Scrapping the scrappage scheme for cars... well, letting it fizzle away, is this a good thing? Tough one this. Carbon worriers were vocal at it's introduction about how encouraging people to buy new cars would increase carbon footprints, but it's a complicated story. Scrappage has been a great success and typically cars that have been bought under the scheme replaced vehicles that produced around 25% more CO2e emissions, so that's good.... I think.
It all comes down to the "dust to dust" carbon of a manufactured item. This is what Jeep refer to when they claim their vehicles are some of the very best you can buy in terms of environmental friendliness. Yes they use more fuel than others, but are typically replaced far less frequently. The smug Prius driver should consider the environmental costs of mining the metals (not least for the batteries which comes from Ontario) and shipping the cars.
It's all a bit, can't do right for doing wrong. I have said before and I will keep saying it; time to lose the car. The 19th century horse gave way to the 20th century car which needs to give way to the next transport revolution. We don't have that yet, not while car manufacturers and the oil business has so much influence. We need that breakthrough.
Horses continue in our society for recreation from racing to pony trecking. We could retain similar for cars, cars for fun. The real business of getting about needs to be something else.
Here is my latest solution to be getting on with; dig up (most are dug up now!) the central reservations of our motorways, dig up too the two fast lanes either side and build high speed rail in place. No land to purchase, much infrastucture already in place, a comprehensive network, perfect. Make the trains that run on it "drive on, drive off" like "Le Shuttle" and you begin to have a very efficient, low (lower)carbon system.
Little cars for beetling around town and local journeys, drive onto the train for inter city travel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the basic premise of aiming for CO2 reduction but I think using the transition from horse to car as an metaphor for what needs to happen is unsuited. When people moved from horse to car they did so because of convenience and leisure, not because anyone was flogging them for riding horses. To paraphrase the words of Bruce Mau - we need to create a transport solution that is more attractive and convenient than the personal petrol car, otherwise only a fraction of the population will ever want a 'greener' future.. Still, if the 'drive-in/off' scheme you mention was smooth enough I reckon it might just work.. for some.. sometimes.. I'm unconvinced that the CO2 expenditure of the added infrastructure would ever really be justifiable. Perhaps the transport sector is, despite its visibility, not the best place to start in regards to CO2 reduction; what about meat consumption? Meat consumption accounts for a larger percentage of CO2 emissions than "all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats .. combined" [source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8329612.stm]
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for this. Actually in the late 1900's and early 20th century there was a great deal of debate about the huge number of horses on the streets, congestion and a big problem with horse muck! It was highly contentious at the time.
ReplyDeleteYes. meat and dairy product consumption is a big issue. There is much being done to mitigate the effects (I feel another blog coming on). It would though be very very difficult to change behaviours of so many meat eaters although many are already eating less and there are some fantastic new farming practices being developed and adopted. The issue is one of those "big elephants in the room" along with population growth.
Great to have your feedback, thank you, Martin