should people be paid to trade in old cars?

[Photo: Telegraph]

One of the big obstacles to making a serious dent in emissions is the slow rate of transforming the world's fleet of cars, our stock of inefficient buildings, and other infrastructure and machinery that represent investments that cannot simply be discarded without a financial cost. So Obama's statement today that he will consider funding a fleet modernisation programme [via @Lighter Footstep] that would "[give] credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars" sounds like a way forward. But is it, really?

In line with Washington's aim to link economic recovery with "greening the economy", the suggestion is that this kind of programme will support jobs in the auto industry while reducing emissions: a win-win situation. While it may indeed support employment, there are a few caveats that need to be considered carefully.

One. We need to reduce the number of cars on the roads, and not just because of emissions from vehicle operations. Traffic has been a growing problem in many urban centres around the world, closely tied in with urban form that is worsening quality of life and access to opportunities in a number of ways that are well documented elsewhere. So we can't say that it's alright to keep the fleet growing even if the vehicles produce zero emissions.

Two. Considering cradle to grave analysis, a significant proportion of a car's environmental impact comes from mineral mining, manufacturing and final disposal. Until more energy comes from low-carbon sources, and car components are manufactured from recycled materials, this will continue to be a big factor. In fact, as emissions are reduced during the operating phase of a vehicle, the "cradle" and "grave" phases become proportionately more critical in terms of embodied water, energy and resources.

Three. Affordability of transport will not be entirely addressed through subsidised purchase of private vehicles. There are plenty of people who can barely afford to run their vehicles even if they can purchase them; but putting that issue to one side, there is still the question of the viability of public transport. Implied in point One above is that cities need to be encouraged to improve the mobility of people who cannot drive cars because they are too young, too old, haven't the financial means, or have some disability. The more we support private cars, the harder it becomes to provide an urban environment that supports walking, cycling and riding public transport systems.

Four. Throwing out old clunkers is not the only way to modernise the fleet. It is perfectly feasible to upgrade an old car with an electric propulsion system, even though car manufacturers - to their shame - deliberately design vehicles for obsolescence. There are already companies in Europe offering services to do just that, and the market potential is huge. This approach could open up new opportunities for job creation in hundreds of thousands of towns and cities, not just in auto assembly plants.

All of which is just to reinforce the point voiced by many others that - for the sake of sustainability - it is not good enough just to find strategies that will preserve jobs while reducing certain obvious environmental impacts. The economy itself requires transformation, which necessitates an entirely new way of thinking and planning our cities and industries.

A year ago, Canada was considering a similar vehicle scrapping incentive. I haven't followed the progress of that initiative, but an interesting aspect at the time was that the federal government was considering giving free transit passes as an alternative to buying a replacement car. If creative thinking like that could succeed in providing a viable alternative to simply speeding up fleet replacement, then scrapping incentives might be useful; but in many cities in the US and around the world, public transport systems are not good enough to replace private transport. There would need to be a massive investment in public transport, as well as an approach to urban design that would improve walkability and the integration of land uses and transport systems. While all of this has been talked about ad nauseum, there is little on the ground to show for it. Clearly, there is no quick fix.

Comments

[Derek Reinhard]

Great "360 view" of the dilemma, Rory. Computing total lifecycle cost is an emerging requirement for all manufacturing which many tout as THE way to answer big-ticket appliances (cars included); however, your piece offers options besides a path which would force environmental UNfriendly consequences. Retrofits and promoting mass transit reaches beyond enviro-economic solutions and touches on deeper social/cultural issues of subsuming private preference for the larger social good (group and earth health). Thank You!

[Johan]

Cool article. Green cars are the way forward. I see Prince Charles has pimped his ride to be more green.
The Aston Martin will run on wine. Check it out. http://blog.arniston-bay.com/?p=722