Global warming ...

[oilerlord]

Now take two cases: In the first case, everybody keeps their car until it is 20 years old; then they replace it with a new car and hold that for 20 years. Over the course of a 20 year period, 20 cars get bought, and 20 cars get junked. Each person buys one car, and each person junks one car.

In the second case, everybody trades cars (and dollars) every year, passing their car on the person with the next oldest car. So one person is always driving a new car, one person is always driving a 1 year old car, one person is always driving a 2 year old car, etc. Over the course of a 20 year period, 20 cars get bought, and 20 cars get junked. But one person buys all 20 cars, and one person junks all 20 cars.

What carbon footprint accounting method do you propose to use that would result in different accounting for the two cases? It seems to me that in both cases, all 20 people have the same automotive carbon footprint. The only difference I see is that in the second case, some people are (presumably) paying more to drive newer cars, and some people are saving money by driving older cars.

Cheers, Wayne

In the first scenario - 20 cars were built
In the second scenario - 40 cars were built

You also assume that there is an immediate buyer waiting to buy each car. That isn't necessarily the case. Have you noticed that dealerships in our cities keep getting larger & larger? This is happening in my city. Every dealership has expanded, and there are more of them.

From Morgan Stanley:

"- Off-lease supply: This has already doubled since 2012 and is set to rise another 25% over the next 2 years.
- Record high units of new car inventory: 2016 YE unit inventory levels were near 10% higher than 2015YE, and are continuing to trend higher in 2017"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-31/heres-why-used-car-prices-may-crash-50

Has the population in your city doubled since 2012 and/or increased in relation to the explosion of growth in the number new & used cars sitting on dealer lots? Ours hasn't. Dealers are getting larger because they need more space to put all the cars. Some apparently see that as a win for the environment. I don't.

I look at personal carbon footprint accounting in terms of the CO2 I create vs the CO2 I offset (probably like everyone else). If I buy or lease a new car every three years, by year 10, I'm responsible for the CO2 that went into the manufacturing of 4 cars. If I buy one new car, and drive it for 10 years, I'm responsible for 1 car. If I buy a used car, I'm only responsible for the CO2 caused from the gasoline, consumables, and/or grid emissions that keeps the car in operation.

I bought my EV used, adhering to the environmental principal of Reuse. The car was already built...I didn't cause it's manufacture and all of the CO2 released in the process of building a new car. The first owner did that. The manufacturing CO2 is on his or her scorecard - not mine. They also don't get to take credit for the near zero emissions that comes from charging the car from my solar arrays either...that's on MY scorecard.

 

[wwhitney]

In the first scenario - 20 cars were built
In the second scenario - 40 cars were built

No, both scenarios involved 20 starting cars and 20 cars purchased. So there's no difference in number of cars built, however you wish to define that.

I look at personal carbon footprint accounting in terms of the CO2 we create vs the CO2 we offset (probably like everyone else). If I buy or lease a new car every three years, by year 10, I'm responsible for the CO2 that went into the manufacturing of 4 cars.

OK, under that accounting method, I agree with you, buying new cars has a heavier CO2 footprint than buying used cars.

But that's an unusual CO2 accounting method. Most people would allocate the CO2 manufacturing/recycling footprint across all owners, either by time or by mileage.

Let me ask you this: if I buy a 5 gallon propane tank and burn 30% of it, and then sell it to someone else, do I put the CO2 from 5 gallons of propane on my scorecard, or the CO2 from 1.5 gallons? If you agree that is 1.5 gallons, why are cars any different?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

OK, under that accounting method, I agree with you, buying new cars has a heavier CO2 footprint than buying used cars.

But that's an unusual CO2 accounting method. Most people would allocate the CO2 manufacturing/recycling footprint across all owners, either by time or by mileage.

Let me ask you this: if I buy a 5 gallon propane tank and burn 30% of it, and then sell it to someone else, do I put the CO2 from 5 gallons of propane on my scorecard, or the CO2 from 1.5 gallons? If you agree that is 1.5 gallons, why are cars any different?

