The equation will always be difficult, as you need to factory in all the parts that need to be manufactured to reoplace worn parts. What you would be better off doing is trying to work out how much energy is required to built components that last more than 30 years.

things like:

engine block, crank and pistons. Heads require repair, cams wear out etc.

Body shell.
Paint
Seats etc

I know it would be harder.

The argument of old clunkers is flawed anyway, the fuel injected era, 22 years now for Holden, has given us great fuel efficiency. My daughter's JE Camira gets near as good as some of her friends newer 4 cylinder cars. She has auto, air and steer, so is a reasonable comparison to a newer car.

Unfortunately the polititions and media do not take into account all factors. Look at the solar panels, we produce them overseas with cheap energy, and then place them on our roofs, they take almost as much energy to produce as they deliver over their life time, but that is beside the point. They are looking at the next generation being more efficient and would argue that the use today will make it worth while for more research.

Warren

Warren

yes ewes blokes are correctomundo.
many variables,
but there must be a ball park figure, say 10.1 of per kilo of completed car, that can be used to give a fair assesment of the crap idea that getting rid of an older car is somehow good for the enviroment?/
my mates new van gets 13klm to a litre of diesal.
mine when it was diesal and actually ran, got 10klm per litre/
if one assumes that each litre weighs i kilo, and after combustion releases 20% of GHGases, then it means over the next 200oooklms his car releases .8 of a tonne of ghgases less than mine?
this is a ballpark figure off course.
therefore moriati, it is elementary, that if it takes 50 tonnes of ghgases to produce the new car, it would take ten times 200000klms to break even?
2000000klms
so i just need a ballpark figure to present to a broadcaster who is going to talk about it on the wadio.
come on ewes blokes give me an idea of the tonnes required?
cheers
bcb

it was but yesterday, i thought myself a fragment, quivering without rythum in the sphere of life.
now i know i am the sphere, and all of life quivers in rythmic fragments, within me!
kg.

[quote]Originally posted by 80569K
Just to mention politics once only.

I think Little Johnnie's opinion that global warming is a natural phenomenon and thus the whole debate is a furphy is correct. It is just another example of the EU and the UN taking us all down the wrong road yet again.

Look back through the history of the planet, the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. The last ice age ended only 18,000 years ago, this cold cycle that is ending now has been going for 30 million years. Just Google it, it's all there hidden in plain sight on the internet.

yep, all so true, except the last ice age ended in the 17th century, when greenland turned to ice, and the vikings stopped selling milk and cheese to europe, and had to invade england to survive! [mini iceage it was called[
but to back up this argument i need to have a ballpark idea on how many tonnes of ghgases, are expended to make a new car.
because if it is a hundred tonnes, then it will take 4 million klms of driving to catch up on the extra ghgases??
cheers


it was but yesterday, i thought myself a fragment, quivering without rythum in the sphere of life.
now i know i am the sphere, and all of life quivers in rythmic fragments, within me!
kg.

hey ewes blokes,
here is the letter i sent to a radio jock, re the actual cost of green house gases, in replacing older cars with new ones.
i had to assume some things, whch i believe are on the conservative side,
please feel free to amend and or correct my assumptions,
i have also not allowed for maintenance/servicing etc?
i believe we must start now to stop this crap about older cars, before we are all forced to discard our beloved veehikles.>>>>>>>>

hi gary,
i have been trying hard to find out about the actual cost to the enviroment of replacing an older car, for new one?
very difficult,
but the following is a simplistic cost comparison re 2 similar vehicles>>
both weigh the same. and it is not allowing for mantenance/breakdowns etc
my older car 10klms per litre
my mates new car 13klms per litre
over 200000klms travelled, older car uses 2000ltrs
new car uses 1500ltrs
difference 500ltrs or if 1 litre producers 50% by weight of green house gases, this equates to 250kilos of extra ghgases, [i think more like 30%, not sure[
however if, it takes 10 metric tonne of ghgases to make the new car, [ probably heaps more] then it will take 40 times 200000klms or 8,000.000 million kilometrs to break even on a positive lessening of the amount of ghgases produced??
if it takes 1 metric tonne of gfg to make new car, then it is a 200000klms x 4, 800000klms before it is better for the enviroment.
most new cars are cactus by 250,ooo klms, so one never gets a benefit to the enviroment.
always better to keep the older cars and all appliances for that matter for as long as possible.
feel free to have a captain cook, and i will be happy to stand corrected, on the figures, but not the general argument, the only benefit of doing this is to the car makers,
obviously if the older car is no longer servicable, then should be replaced.?
cheers and salutations
phillip


