The three-year investigation by Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research measures the environmental impact of cars from the time they’re built until the moment they’re scrapped. The results have revealed the dilemma faced by buyers looking for cars that are kinder to the environment, with supposedly ‘green’ cars finishing well down its final league table.
The new analysis extends from the car’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions to the energy used in its design and production, both in car assembly plants and by suppliers of parts and sub-assemblies. Researchers also looked at the energy consumed in transporting the cars to dealers, as well as in maintaining, servicing and scrapping them.
The total amount is called the car’s ‘dust to dust’ energy use.
~
According to CNW’s table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, even though they have some of the lowest CO2 emissions of any car and are usually regarded as the most environmentally friendly. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler, closely followed by the Toyota Echo – the American version of the Yaris.
via bog-brush
This environmental information about the relatively low emissions of operating vehicles resonates with something I’d read a few years back comparing personal watercraft with automobiles. This is my recollection and may warrant some more corroberation but I’ll share it: operating the standard automobile one hundred thousand miles produces fewer emissions than operating a personal watercraft one hour. Yowsa! This was a few years ago and was talking about the two-cycle engines common to the personal watercraft industry at the time. I know that since then, I’ve seen advertisements for four-cycle engines, sure to have reduced emissions.
This study also reminds me of something one of my friends once said about ethanol. That the net environmental negative impact of producing the corn to make the ethanol more than outweighed the benefit of burning it.
This article would appear to indicate that, since production outweighs operation, to minimize the impact on the environment, we should probably drive older cars longer and avoid the environmental cost of producing their replacement.
I wonder how the point source versus non-point source argument plays out here. If we can consider the major emissions of a few factories (compared to the number of cars) producing automotive components versus the emissions of many automobiles producing smaller emissions, would it not be easier to monitor and improve the few big producers than the many small producers? By that same argument, wouldn’t it be easier to update public transportation with proven technology than each individual vehicle?
This article treated CO2 emissions like a meaningful thing. How does this jive with your learning about environmental science from environmental scientists project (not former vice presidents)?