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%.

Comments

Only part of the equation

[ebrandsberg]

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.

Dirtier than a hypothetical, not an actual

[michaelmalak]

From the actual abstract:

Using fleet fractions from previous data sets, we estimated age-adjusted mean emissions increases for the 2013 fleet to be 17–29% higher for carbon monoxide, 9–14% higher for hydrocarbons, 27–30% higher for nitric oxide, and 7–16% higher for ammonia emissions than if historical fleet turnover rates had prevailed.

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.

This isn't really surprising at all

[enjar]

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.

Predicted... repeatedly.

[Karmashock]

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.

Older cars reduce pollution

[Geoffrey.landis]

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...

Re:Older cars reduce pollution

[vux984]

Manufacturing a car produces a significant amount of pollution

But it doesn't produce it downtown L.A.

Unless this effect is accounted for, the headline here is meaningless.

Not if your interested in the air quality in downtown L.A.

L.A. is dirtier right now than it otherwise would have been without a recession. That's not meaningless.

Total pollution footprints are interesting in their own right but they aren't the only conversation worth having.