Listen Now
  •  

Richard Zurawski

Replacing cars foolishness

April 27th, 2009

Okay folks. Here we go again. More freaking “environmental” nonsense from the people who brought you the Hummer and the ridiculous popinjays we call our political leaders. Take your old pre-1995 gas guzzling, environment-trashing car and buy a new more fuel-efficient, green car, save the environment and pat yourself on the back for putting another consumer nail in the climate change coffin.

What a load of hooey! The last thing we need on this planet is another automobile, new, used or otherwise. Let’s do a little deconstructing here and see what the stats tell us. And again, where is the media on this, the TV, radio and print mavens who are supposed to, as the fifth estate, keep us on the straight and narrow of the news? Let’s start with the new car and it’s supposed superior fuel efficiency. Here is a little tidbit. The Ford Model T got 25 miles per gallon (U.S.) in the mid 1920s. Today, there is not a car company on the face of the Earth that gets this milage on their collective fleets. And the new cars have the horsepower equivalence of the space shuttle. Where the T topped out at about 60 miles per hour, going downhill, with a stiff tailwind, these road monsters can all clock in at over 100 miles an hour. And add to that on the highways and biways of our country how many cars do you ever see going below 110 kmh. Try driving the speed limit and count the nanoseconds till some yahoo in a modern road rocket blows past you at warp nine, making Captain Kirk and the Enterprise look like some stick in the highway mud.

Now let’s add to that the environmental cost of building the SUV. One tonne of metal, increasing petrochemical industry plastic spinoff, all mined, refined, pumped and shipped around the world burning yet more gas and diesel. Then add to that the rare earths, most toxic and requiring extensive refining, again at the environment expense, in third world countries where human rights and environmental concerns rate just below a snake’s belly in a wagon rut, to quote that professor of high thought, Jed Clampitt. Then, because we make almost nothing ourselves, the completed products are shipped around the world to our green-eyed consumers, ready to save the world, environmentally, one car at a time. And because it is new we drive it faster and more. And how fuel, environmentally friendly is that?

Then you have to junk the junker. Recycling? Well, that is again an energy load. And here in the Maritimes we power that with diesel, our friendly CO2 belching power corps will be happy to oblige with a reduced power rate to make it all the more attractive to big business. Add to that the rusting hulks that inevitably find their outside the recycling scenario, slowly leeching their toxic wastes back in the environment and you get a picture of this so called “green” initiative. Call it what it is, a financial boast for the auto sector and a stimulus package for business on the backs of the consumer, where environmental concerns are pushed to a back burner, relabeled and spun till the only “green” left in all of this is the business and political green!

4 Responses to “ Replacing cars foolishness ”

  1. ken Ad Says:

    Richard.

    Surely you don’t still think that the green movement is about saving the planet. Green doesn’t refer to saving the planet anymore, nor is green about reducing our carbon footprint or about climate science, it’s all about the money now. That’s what politicians and industry mean now when they refer to the “Green” movement, they’re referring to the money. They say they’re green, and then give a little wink. For god’s sake even oil companies say they’re green now (kind of makes you cringe).

    According to the latest article by my hero Lawrence Solomon (a more rabid environmentalist than even you), the number of people who believe humans are responsible for climate change has now dropped to 34% in the US, and in Australia it’s down to 11%. These were both nations who were strong believers only 6 months ago. This means that the window politicians have for pushing through the new environmental tax schemes is closing fast, so they have to try to ram them through now. They had better hurry, there is a lot of green at stake.

    So Richard, get with the program. Green now refers to the money, not the environment. And everyone’s getting on board the green gravy train baby, I love it!

    Here’s Solomons blog;
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/24/lawrence-solomon-australia-becoming-a-denier-nation.aspx

  2. Robert Says:

    It’s far beyond time that our government mandated a change in the assembly and manufacturing of vehicles. Not only do we have modern technologies that make older fossil fuel based engines obsolete, but we have newer technologies that make using metal/plastic obsolete as well.

    The problem is that lobbyists for the industry have too much leverage in both Washington and Ottawa to maitain the status quo. That is the issue, it is not an enviromental issue to solve, it’s a political will issue.

    I’ll tell you what, you offer me a vehicle that runs on water or one that runs on solar energy and I’ll pay an extra few grand for it (although it should actually be much cheaper to buy) just so that I could get away from fossil fueled vehicles. The technology is here now:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKM4pb9Oxrg (as an example).

    What has to happen is an overhaul of our politicians, we need someone with vision, we need someone with the strength to make the change. Until then…there will be NO changes, and those that do come will take forever.

    Robert

  3. Matt Says:

    Great article. I understand your point that environmentally speaking, it would not be worth buying a green car to replace and older car. However, vehicles don’t have a great life expectancy, and will eventually need to be replaced. I’m still on my first car and I plan to continue using it, for as long as it will take me from point A to point B. Hopefully it will last another 5 years or more. Do you think there could be something more energy efficient and clean that could/should come along by that time?

    I was also wondering if you knew why vehicles could not be equipped with a second gas tank. This second one would accumulate the CO2, instead of releasing it into the air. When you go gas up, you would hook up a second hose to your car to empty out that CO2, which would be held in a bigger container at the gas station…until we figure out what we could do with it.

  4. JimD Says:

    “which would be held in a bigger container at the gas station…until we figure out what we could do with it.”

    Great idea Matt. Why don’t you hold your breath until we figure out what to do with it? Carbon sequestration is the most useless idea that these misguided global warming fear mongers have ever come up with. How do you think such a tank will be made? It would have to be steel so you could compress the CO2, but, you guessed it, steel is manufactured at high temperatures using (usually) coal as a heat source, so that sort of defeats the purpose. Don’t worry though, because CO2 has a negligible effect on the earth’s temperature. There are many studies that support this, and yes, they are from peer-reviewed journals and authored by real climate scientists.

Add New Comment