Expect a big impact from the little Nano
Indian car company Tata Motors has gone and invented the world’s cheapest car, the Nano, and is expecting to manufacture 250,000 Nanos in its first year of production, before expanding production into Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia. So, with hundreds of thousands of cheap cars suddenly available to large parts of the world that could not previously afford them Slate is posing the question what happens when the green movement crashes into the anti-poverty crusade?
For the philosophically minded, the Nano comes with its own moral conundrum: What happens when the laudable, currently fashionable movement to improve the environment comes directly into conflict with the equally laudable, equally fashionable movement to improve the lives of the poor?
The Nano is better for the environment than most larger cars, but certainly not as sustainable as the cyclists and pedestrians it will be looking to replace. India’s emerging middle class, along with similar large populations around the rest of the world, don’t carry much of the blame for climate change compared to us in highly motorised countries. Equally however New Zealand and our peers can no longer provide the entire solution to climate change on our own either.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am
“India’s emerging middle class, along with similar large populations around the rest of the world, don’t carry much of the blame for climate change compared to us in highly motorised countries”
Is that on a national Co2 emmissions basis?
In which case, New Zealand isn’t responsible, either. We produce very little C02 compared to other countries. And unlike the UK and India, we’ve been gracious enough to keep population level per hectare very, very low.
Doesn’t this count for something?
January 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
A little. But surely you know that our very high emissions per capita would mean we have no right to tell/ask ANY country to reduce their emissions if we are just going to say ‘but we don’t really contribute that much so we aren’t actually going to do anything ourselves, okay?!’, thus making it easier to freeze us out of any negotiations that would affect us, as well as making it easier for other countries to enact protectionist legislation against us - justified or not.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“What happens when the laudable, currently fashionable movement to improve the environment comes directly into conflict with the equally laudable, equally fashionable movement to improve the lives of the poor?”
And why do we assume that cars are the best way to improve the lives of anyone? Why not plan our cities so that people can access what they need locally, or have access to good enough public transport to get to whatever else they need without cars? That would both improve life quality and reduce emissions.
“And unlike the UK and India, we’ve been gracious enough to keep population level per hectare very, very low.”
“Gracious enough”? The fact that our per capita emissions are so high (and that’s what matter, not the aggregate across this arbitrary segment called “New Zealand”) is largely because our population density has been so low. Sprawling suburbs and dispersed land use patterns have led to most people being reliant on cars just to get a loaf of bread. And it’s a vicious circle: once people need cars, they need places to drive and store them, and our cities become ripped apart by motorways and parking lots, making it even harder to get anywhere on foot.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
StephenR -
A remote island in the pacific would have very high emissions per capita if they fired up another diesel generator. But is doesn’t really mean anything.
>>ripped apart by motorways
I think we need more of them. In Wellington, at least. Send traffic around the outside, keep the inside relatively free for walking, bikes and scooters.
And before anyone jumps down my throat regarding cars, we don’t necessarily need to power them with oil. And very soon won’t. That latest air engine can do 150kmph, with a range of 160 to 320 km, and Tata plan to introduce them.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
It’s more about per capita emissions than percentage increases BluePeter, though percentage increases can be interesting.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Or VERY interesting when you come to China and India…
January 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Tomsk
And why do we assume that cars are the best way to improve the lives of anyone?
I do not think anybody is saying that cars are the best way to improve people’s lives, but they do improve people’s lives.
I have no car, have not had one for three years now (an economic decision). As soon as I can afford one again, I am getting one. Primarily for shopping trips and taking my dogs out to socialise with other dogs (I have a problem child of a dog who needs special friends).
I live at the top of a hill. Carrying groceries for three people, two dogs, two cats, two axolotls and a varying number of fish (depending on axolotl hunger) up that hill definitely adversely effects my quality of life.
That Nano is the car I want. (Or a Honda Jazz).
peace
W
January 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Half of our emissions are from agriculture. Most of our agriculture is for the benefit of other nations. Thus our emissions per capita are nothing out of the ordinary. EU regional stats show that agricultural employment is highest where population density is lowest. Curiously the EU regional stats don’t include carbon emissions per capita.
Carbon emissions per hectare may a more useful measure than emissions per capita.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
gracious? you mean lucky enough. we’re doing our level best to throw that advantage away with massive immigration rates
January 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“gracious? you mean lucky enough. we’re doing our level best to throw that advantage away with massive immigration rates”
I think we should so everything to encourage it: our cities could do with a lot more population, especially in the centres. Denser cities are not only more sustainable, they’re much more exciting.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
got a question about biological emmissions which i’m sure can be answered among all the smart & well informed folk here…
in the case of biological emmissions (e.g. agricultural), isn’t it the case that getting rid of the offending organisms (e.g. cattle) will only cause their biomass to be replace with an equal quantity of other organisms which also emit? i’ve heard that even insects in the forest emit stupendous quantities of methane, & as all species tend to multiply to take up all the available resources, removing one species only makes space for another doesn’t it? & ultimately the human race needs a certain space dedicated to breeding food organisms, so it’s not like we can just replace the dairying land with forest is it?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I would much rather cars in developing countries were largely avoided with the notable exception of emergency services, but I also understand that it’s highly hypocritical to say such a thing given the society I live in, even if I don’t really use cars myself.
I think this sort of development will be great, as long as we can offset its impact.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:48 am
There are four very good reason why we should all be alarmed by the release of the Nano. The Nano is the modern equivalent of the Model T, the Austin 7, the Topolino (little mouse) and the Beetle. Cheap, basic, fuel efficient transport for the emerging middle classes and catalyst for an explosive growth in motorization. To paraphrase Dad’s Army “If history repeats we’re all doomed, I tell ye.”
