TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Push the Breaks!

Published 30th September 2009 - 13 comments - 1205 views -

 

Global CO2 emissions have grown with 1,94% in 2008, reaching 31.5 billion tons, according to IWR Germany.  How much of this is coming from Romania? I don't know but maybe the huge number of second hand cars we've been importing from the Western Europe (especially from Germany and The Netherlands) in the last couple of years can answer this question.

In the first 7 months of 2008, the total number of registered cars in Romania doubled, reaching 112.054 unities. July 2008 was a golden month for the second hand car market, from a total number of 58.261 unities, more than half - 36.711 were imported. How did we end up in this situation?

An easy explanation is taxes. 2008 was the year we'll remember as the one with an odd tax system that asked for less money for imported second hand cars than for new ones, bought from local showrooms. 

A hard to admit explanation is people. Unfortunately, too many people here are all about owning the greatest house, the latest gadget and the ultimate car brand. The age of the car, the emissions and the fact that an old engine can barely start are not a priority. As long as the logo of BMW, Audi or Mercedes blings its way on the hood, nothing else matters.

Or does it? According to Agerpres, via Green Report, the quantity of dust in our capital city, Bucharest, in August this year reached 90micrograms/mc - when the maximum admitted peak is 50micrograms/mc. NO2 and O3 values are constantly over the admitted maximum limit, too. These gases irritate the airways of the lungs, increasing the symptoms of those suffering from lung diseases.

Various dispersion models are used in Romania, mainly at local scale: the Danish OML (NERI), AERMODE (USEPA), INPUFF (US-EPA), CALINE4 (US-EPA), OSPM (Operational Street Pollution Model). For larger scales is used the Australian model- TAPM (The Air Pollution Model).

Air quality standards via the Australian Department of Environemnt, Water, Heritage and the Arts

All the above data basically says that we're increasingly polluting ourselves and 70% of all this pollution comes from our own cars. And, although I don't live in Bucharest, I see the symptoms of another city soon to be choking in its own emissions.

So what would you do if you'd live here and have the power to push the brakes? I, too, have a second hand, Italian, small car that was brought from Germany because it was less expensive there than here. It's not a statement, just an observation. Or a hint to make you think about it.

P.S. Try to go beyond the obvious solutions like less cars/more bycicles - these won't work, because the issue has its roots in the rotten mentality of a whole nation and at least a couple more generations must disperse, before common sense and logic would replace the "want more" & "never have enough" mottos that seem to be the guides around here.

Category: Air Quality, | Tags: co2 emissions, second hand cars, air quality,



Comments

Waldo Vanderhaeghen on 30th September 2009:

Interesting question. Perhaps a viable solution is that the Romanian government puts tougher limits on how clean the car engine is. This can then be checked upon in the yearly car check-up.

Another ‘solution’ is going the German way: subsidising new car purchases.

Adela on 30th September 2009:

There are countries that successfully went the “lower taxes for lower emissions” way.

We theoretically have the “Rabla” (Jalopy) program that is supposed to partially solve the old cars problem. But very few actually go for this option. Many can’t afford a new car (even if the government pays a small % of the price to cover the “damage” done by you giving up your old wreck), or they simply don’t care and go on using their co2 emission booster.

affordable car insurance on 09th October 2009:

Call me crazy but I don’t know anything about cars and I’ve just been informed to stay away from American car brands?
affordable car insurance

Mike on 09th October 2009:

If you want to achieve 80% cuts in emissions you must destroy every car on the planet.

Cars take 3 times as much energy to produce than the energy they consume through petrol over their lifetimes. Any “increased efficiency” of cars are dwarfed by orders of magnitude from the energy it takes to produce them.

The only plausible method of achieving 80% emissions cuts by 2050 is to wipe out 80% of the population.

Adela on 09th October 2009:

Mike, if wiping out populations would be a viable solution, we could simply not do anything about climate change. The end result would be the same.

Mike on 09th October 2009:

Incorrect.

No amount of investment in “green” technologies will do anything to reduce our “CO2 footprint” by 2050. Even if we achieved 100% renewable energy, the initial energy investment to build the infrastructure wouldn’t break-even before 2100, let alone result in an 80% net reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050. In other words, whether we “do something” (to reduce CO2 emissions) or not, our CO2 output by 2050 would not change the slightest.

Therefore, if the solution is to reduce emissions, the only way to achieve it is to depopulate the planet, and now. Of course, I have no intent of entertaining that idea, or any others pertaining to the reduction of CO2.

If we wish to reverse what we deem to be undesirable warming of the atmosphere, manipulation of the planet’s albedo is the only feasible and guaranteed method of reducing the global mean average temperature. The effect would be immediate, highly controllable and without any of the cost, death and suffering that would result from attempting to reduce CO2 emissions.

Adela on 09th October 2009:

I don’t know much about the planet’s albedo so I can’t argue here.

But I also don’t believe in “wonders” with immediate effects & no costs, death and suffering.
For every action, there’s a reaction.

Mike on 09th October 2009:

With the planet supposedly at stake, is it pragmatic to base decisions on belief? Surely you can afford to expand your horizons on your own initiative.

My basic understanding of geoengineering via the albedo effect:

Reflective particles scattered high in the atmosphere deflect sunlight away from the surface, reducing radiative forcing.

Particles scattered low in the atmosphere promote cloud seeding; increased low-level clouds reflect sunlight away with a net negative radiative forcing.

Adela on 09th October 2009:

For Mike - I believe in the 3rd law of physics.

For other readers - Read more on albedo.

Mike on 10th October 2009:

How about I explain it in a way even you can understand.

Action: Increase the planet’s albedo (ratio of reflected to incident light) by scattering particles at certain altitudes high and low in the atmosphere.

Reaction: Decreased incidence of solar radiation to the surface, resulting in lower atmospheric temperatures.

Adela on 10th October 2009:

I got it, Mike, it’s a possible direction, but it’s not perfect as you 1st presented.

“Albedo works on a smaller scale, too. People who wear dark clothes in the summertime put themselves at a greater risk of heatstroke than those who wear lighter color clothes”

I’m not trying to exclude it, I’m simply pointing out that, as in everything else, there are risks. smile

Mike on 11th October 2009:

As I have already explained, the only way to achieve 80% emission reductions by 2050 is to exterminate 80% of the world’s population.

You would forgo billions of lives for the supposed “risks” of increasing the planet’s albedo.

But then your argument is invalid in the first place. If increasing albedo has risks, reducing carbon dioxide emissions must have the same risks. Both actions serve to reduce the planet’s temperature. The method which is used to achieve this is therefore irrelevant. With the minor exception that my method won’t cause untold death and suffering.

Road Accident Claim on 13th November 2009:

What is the best way of creating leads to sell second hand cars?
Road Accident Claim

This article is archived. Comments are closed.