The Environmental Debate

[pbottomley]

Well I did some reading of things form various "expert" sources and the details make it impossible to determine if a classic viva is more environmental than buying a new car.

I have done some maths and here goes, you can all jump on in if you so wish:

The average car lasts 13.5 years (Dept of transport). The average 1.0 - 1.4 modern hatchbacks put out around 2.2 tonnes of CO2 per year (friends of the earth). So over a 13.5 year period the average hatchback pumps out around 29.7 tonnes of CO2. One third of total CO2 emissions of the average car’s life span is used to calculate the amount of CO2 used in manufacturing the car. (Call that 10.0 tonnes) (Royal Dutch Shell)

Going on these calculations we might be able to do some interesting things.

If someone used their Vauxhall Viva as an everyday road car, for 13.5 years and its emission were the same as a modern 2.0 litre engine (3.0 tonnes CO2 per year friends of the earth) we would burn 40.5 tonnes. More than a modern hatchback (see above)

However as the Viva had already been built and done one full lifespan (13.5 years) in which its manufacturing emission had been calculated, we don’t need to include the one third of the emission calculations as manufacturing, therefore we can remove that one third of the total tonnage from the total emissions calculation:

40.5 tonnes total – one third (13.5 tonnes) = 27.0 tonnes total emmissions, which is 2.7 tonnes less than a modern hatchback!

On top of this we can say that as most Viva’s are more than 27 years old, if that is the case then, they are in fact replacing not only one car that has lasted 13.5 years but now a second car, It is easy to see from this that a Viva does make sound sense when it comes to the environment.

So we are green classic and value… what more do you want from your Viva?

[pbottomley]

OOPs edits made to the last post I cannot type now... glad i am not the editor !

[droopsnoot]

Isn't it the case, though, that the emissions from the manufacture of one new car exceed the emissions from that vehicle thoughout it's normal expected life? So regardless of how low clean the emissions are on a new vehicle, it's still almost always better for the environment to not make it in the first place.

[pbottomley]

WOW if you have a 1965 Viva HA and its been on the road most of its life as your mode of transport then get this

41 years at 3.0 tonnes CO2 a year (TPY) = 123.0 tonnes of CO2

or

HA bought in 1965 lasts 13.5 years at 3.0 TPY = 40.5 tonnes

+

Car 1 to replace HA in 1978 = 13.5 years at 3.0 TPY = 40.5 tonnes

+

Car 2 to replace Car 1 in 1991 = 13.5 years at 2.0 TPY = 40.5 tonnes

+

Car 3 to replace Car 2 in 2004 = 2 years at 2.0 TPY = 8.0 tonnes (plus its manufactoring estimate 9.0 tonnes) 17.0

Total output for the HA plus its replacemnets if replace cars every 13.5 years = 138.5 tonnes

Total output if one had just kept and run the HA = 123.0 tonnes

18.5 tonnes less!!!!


Makes you wonder its cheap to insure, cheap to tax, no more or less to run, and greener!!!

[pbottomley]

Droopsnoot 100% correct. dont make a car , recycle a car... its obvious... but i thiought i would apply some silly maths for the hell of it.

When you argue about the life span of a car and how much a car burns and how much it takes to make it etc... It will always end up the same. costing more to make new than to use old.

[Sid]

Well I'm impressed, you've justified our existence on the CO2 alone, which is the environmentalists own benchmark!.

Of course as you pointed out there's a lot more to consider than just CO2, but I'm confident that on balance it would work out
better overall if cars were built to last longer.

Environmentalists would probably argue that "classic" cars, as opposed to just "old" cars, are mainly used for *extra* journeys over
and above normal commuting and that most owners still run a newer car in addition.

They would therefore state that while endulging in our hobby were doing nothing but polluting the atmosphere for the sake of it.

I would counter that argument by saying:-
a) The mileage covered by the UK's classic cars during our "fun runs" is less than 0.1% of the overall mileage for all the UK's
private vehicles and as such should be consider almost negligable.
b) There are hundreds of times as many unneccesary leisure journeys made in non-classics than in classics, so again our contribution
to that section of the emissions is also negligable.
c) To balance out our *tiny* contribution to the destruction of environment, I'd point out that everybody has a hobby, and while
we're sitting with our bonnets up in a field, somebody else is watching TV or eating a big Mac or installing hardwood decking in
their back garden or one of a million other activities that are in some way detrimental to the environment.

