Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:56:17 -0700
Reply-To: Poppie Jagersand <poppie.jagersand@YAHOO.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Poppie Jagersand <poppie.jagersand@YAHOO.CA>
Subject: Re: Vanagon emissions
In-Reply-To: <1545038010.7757981254338693935.JavaMail.root@jaguar10.sfu.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I was first going to write an emotional ode to the virtues of the bus/vanagon, but then I realized that all posters to this thread have valid points. It is just a matter of figuring out under what assumptions/preconditions those hold.
So some cases:
John/Jane Doe: He(She) buys a new car and keeps it 5-10 years, then resold to someone in a lesser income bracket and run for another say 5 years before being junked. Here the additional environmental load from producing two vehicles is likely more severe than the savings from one of them being more environmentally friendly. Especially if John likes not only to drive his F350 monster truck for hauling, but also show it off to the buddies at the bar, picnic in the park etc. Then the small car will be mostly sitting around and the miles put on the truck anyway.
Me (or Mike Snow) left to our own devices: We both have 1982 Diesel vanagons. The environmental load of these being produced are in some sense already paid off. (Had we not bought them and maintained them they would most likely be junked by now.) Buying an extra (presumably newer car) would add environmental load, and the difference in CO2 from the Diesel Westy (at 8.8l/100km) and a more miselry car (at say 6l/100km) is unlikely to make up the difference.
Me + Wife: Wife is not interested in arguments of this type and wants NEW. Though we don't really need two cars (walk to work, live centrally so bus, LRT is available) I had to buy a car for her. She drives the Pointac Vibe about 8000km/year at 7l/100km, only 0.2l/100km better than the Westy TD. Had it been acceptable to drive the Westy instead I think it would take more years of driving than the typical lifespan of a Vibe to make up for the additional environmental cost of producing the Vibe. (And she will probably want another new car before that happens).
Finally, like Tobin points out, for most city trips a bike is just as good as a car. So the most environmentally friendly alternative would be to own a relatively fuel miserly camper for weekend outings, or whenever something heavy needs to be transported and ride a bike for daily commuting and errands. Research in cities from medium size Vancouver
to large Sao Paolo that bikes get around town much faster than a car anyway. In Vancouver these results are prominently posted around the city: average speed of a car is only 24km/h. You can bike at about the same speed or take the public transport skytrain at twice the speed. For the Sao Paolo result see:
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13349
Martin
--- On Wed, 9/30/09, Tobin Copley <tcopley@SFU.CA> wrote:
> From: Tobin Copley <tcopley@SFU.CA>
> Subject: Re: Vanagon emissions
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Received: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 3:24 PM
> A bicycle satisfies points B and C
> just fine. And given that most trips are just a few
> miles or less, a bicycle serves the purpose just fine.
> And yes, a bike is just fine in the rain and down to 15
> below or so. And arguably better in many snow conditions
> than a car.
>
> Bike more, drive less? That oughta help, right?
>
> T.
> (Waiting for protests from the "America runs on Dunkins"
> crowd...)
> Full disclosure:
> '82 westy diesel
> '00 Honda Civic
> and 3 bicycles, a unicycle, and a tandem
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Snow" <slowmachine82@GMAIL.COM>
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:45:25 AM GMT -08:00
> US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: Vanagon emissions
>
> What is wrong with driving a Vanagon or light truck as your
> only vehicle?
>
> I would argue that:
>
> A. Life-cycle emissions include the total of the
> emissions created
> from mining, manufacturing, use, maintenance and disposal
> of the
> vehicle.
>
> B. [...] there is no vehicle
> in existence (and never will be) that emits so few
> pollutants that the
> combined life-cycle emissions of the two vehicles are less
> than those
> of a single pickup or Vanagon.
>
> C. Completely disregarding all consideration for fuel
> economy and
> emissions, there is no second vehicle in existence (and
> never will be)
> that costs so little to purchase, insure, operate and
> maintain, that
> will enable a lower combined operation cost than is
> incurred by the
> poor fuel economy of a single pickup or Vanagon.
>
> Drive what meets your needs, but understand that two
> vehicles are
> never less expensive than one, and the life-cycle emissions
> of two
> cars are never less than those of a single vehicle. I
> think the Prius
> is a marvel of engineering. However, driving a Prius
> or any other
> super-efficient car, as a second car, costs you more, and
> pollutes the
> planet more than driving only a Vanagon.
>
> --
> Michael Snow
> 1982 Westfalia 1.9TD
> http://slowmachine82.blogspot.com/
>
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
| 