it was but yesterday, i thought myself a fragment, quivering without rythum in the sphere of life.
now i know i am the sphere, and all of life quivers in rythmic fragments, within me!
kg.

Yes exactly, re using the usable parts off a dead car on a similar model is far more environmentally friendly than melting the car down and then re making new parts for a similar or new model vehicle will ever be.

Re use is the most environmentally sustainable plan.

---

Vandals and graffiti "artists" do everyone a favour and target parking meters and fixed speed cameras only.

I feel we are being conned on the whole carbon idea. Carbon is supposed to be bad according to people who want to make money out of it. Our whole life system is based on carbon, the so called evil, noxious co2 is required for plants to survive and create our oxygen, it is even denser than air so would sink to the ground not go up into the atmosphere to create a greenhouse gas. All lies by people wth a vested interest, Carbon tax = you pay me money and you can continue to do what you are doing.

Cheers,
Pete.
Old Holdens never die, they just go faster.

Yep, and probably as much as they can get into in order to steer anyones money into their grubby little Swiss bank account. The same sort of bottom feeders as those mortgage brokers who started the GFC.

Edited by user Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:36:19 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

100% correct.

At least the cash for clunkers scheme had some validity in places like the U.S.A & Germany where they have a huge local car industry. It would have a small stimulus effect maybe. There are no gains to be made for the Greenies.

In Australia where more than 80% of people buy imports, what is it stimulating, the Korean economy ?

The pollies in Canberra have no concept of reality especially in this area.

Dr Terry

_________________________________________

When calculating a car restoration budget, be as accurate as you can & then double the final figure. It will be closer to the truth.

Here is the text of an email currently doing the rounds...

To ALL the Greenies on the planet ..

All of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, you know ....that bogus god you worship of Climate Change or Global Warming .....well, I feel it is necessary to inform you of some bad news.

Are you sitting down?.................Okay, here's the bombshell.
The volcanic eruption in Iceland, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past 5 years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, I know...it's very disheartening to realise that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of:
*driving Prius hybrids, *buying fabric grocery bags, * sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, * throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, * using only two squares of toilet paper, * putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, * selling your SUV and speedboat, * vacationing at home instead of Bali, * nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, * replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ....
.........well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just 4 days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just 4 days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

Oh, I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

The bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.

And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government is about to impose a whopping carbon TAX on you on the basis of the bogus human-caused climate change scenario.

Hey, isnt it interesting how they dont mention Global Warming any more, but just Climate Change - you know why?

Its because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century!

And just keep in mind that, you will have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It wont stop any volcanoes from erupting, thats for sure.

But hey, grab a Coke, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

I love these topics. Sorry i'm late!

Rare earth minerals, look into them. Mining them is immensely pulluting and amongst the most inefficient forms of production you'll ever come across.

What needs these rare earth minerals? Hybrid cars are a big buyer. It's been proven that if you consider manufacture, life span and disposal of a car, Hybrids rank among the worst vehicles you can buy. It's literally only on day to day running that they "appear" to win.

Global temperature cycles exist for many reasons, including Earth's eliptical orbit and location relative to the sun. There's no doubt we contribute to polluting the globe, but we are not warming it up, it's that simple.

And in case anyone missed, the research company who is the UN's chief source for global warming data, the ones who told us the ice caps would melt in 30 years and really kick started this global warming sham? You know them? They stuffed up. Their real figures showed that it'll take a full 300 years at this rate. This was a public event, no conspiracy theory, they duffed it.

"Silly modern cars"