As an aside, many environmentalists also harbour this misguided idea that "modern man" is more destructive to the earth than "early"
man.
What they don't realise is that there were only a few thousand cavemen in the british isles compared to 60 million people now.

If the worlds 6 billion people suddenly gave up technology to "live off the land" and started cutting down trees to build huts and
fires and eating/skinning the wildlife to survive then you can be sure that mother nature would soon be in a lot worse state than it
is under modern technology.

Sid

----- Original Message -----
From: "pbottomley" <general@vauxhallviva.com>
To: <general@vauxhallviva.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:44 PM
Subject: The Environmental Debate

Well I did some reading of things form various "expert" sources and the details make it impossible to determine if a classic viva
is more environmental than buying a new car.

[AUTOMAN]

Wow!!!!!

[kellyharding]

CO2 is only part of the equation.

You'll end up with 'heavy metals' arguments thrown at you over our classic cars.

More modern cars have these reduced or removed now.

But then, those chemicals only really effect the enviroment when the car is crushed/landfilled, etc. So keeping it ont he road reduces the amount going intot he ground/evironment.

Environmentalists really at the end of the day focus on numbers that grab attention. Politians only care about their pockets. Oil companies don't care about either, only about getting richer.

So it is all really just one big loop that'll never end.

If it isn't cars, it'd be classic 'computers' or classic aircraft. Anything that isn't 'modern' and therefore 'advanced' is bad for the environment if you believe the environmentalists.

Modern appliances and so on have become so efficient and reduced in size that they're not worth fixing, so end up in landfill more often.

Kelly

[pbottomley]

Another article in todat Daily Mail about this debate,

"Researchers accept that many 'green' cars do punch out less pollution when driven. But they argue that the energy used in building, transporting, servicing and scrapping the technically more complex vehicle means that, over their entire life-cycle, they cause more pollution than conventioal cars" (November 2006 What Car)

Considering that these "conventional cars" are the ones we dicussed in earlier emails, it seems the world has gone bonkers.

Driving around in cars that give out pure water as waste, isnt as environmentally sound as its sounds. Its just hype by manufactores to get you to bye the "dream".

The most intresting part of the article was to look at "Dust to Dust" costs. (adding a price to the energy used to build and recycle the car at the end of its life, as a monitary cost). Its a whole debate about of setting a cost to the environment but that aside:

The best performer was a Jeep Wrangler @38 p a mile, and one of the worst was one of the new hybrid cars from Honda £2.03 a mile!

I wonder what a humble HA of 40 years of age would work at ? maybe like Gas -5p a mile???

[Sid]

Yep its true, the manufacturers and governments both are trying to sell us a lie, partly to pacify the greens, and partly in the
hope of making motoring more expensive/profitable (depending on whether were talking government or manufacturer).

This link I took from an ABD newsletter makes interesting reading :-
---
Report from CNW Marketing Research Inc: the energy cost per mile of a Hummer H3 4x4, in terms of dust-to-dust energy consumption &
allied carbon emissions, is 40% lower than the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
---

No doubt arguments will continue to rage, but even though the true environmental costs might take a while to come out into the open,
I can't see hybrids and alternative fuel cars lasting long once the real cost of ownership becomes evident.

I personally think the internal combusion engine will still be with us even after the mineral oil supplies start to dry up. I'd be
surprised if electric motors replace fuel burning engines in mainstream cars within my remaining driving years, but no doubt cars
will continue to get more and more complicated!

Sid

----- Original Message -----
From: "pbottomley" <general@vauxhallviva.com>
To: <general@vauxhallviva.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Environmental Debate

"Researchers accept that many 'green' cars do puch out less pollution when driven. But they argue that the energy used in
building, transporting, servicing and scrapping the technically more complex vehicle means that, over their entire life-cycle,
they cause more pollution than conventioal cars" (November 2006 What Car)

Considering that these "conventional cars" are the ones we dicussed in earlier emails, it seems the world has gone bonkers.