Driving old vehicles worse than junking them and buying new?

From http://wheels.ca/article/33033 :

Longer-lasting cars hurt climate: Report

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Nov 21, 2007

Vehicles are lasting dramatically longer than even a few years ago, with 43 per cent of passenger cars built 15 years ago still on the road, and this is bad news for the environment, industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers reports.

...

"Older vehicles are the least fuel-efficient and highest-polluting users of the road," he points out. "A current model year vehicle emits 98 per cent less toxins into the air than a vehicle bought 15 years ago."

"I think it rather foolish for any politician to target the already highly fuel-efficient and very environmentally friendly new vehicles. There are currently close to seven million vehicles on the road in Canada that are over 10 years old, or about 40 per cent of all light vehicles registered. But no politician has the backbone to target getting these old smokers off the road."

(FYI, DesRosiers' income seems to come from the pockets of car manufacturers, who of course want to sell more new cars.)

Anyway, what he's basically saying is that the 7 million "old" vehicles should be sent to the junk yard. I agree that the emissions from older vehicles are an issue, but is trashing the cars and making even more waste really more environmentally friendly than other options? Just looking for some opinions on this...

But if 10+ year old cars are passing the emissions test (legitamitely) then what is the problem?

older cars will not pass modern standards, they may pass smog checks and the like but not what a new car has to do. Try to move to California with a car and really see what emission standards are. Its not always about mpg.

Also old cars are less safe, not a green issue but still an argument to their abolishment.

These "studies" never factor in the energy and pollution involved in manufacturing more new vehicles or scrapping the old ones.
I think there's a certain point when it makes sense to phase out vehicles, but the need to do so is greatly exaggerated by special interest groups and the auto industry as a whole.

A ploy to get people who can keep their cars for years, to buy new ones.
Imagine how much oil and electricity goes into making a new car.

Funny how articles like these come at a time when the auto industry is sufferring. Asking auto manufacturers when to buy new cars is like asking a barber if you need a haircut.

I am still driving a 1993 Toyota Camry that passed the most recent emissions test and I do not plan to buy new cars (even though it's really popular these days, judging from the Buying cars in the US thread)

There are several reasons for this and it all trumps any environmental concerns that you guys may have for older cars.

- I can't afford a new car at this point

- Owning a new car is possibly one of the worst *investment* you can have, the value of the car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot

- Your insurance will go up (mind you owning old cars have other issues like maintenance etc)

- Our winter is really bad for cars, old or new.

So no I am not in a hurry to ditch my 93 Camry, it will stay here in the family for the next 3 years at least.

I remember reading recently (I'll try to think of where so I can link) that a large portion of total life emissions for a vehicle comes from the manufacturing process. Logically, that seems to make sense, too. I think it would be hard to make a case for junking a good running well kept vehicle to buy a new one with lower tailpipe emissions.

I think it's better to just attempt to reduce your impact by driving less, driving slower on freeways, keeping your vehicle maintained, and avoiding idling or hard accelleration. Perhaps even more impartantly, when choosing your vehicle, don't buy anything bigger or more powerful than you actually need. Very few people need a Denali or Corvette.

Originally Posted by dark169

older cars will not pass modern standards, they may pass smog checks and the like but not what a new car has to do. Try to move to California with a car and really see what emission standards are. Its not always about mpg.

Also old cars are less safe, not a green issue but still an argument to their abolishment.

You do think that an older let's say Audi (made in germany) or Volvo (since ford owns them) or any other higher-class vehicle is less safe than a new bottom-line model (like a civic or a focus)? I really doubt that. Price-wise, they're probably the same. What you get for the money? Bettwer quality, better safety, and with a good maintenance record, probably the same environmental effect.

My "old" car is a '96 Civic. I can't imagine it's really that bad on the environment. Especially since it's the same car that Honda sold up until the redesign in 2000.

Originally Posted by dlander

My "old" car is a '96 Civic. I can't imagine it's really that bad on the environment. Especially since it's the same car that Honda sold up until the redesign in 2000.

There is a big difference between car made in 2000 and those made in 2007 already.

Just another part of the argument - it is rare that a car is just "junked". If the parts in it are not useable in other cars, then they are recycled for scrap metal - which is worth big $$$ to people. The only part of a car that is not re-claimed when it is EOL is the upholstery.

And it uses less a lot energy to recycle metal from old cars to make other things (like appliances), than it is to mine new metal.

Offer me a financial incentive to junk my old car that is running perfectly well and costs less than $1000/yr in assorted maintenance and repiars, and we can talk. Otherwise, don't tell me what to do.

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Very few people need a Denali or Corvette.

Sure they don't need it, but they just want to have it Especially the Corvette...

Originally Posted by patrob

Sure they don't need it, but they just want to have it Especially the Corvette...

Sure, but it certainly wouldn't qualify you as Green/eco-friendly, the name of this forum. For those who actually care about reducing their pollution impact, it would not be very sensible or example-setting to do such a thing...even if you just reallyreallyreally wanted it, as good of a reason as that is.