I cannot quote any actual reference, but in the UK where a high
mileage car is anything over 120,000 it is a fact that more energy
goes into production of the car that it uses throughout its operating
life.
If it is energy consumption (production of CO2 gasses, greenhouse
effect, global warming and all that issue) that is the environmental
concern then it is far better to continue using older cars (LBCs of
course) by maintaining, recyling parts etc, than put the world's
future climate at risk and to waste additional finite energy sources
on producing new cars (like Frank's Jag)
Of course if the objective is to increase GDP, create jobs etc - well,
introduce whatever law requires you to keep spending.
Guy
----- Original Message -----
From "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri at emory.edu>
To: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Sent: 02 January 2002 13:40
Subject: Re: URGENT FEDERAL SCRAPPAGE ALERT
> David,
>
> Excellent point about the beautification vs 'energy'. I wonder if
> anyone considers how much energy it takes to make a new car vs the
> energy differential of running a new vs old car. I'd guess you'd
have
> to put several hundred thousand miles on an LBC before it made
> 'energy' sense to crush and replace.
>
> Does anyone know if such a study has been published?
>
> If it were for beauty, compare an Aztek to any LBC. I think we're
> crushing the wrong vehicles!
>
> Jeff
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/spridgets
|