Cheers, Wayne

Why is taking personal responsibility for the CO2 we create as individuals "unusual"? As an individual, I can't control
the growth explosion of the number of cars being built, but I don't have to add to the problem either.

If you buy a 5 gallon propane tank, how much of it you choose to burn is irrelevant. You bought it. You caused it's creation. The propane could have stayed in the ground, but YOUR demand took it out of the ground, and put it in a tank. As such, you're responsible for the CO2 that went into the manufacture of the tank, AND the 5 gallons of propane. You did that....no one else. The fact that you sold it to someone doesn't get you off the hook.

The issue I see in this discussion is that people don't want to take personal responsibility for their actions. It seems to cause too much pain, so it's much easier just keep their heads in the sand. At least, you recognize that buying new cars has a heavier CO2 footprint than buying used cars. Others can't wrap their heads around that. Glad we could find some common ground.

 

[wwhitney]

Why is taking personal responsibility for the CO2 we create as individuals "unusual"?

Not at all unusual, we are just having a debate about accounting methods.

If you buy a 5 gallon propane tank, how much of it you choose to burn is irrelevant. You bought it. You caused it's creation. [. . . ] The fact that you sold it to someone doesn't get you off the hook.

OK, that's at least consistent with your view on automobile CO2 accounting. But I disagree with the accounting.

Let me try one more hypothetical: say propane comes in 5 gallon tanks and 10 gallon tanks (I have no idea), and the CO2 manufacturing/disposal footprint of the 10 gallon tank itself is double that of the 5 gallon tank. You and your neighbor each need 5 gallons, so you could each buy a 5 gallon tank. But 10 gallon tanks are cheaper, so instead you jointly decide to buy one 10 gallon tank, which you pay for. You use 5 gallons, then sell the tank to your neighbor for 1/2 price, and he uses the other 5 gallons.

In your accounting method, do you get assigned all the CO2 footprint of the 10 gallon tank, or does it get split with the neighbor? If you get all the CO2 footprint, why is the accounting any different that each of you buying a 5 gallon tank? If the CO2 footprint does get split with your neighbor, why is the accounting different when you instead sell the tank on the open market to a third party with whom you've made no prior arrangement?

At least, you recognize that buying new cars has a heavier CO2 footprint than buying used cars.

I didn't, I just said it made sense under your accounting method. But I disagree with your accounting method.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

Let me try one more hypothetical: say propane comes in 5 gallon tanks and 10 gallon tanks (I have no idea), and the CO2 manufacturing/disposal footprint of the 10 gallon tank itself is double that of the 5 gallon tank. You and your neighbor each need 5 gallons, so you could each buy a 5 gallon tank. But 10 gallon tanks are cheaper, so instead you jointly decide to buy one 10 gallon tank, which you pay for. You use 5 gallons, then sell the tank to your neighbor for 1/2 price, and he uses the other 5 gallons.

In your accounting method, do you get assigned all the CO2 footprint of the 10 gallon tank, or does it get split with the neighbor? If you get all the CO2 footprint, why is the accounting any different that each of you buying a 5 gallon tank? If the CO2 footprint does get split with your neighbor, why is the accounting different when you instead sell the tank on the open market to a third party with whom you've made no prior arrangement?

Cheers, Wayne

If you and your neighbor agree to purchase a new 10 gallon tank - you split the CO2 because you're buying it together. You both bought it new, and were responsible for it's creation.

I think that you're straw-manning the argument by attempting to blur the lines between what constitutes a "new" product and a "used" product (i.e. selling the new tank on the open market to a third party). If you had a new car in your possession - but never titled or drove the car, and I bought it from you, I would likely account for the the CO2 caused by it's manufacture on my own personal scorecard, and release you of that obligation. For all intents and purposes, you would be the defacto new car "dealer" in that transaction. If the car was never titled, technically I'm the original owner. I bought a new car and thus it can't be categorized as an environmental "Reuse".

