Environmental columnist gets it wrong on eco-pickup choices
A recent letter to an environmental columnist in Chicago asked about replacing older pickups with a more fuel-efficient model. The columnist discussed the Chevy and GMC hybrid pickups but had no clue as to the operation of those trucks. They're not really hybrids. Both have a belt-alternator-starter system that shuts down the engine while the vehicle is stopped. Fuel savings are minimal, at best 10 percent, and the operation is hardly seamless. Both times that I drove the hybrid pickups, they were annoying and frustrating experiences.The main reason a few consumers do buy the GM pickup hybrids is the 120V outlet that can power equipment in the field. The writer goes on about other hybrids. Why are hybrids the only solution? How about a diesel pickup? The question was about fuel economy. And the latest round of emissions standards for diesels have the trucks running nearly as a clean as gas engines.The columnist then suggests that replacing an older truck may not be the "most environmentally sensitive way to go", since another new vehicle hits the road while an old one clogs up a junkyard. Then goes on to say that repairing an old vehicle is usually cheaper than buying a new one.
Hogwash!
Officials in California have long wished that old vehicles would get off the road. Governments even sponsor crusher programs and allow pollution credits to be traded or sold for every old car that is sent to the jaws. I don't know the specifics but the majority of smog in the Los Angeles basin is caused by a minority of vehicles that are much older than the current clean-running models. Basically, if everyone was rich in Los Angeles and could buy a new car, hybrid or not, the air quality would improve dramatically.
When it comes to trucks, environmental writers need to research the subject a lot more before giving advice.
[Source: Southwest News Herald]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Leszek Pawlowicz 12:55PM (10/03/2006)
The approximate figure is that 10% of vehicles on the road emit about half of the total pollutants. You can read more about this in a recent Malcolm Gladwell article in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact
But it's not necessarily the age of the car that's the factor, it's the state of repair (or disrepair) of the vehicle that matters. An older vehicle in proper condition can emit less than a newer vehicle that's not properly maintained.
And you're wrong about the cost. Except in the most extreme and unlikely of circumstances, it's always cheaper to keep an older vehicle than it is to buy a new one. Do the math, and the cost of the new car, opportunity costs, depreciation, insurance, registration are far higher than those of fixing up the older car and keeping it running, even if the newer car gets better gas mileage. You can argue that if the older car isn't properly maintained, it will be worse for the environment. That's true, but that's unfortunately not a cost that the car's owner will bear directly.
The columnist's point about the car clogging the junkyard is oddly stated, but not completely wrong, either. Roughly 15% of the total energy requirements for a car go into manufacturing it, and transporting it to the dealership. Junk the car instead of fixing it, and that 15% is lost.
http://greendrivinghandbook.com
Reply
Mark_H 2:30PM (10/03/2006)
I don't understand the junkyard / landfill comment. I thought most of the metal in automobiles was recycled and found this on the website of the Steel Recycling Institute:
Despite their complex construction, cars are one of today's most recycled commodities. Whole automobiles are simply not landfilled. The reason why is that the steel and iron components, which make up nearly 65 percent of the average vehicle, are too valuable. Instead, virtually all of the steel and iron are recovered for reuse and recycling along with most of the other metals, such as aluminum, copper and lead. As a result, the recycling rate averages about 100 percent each year.
Reply