of the road system even if you don't use it directly. You know, just like now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You have failed to convince me that you know anything about road maintenance. You also haven't convinced me you have much understanding of economics. What you say implies that we should build roads that trucks aren't allowed on, because (according to you) that means that they will cost nothing because they are maintenance-free. Yeah, right. Write to your state governor: roads that don't have to be paid for at all! Every politician will love you.
Around here the worst damage to the roads is done by salt and snowplows. This is needed even if no trucks use the road. This should be paid for by the people who use roads (and the cost of salting and snowplowing as well). There are also indirect costs ("externalities", in economics jargon) that should be paid by the people incurring them.
We could categorize the various expenses in road maintenance for many boring hours, but the trivial solution is still that people who use roads should pay for them with a gasoline tax. Yes, some people don't use cars, but still buy goods shipped on roads. Guess what? These people still pay, because the cost includes transportation cost, which includes the fuel cost.
Unless a sales tax is based not on the cost of the goods but on the mass, the distance it is shipped, and the kind of vehicle used to ship it, it doesn't address the problems you mention in any way. This is what I would call "vastly more complicated".
(In any case, you can hardly say that a sales tax is less regressive. It is almost the poster child for regressive taxation.)
Let me repeat: you are saying that the simple solution won't work because of trivial and inconsequential problems, and then you propose different solutions that not only doesn't address any of the problems you mention, they make all of the problems you bring up worse.
So, my question is: what is the point in your proposing solutions that are more complicated but in no way better?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I repeat: you have failed to convince me that you know anything about road maintenance. However, you have convinced met that you know little or nothing about economics.
You also don't seem to pay attention to what you write.
Unless a sales tax is based not on the cost of the goods but on the mass, the distance it is shipped, and the kind of vehicle used to ship it, it doesn't address the problems you mention in any way.
I never suggested a sales tax.
Here are your actual words:
I'm all for the cost of road maintenance being accounted for correctly, but where the bulk of the money would actually be coming from is the goods which would be purchased by those who do and do not drive alike.
So: people purchase goods, and part of the money from that purchase goes to pay for road maintenance.
That's a sales tax.
So, my question is: what is the point in your proposing solutions that are more complicated but in no way better?
Mu. I did no such thing.
I will rephrase my question in the form of a statement. You are making trivial objections to the simple solution, but propose only muddled and confused solutions yourself-- so muddled that you don't even remember what you proposed-- which don't address the problems that you yourself bring up.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Dirt bikes and hybrids are penis neutral. To my knowledge there is no correlation between smugness and penis size, just being a skinny little wuss.
Perfect. Motorcycles in the back of the pickup are OK. As is a large, gas guzzling fishing boat on a trailer.
Kids toys, a load of Wal-Mart crap, it's a penis candidate no question about it.
Murphy was an optimist