 

[wwhitney]

If you and your neighbor agree to purchase a new 10 gallon tank - you split the CO2 because you're buying it together. You both bought it new, and were responsible for it's creation.

Great, we agree on that. Now I'm going to say that for most people, similar shared accounting would apply when a product has multiple owners during its lifetime.

I see this as the crux of the disagreement you have with many other posters in this thread. This difference in accounting is quite large for a product like a car, so for people who care about their CO2 footprint, it would make a big difference in behavior.

You seem to advocate buying a used EV, well there wouldn't be any used EVs if nobody bought new EVs! CO2 accounting that puts the entire production/recycling footprint of the EV on the first owner unreasonably penalizes the first owner while giving later owners a free ride. It doesn't make much sense, as I believe my thought experiments have demonstrated.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

You seem to advocate buying a used EV, well there wouldn't be any used EVs if nobody bought new EVs! CO2 accounting that puts the entire production/recycling footprint of the EV on the first owner unreasonably penalizes the first owner while giving later owners a free ride. It doesn't make much sense, as I believe my thought experiments have demonstrated.

Cheers, Wayne

The basic three "R's" of environmental principals still apply. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I believe in those principals. To your point, though I'm "Reusing" when I choose to buy a used car, the ride isn't entirely "free" because I'll be responsible for the CO2 created during the crushing / scrapping of the car. I do however realize the benefits of Reduce, because the car belongs to me. It's my car. Should I choose to drive it for 179,000 miles (as in the illustration), that 53% less CO2 emissions benefit goes on my own personal CO2 scorecard. All the first owner did was order the manufacture of a new car. I'm the one that had to drive, and maintain the car long enough to offset it's initial CO2. The original owner has nothing to do with that.

To me, it does make sense that the first owner gets penalized for, and accepts the CO2 caused in the creation of the new car. They ordered the new car, and caused it's manufacture. I believe I've also outlined my thought processes in that regard.

By citing an extreme hypothetical ("there wouldn't be any used EVs if nobody bought new EVs!") - you're again attempting to strawman the conversation to apparently support a weak argument. You're better than that. Off-lease supply that has doubled since 2012, along with record high units of new car inventory. Though some may choose to ignore what's happening in the growth of new and used car inventory, it cannot be spun, or justified as a win for the environment.

 

[wwhitney]

To me, it does make sense that the first owner gets penalized for, and accepts the CO2 caused in the creation of the new car. They ordered the new car, and caused it's manufacture. I believe I've also outlined my thought processes in that regard.

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree on this accounting point. I'm sure our intentions are similar, but this difference in accounting may lead to differences in behavior.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

P.S. To me, every new EV bought leads to (nearly) one less ICEV produced in the future (feedback is not immediate), so buying a new EV is a good thing. And with CO2 accounting of manufacture amortized over the lifetime of the vehicle, there's no CO2 footprint drawback to buying new.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

P.S. To me, every new EV bought leads to (nearly) one less ICEV produced in the future (feedback is not immediate), so buying a new EV is a good thing. And with CO2 accounting of manufacture amortized over the lifetime of the vehicle, there's no CO2 footprint drawback to buying new.

Cheers, Wayne

We agree that there is an initial CO2 footprint cause by the creation of a car. We agree that the 53% reduction in CO2 vs a similar full size gasoline car over 179,000 miles sounds reasonable and/or is more or less in the ballpark. I think we're on the same side, we just disagree about who owns the CO2. The crux of the debate is about personal responsibility vs public responsibility about who gets debited / credited for those emissions.

Let's go back to what you said a few pages ago:

"I can't control how others act, I can only act in a fashion which, if everyone acted similarly, will abate global warming."

It's interesting how you began with advocating personal accountability (I can only act in a fashion which...) but then only a few posts later flipped to a public position where society shares both the debits / credits of CO2 over a car's lifetime. Which one is it Wayne? Do accounting opinions typically flip-flop like this?

