Before there was “environmentalism” there was conservationism. The latter being about not wasting stuff. That it was better to save than to spend – for the “environment” as well as your wallet.
Conservationism lost out to “environmentalism” chiefly because there’s no money in the former as opposed to the latter. Or rather, less. That goes for carbon dioxide, too.
An example will suffice to make the point.
There is not much money – for the the car manufacturers, the insurance mafia and the government – in you keeping an older, paid-for car going. You are not making payments on the car. You are making smaller payments – in “premiums” and taxes – the insurance mafia and government.
This is why they want you out of your old car – and into a new EeeeeeeeeVeeeee.
The car companies are all-in because they see EeeeeeeeVeeeees as a way to end the problem (for them) of selling people a new car once every ten (or even 15 or twenty) years and there being an abundance of sound used vehicles available that enable many people to avoid ever having to buy a new car – rather than renting all of them a new EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee, with payments made on it every month without end.
EeeeeeeeVeeeeees facilitate that goal because they are fundamentally disposable, like a smartphone. You get a new one every so often. Most people never own one. They pay the fee and they get to use one.
It is not very . . . environmental.
Think of the landfills filled with throw-away smartphones – most of them not more than five years old. Contrast that with the hard-line wall phones that people used to have in their homes. These regularly lasted generations. If you were a kid in the ’60s or ’70s, it is probable the phone on the wall in the house you grew up in was still on the wall when you came back home to visit your parents in the ’90s. It is probably still on the wall, today.
Which is better for the “environment”?
I’ve got an old truck, as readers of this column already know. It is twenty years old and probably has at least another ten years of reliable life left to go. But it is already better for “the environment” than any EeeeeeeeeeVeeeee.
Yes, it burns gas – and the burning of gas results in the production of the dread gas – carbon dioxide – that “environmentalists” say threatens to “catastrophically” “change” the “climate.” Let’s accept this risible assertion (risible, because C02 is a fractional background gas – just 0.04 percent of the total of all the gasses that comprise the atmosphere of the Earth – and the idea that a fractional uptick in that fractional amount is going to “change” the “climate” in a “catastrophic” way is akin to insisting that a kid peeing in Lake Michigan is going to turn the water yellow) for the sake of discussion.
If so, then reducing the amount of that gas produced ought to be – Star Trek reference – the Prime Directive. Yes?
But how do you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by throwing away a sound, usable vehicle sooner? By digging out of the Earth all the raw materials necessary to manufacture a new vehicle and then manufacturing it, using all the heavy machinery necessary to do that? By replacing it with a vehicle that is much heavier (more materials) than the car it replaces? That uses more power, which result in the production of substantially more of the dread gas that is supposedly “changing” the “climate” “catastrophically”?
Well, that’s what EeeeeeeeVeeeees do – and are.
My old truck produces no more of the dread gas than results from burning the modest amount of gas it converts from chemical to mechanical energy. The truck itself is “net zero” in every other respect. Every part of it (beyond such things as air and fuel filters, brake pads and so on) was made . . . 20 years ago. No factory is drawing power from a utility to smelt the metal to make its panels. Not a watt of power is being sucked by it from a utility that runs on coal or oil or natural gas.
The longer I hold onto it, the better it is for “the environment.”
It is certainly better for the “environment” than throwing it away and buying an EeeeeeeeVeeeeee to replace it. How much C02 would be produced in the process of making one? And – having been made – how much gas will be produced to keep it going?
EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeees do not burn any gas internally – and it is from that truth that the lie about “zero emissions” emanates. For an EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee is only a “zero emissions” vehicle if it either never moves or if the power needed to make it move does not come from a utility plant that burns coal or oil or natural gas. And this is very hard to avoid – unless the EeeeeeeeeVeeeeee owner is willing to forego “fast” charging – which requires very high voltages that are not produced by “clean” home solar panels.
But the EeeeeeeeeVeeeee owner wants to show that he is an “environmentalist,” notwithstanding his wastefulness, which isn’t very good for the environment.
And the car companies definitely want to make sure you pay for it.
It’s too bad about conservationism. About using as little as possible. About making things last as long as possible. About being a good steward of the environment.
But then, there’s not much money in that.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!