 

[wwhitney]

It's interesting how you began with advocating personal accountability (I can only act in a fashion which...) but then only a few posts later flipped to a public position where society shares both the debits / credits of CO2 over a car's lifetime. Which one is it Wayne? Do accounting opinions typically flip-flop like this?

I was happy to leave things at agreeing to disagree, but the above asks for a response.

There's no flip-flop, I'm not allocating any of the manufacturing CO2 footprint of the car to "society at large," but among all of the individual owners of the car over its lifetime. Remember I said "I can only act in a fashion which, if everyone acted similarly, will abate global warming." If everyone uses my method of CO2 accounting, all the CO2 gets counted. I find this allocation fairer to consumers and more realistic than the system you propose, as my thought experiments have demonstrated.

Allocating none of the CO2 manufacturing footprint to the used EV buyer makes no sense. It is personally convenient for the used EV buyer, though.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[SeanNelson]

We agree that there is an initial CO2 footprint cause by the creation of a car. We agree that the 53% reduction in CO2 vs a similar full size gasoline car over 179,000 miles sounds reasonable and/or is more or less in the ballpark. I think we're on the same side, we just disagree about who owns the CO2. The crux of the debate is about personal responsibility vs public responsibility about who gets debited / credited for those emissions.

I've been watching this with some interest and I believe I understand the arguments that you are both making. But I don't believe that the original owner of the new car should bear the responsibility for the entire environmental cost of building it, for two reasons:

1) When someone buys a new EV with the intention of selling it after 3 years (i.e., leases it), he has the expectation that the car will not be scrapped but will instead continue to be used by a new owner. I certainly wouldn't buy a new EV if I expected it to be scrapped that quickly. So the intention of the new EV buyer is that the car will provide an environmental benefit compared to an ICE vehicle over its entire lifetime.

2) If the normal state of affairs was such that original owner wouldn't be able to sell his car after three years, it would drastically change the buying and usage patterns of automobiles. The concept of the 3 year lease would vanish, because aside from a relatively few wealthy people, nobody could afford to buy a new vehicle and just throw it away after such a short period of time. Therefore the used car market essentially subsidizes the purchase of new cars, and so buyers of used cars should, IMHO, bear some of the responsibility for the environmental cost of originally manufacturing that car.

Perhaps a more reasonable concept would be to pro-rate the manufacturing environmental cost based on the purchase price of the new vehicle vs. the used, although the existence of collector cars that appreciate in value makes that problematic. However throwing it all upon the new car buyer is unreasonable, IMHO.

 

[oilerlord]

If everyone uses my method of CO2 accounting, all the CO2 gets counted.

"All" of the CO2 gets counted? No it doesn't. All you're doing is taking a guess at it. After you return your lease, or sell your car, how can you possibly account for all the CO2 that the car will or will not contribute to global warming? What if the next owner has solar? What if the next owner lives in Michigan, and charges exclusively from grid power in that area where generated power isn't all that clean? What if the third owner wrecks the car at 60K miles? You have NO IDEA about the amount of CO2 because you have no actual data. In my personal experience with accountants, they don't make guesses. You on the other hand, have no issue with proposing an accounting method (or lack thereof) where the numbers required to form an analysis to formulate an accounting opinion - don't exist.

Remember GAAP? One of the objectives is about maintaining records. Another objective is being helpful in making long term decisions. How can you accomplish either if you don't have access to the data?

Thanks, but I'll stay with my own accounting method in terms of my own individual CO2 scorecard. Guesswork isn't part of the equation.

PS> I used to think you were an accountant. Not sure about that anymore.

 

[oilerlord]

I've been watching this with some interest and I believe I understand the arguments that you are both making. But I don't believe that the original owner of the new car should bear the responsibility for the entire environmental cost of building it, for two reasons:

1) When someone buys a new EV with the intention of selling it after 3 years (i.e., leases it), he has the expectation that the car will not be scrapped but will instead continue to be used by a new owner. I certainly wouldn't buy a new EV if I expected it to be scrapped that quickly. So the intention of the new EV buyer is that the car will provide an environmental benefit compared to an ICE vehicle over its entire lifetime.

2) If the normal state of affairs was such that original owner wouldn't be able to sell his car after three years, it would drastically change the buying and usage patterns of automobiles. The concept of the 3 year lease would vanish, because aside from a relatively few wealthy people, nobody could afford to buy a new vehicle and just throw it away after such a short period of time. Therefore the used car market essentially subsidizes the purchase of new cars, and so buyers of used cars should, IMHO, bear some of the responsibility for the environmental cost of originally manufacturing that car.

Perhaps a more reasonable concept would be to pro-rate the manufacturing environmental cost based on the purchase price of the new vehicle vs. the used, although the existence of collector cars that appreciate in value makes that problematic. However throwing it all upon the new car buyer is unreasonable, IMHO.

Sean, I think you've done it in one post. Underlined is interesting. We can explore that. Perhaps there is a compromise between how much CO2 that the original new car buyer and the used car buyer lists on their scorecard.

Interesting suggestion to pro-rate the environmental cost based on purchase price, but not sure how it applies. My car was 2 years old, with only 6,000 miles on it - but I bought it at 65% off MSRP. When you have a moment, run through your thought process on that.

 

[wwhitney]

"All" of the CO2 gets counted? No it doesn't.

Sure it does, if you actually execute the accounting. I'm not actually proposing it as a practical system, more of a thought exercise, although I guess DMV could execute it. The downside is that none of the owners learn their share of the manufacturing CO2 footprint until the car reaches end of life.

If you want a practical accounting system, then let's treat it like depreciation of business assets. Pick an artificial lifespan of a car, say ten years. [Maybe determine the 95% lifespan of cars and use that.] For the first ten years of the car's life, any owner's share of the manufacturing CO2 footprint is prorated based on time of ownership. After ten years, any additional owners get a free ride on the manufacturing CO2 footprint, the car is fully CO2 depreciated. Anyone retiring the car from service prior to ten years gets the full remaining manufacturing CO2 footprint.

There you go, easy to implement, no retrospective determinations required. If you like, you could do the whole thing on a mileage basis, rather than a calendar time basis, just pick a mileage for fully depreciating the manufacturing CO2 footprint.

BTW, your concerns about operating CO2 footprint are irrelevant, we are just discussing allocation of manufacturing CO2 footprint. Any owner can easily track their operating CO2 footprint while they own the car, and I don't see why that should have any bearing on the allocation of the manufacturing CO2 footprint.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[SeanNelson]

Interesting suggestion to pro-rate the environmental cost based on purchase price, but not sure how it applies. My car was 2 years old, with only 6,000 miles on it - but I bought it at 65% off MSRP. When you have a moment, run through your thought process on that.

The thought came from the idea of the used car buyer subsidizing the new car buyer, with the amount of the subsidy factoring in to the "responsibility". But I knew it was a bit of a sketchy idea. Something prorated based on the total distance driven per owner might be a better metric.

Of course this is all really just a thought experiment - nobody should expect to actually bear any tangible share of "manufacturing environmental impact" other than as a way to think about how "green" they're being when they buy and use any car, EV or not.

I suppose ideally the manufacturer would pay something akin to a carbon tax to offset the various aspects of environmental costs (similar to the idea of paying a recycling levy when buying tires, for example) and pass the cost along to the consumer. That would make the "manufacturing environmental impact" a tangible cost that the market would then factor into their decisions.

 

[oilerlord]

Of course this is all really just a thought experiment - nobody should expect to actually bear any tangible share of "manufacturing environmental impact" other than as a way to think about how "green" they're being when they buy and use any car, EV or not.

I suppose ideally the manufacturer would pay something akin to a carbon tax to offset the various aspects of environmental costs (similar to the idea of paying a recycling levy when buying tires, for example) and pass the cost along to the consumer. That would make the "manufacturing environmental impact" a tangible cost that the market would then factor into their decisions.

It's a little more than an experiment for me, because I am interested figuring out a reasonably accurate measure of the net CO2 from our household. My solar gives me a starting point about how many tons of CO2 I'm offsetting (about 3 metric tons/year), and the trees/shrubs we planted (about 0.5 metric tons/year), then then add the amount of CO2 from the usual suspects (diesel, gasoline, nat gas) based on consumption. Based on mileage/year from our ICEV's we're at around 4 metric tons, and heating our house added another 2.7 metric tons.

Back of the napkin calculation results in my contribution to the planet's death-by-CO2 at about 4.2 metric tons of CO2 per year. Of course, that doesn't add granular stuff like the cost of transporting the food and gadgets we buy, or our air travel - or my share of the initial CO2 created from the manufacturing of my car(s).

It's pretty eye-opening when you go run through the exercise of actually adding up your household's CO2. Unless I heat my house from wood (sustainably), and become grid-neutral using solar, I think it's nearly impossible to achieve a net-zero position on CO2. I have 41 solar panels on my roof, and don't have space for another 50 of them, and I can't afford building a solar farm. Without playing the purchase-carbon-credits shell game, net-zero isn't realistic.

I'm not at all in favor of carbon taxes, mostly because I believe that the money collected isn't actually being spent on reducing CO2. In Alberta, it's simply another tax we can't afford (especially now), and a transfer of wealth. The environmental programs being funded by the little of what's left over are dubious at best. As far as carbon credits are concerned, I've always been skeptical about how writing a cheque lowers my (actual) CO2. I think all that does is feed into the red tape (and possible corruption) in the name of saving the planet.

 

[wwhitney]

I'm not at all in favor of carbon taxes, mostly because I believe that the money collected isn't actually being spent on reducing CO2.

The point of a carbon tax isn't to collect money to spend on reducing CO2. The point is to correct the market failure in which the harm a product does isn't reflected in the product's price. The money collected could be flushed down the toilet and it would still have this effect. The market will respond by gravitating to the less carbon-taxed, and hence cheaper, options.

Of course, I also agree that a straight carbon tax is regressive, so it would be nice to couple the carbon tax with a non-regressive, refundable tax credit to counterbalance that.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[SeanNelson]

Unless I heat my house from wood (sustainably), and become grid-neutral using solar, I think it's nearly impossible to achieve a net-zero position on CO2. I have 41 solar panels on my roof, and don't have space for another 50 of them, and I can't afford building a solar farm. Without playing the purchase-carbon-credits shell game, net-zero isn't realistic.

Yeah, buildings actually emit more CO2 than cars and transportation do, and it's not talked about very much. And that's pretty much beyond any individual's effort to deal with - it has to be dealt with at a societal level with strategies such as building codes, investment in a cleaner grid, etc.

That still doesn't mean that we shouldn't also try to do what each of us can, though. It's the cumulative effect of billions of us that caused this problem, and it'll take the cumulative effort of billions of us to fix it.

 

[oilerlord]

Al Gore claims to live a "carbon-free lifestyle". Can anyone hazard a guess to what that means? Adding up my own CO2 numbers, I don't see how that's possible. I drive a car, live in a house, take air travel, eat food and buy manufactured goods that were shipped to my city. I don't think Al lives in a mud hut & lives off the land...so how does he do it? Writing a cheque to buy carbon credits doesn't change your lifestyle. Does he own a solar farm that he's using as an offset to his lifestyle? Even if that's the case, how would his lifestyle be "carbon-free".

I've been giving more thought about who takes ownership of the CO2 created during the manufacture of a car. Sean's point made me think that the first owner that lost $20,000 in the nine months of ownership - should be given a break on the car's initial CO2 footprint. Not only is it about the big financial loss they took, but they did society the service adding a green(er) car to the overall fleet - with the assumption that an ICEV will be subtracted. With that said, even if I shared that CO2 50/50 with the first buyer, they still take on 50% of their next car every 3 years (or in regards to my transaction, in month #10). I'll be holding onto my EV for at least 8 years / 100,000 miles. Perhaps it isn't a debate about buying new vs used, but more about how many miles we put on our cars as individuals.