January 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
yeah all that crime & stuff.
truth is we already have one of the world’s most urbanized populations, and higher population is always LESS sustainable
January 17th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“yeah all that crime & stuff.”
Which explains why Hong Kong has a higher crime rate than South Central LA, and why Oriental Bay is more dangerous than Cannons Creek. Oh, hang on…
“truth is we already have one of the world’s most urbanized populations”
That’s an oft-quoted statistic, and very misleading. By “urbanised”, they mean “living in towns and metropolitan areas, as opposed to farms and villages”, rather than anything I’d recognise as “urban”. It includes people living in Taihape and Timaru, Albany and Upper Hutt. The truth is that we’re one of the world’s most _sub_urbanised populations; hence our high car use.
“and higher population is always LESS sustainable”
In absolute terms, yes, but I’m talking about density. Manhattan is more sustainable _per head_ than Whitby or Massey, because hardly anyone drives, each hectare of land houses many more people, and because multi-family dwellings are more heat-efficient than detached ones. The trick, when encouraging immigration, is not to keep our cities sprawling ever-outwards, but to concentrate the growth around city centres and transport nodes so that we can reach the critical mass to support high-quality, space- and energy-efficient public transport, and to enable the development of local shops and amenities.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
in that case campaign for more urbanization & less immigration.
if a a typically law abiding hong-kongite moved to south central la they’d probably still be law abiding regardless of their new environment. dense cities are possible in places where the population are well behaved enough… not the other way around. it’a annoying to keep having to explain what every scientifically-minded person already knows, that a single statistic counts for very little. correlating just 3 or 4 urban centres for density & crime tells you nothing about the other factors possibly contributing to those matters.
anyway, don’t ignore “stuff” - as in crime & stuff. noise issues for a start. you’d be naive in the extreme if you imagine that issue will go away when you simply cram people in closer. it would be like hell
January 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“in that case campaign for more urbanization & less immigration.”
I’m not expecting the suburbs to empty out any time soon, and besides, NZ as a whole could do with a lot more people, for the same critical mass reasons.
“it’a annoying to keep having to explain what every scientifically-minded person already knows, that a single statistic counts for very little. correlating just 3 or 4 urban centres for density & crime tells you nothing about the other factors possibly contributing to those matters.”
My reply wasn’t meant as a correlation, simply a series of counterexamples to show that the idea of density creating crime (as you seemed to be implying) is wrong. I’ll have to dig up some actual stats: I’m pretty sure I’ve seen scatter plots that show the opposite.
“anyway, don’t ignore “stuffâ€? - as in crime & stuff. noise issues for a start. you’d be naive in the extreme if you imagine that issue will go away when you simply cram people in closer. it would be like hell”
Of course the issues have to be managed, but the payoff is much greater. And it’s hardly as if the suburbs are quiet: back when I lived in Grey Lynn, the endless lawnmowers and DIYers made it impossible to sleep in on a weekend morning. I much prefer a bit of street and bar noise, and besides, with proper sound insulation that shouldn’t be a problem.
Stuck in a big empty suburb miles from anywhere, where it’s half an hour’s walk to a dairy let alone a decent bar: now that’s my idea of hell!
January 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
managed? we can’t even stop the DOOMF DOOMF DOOMF people driving around with their boom boxes in everyone’s faces vibrating the building foundations. they’ll drive up & down the main steet a dozen times past the police station & nothing is done. you would be absolutely mad to imagine we could increase population density without drastically cutting our quality of life.
there’s no payoff. if cities are spread out, then have public transport, that’s the sort of solution which should be explored, not more people, which is the cause of all problems.
if you are seeking a correlation between population density & crime, you’ll find a positive one.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:47 am
anyone going to take a shot at answering my question. there must be someone who knows (see my 4th-to-last post in this thread)
January 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am
andrew,
>>isn’t it the case that getting rid of the offending organisms (e.g. cattle) will only cause their biomass to be replace with an equal quantity of other organisms which also emit?
Different organisms convert biomass with different degrees of efficiency. So it would depend on what biomass replaces cattle, and whether that biomass is flora or fauna.
>> i’ve heard that even insects in the forest emit stupendous quantities of methane, & as all species tend to multiply to take up all the available resources, removing one species only makes space for another doesn’t it?
Only in two dimensions, ie land area. In three dimensions scrub and trees grow taller than grass and therefore the volume of carbon absorbing biomass can increase non-linearly with any increase in methane emitting biomass.
>> & ultimately the human race needs a certain space dedicated to breeding food organisms, so it’s not like we can just replace the dairying land with forest is it?
Again, agricultural flora and fauna have a great variety of food production efficiencies per hectare. So while dairying land couldn’t just be replaced with forest it could be replaced with a mix of soy crops and forest.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:00 am
andrew said “if you are seeking a correlation between population density & crime, you’ll find a positive one.”
Is this after you control for per capita incomes, or before?
andrew also said “you would be absolutely mad to imagine we could increase population density without drastically cutting our quality of life.”
IMHO quality of life is an intensely subjective measurement. City folk think the country is a nice place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there. Country folk think the same about cities.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Andrew
I would love to be able to answer you definitely but I am NOT an expert about everything (an admission that causes consternation among friend and foe alike).
I think you are correct. I am not able to be sure overall, but the process of replacement and nature filling the empty niches is a dynamic to be reckoned with. The catch is that some things may be more efficient than others at converting food to fuel and thus waste less energy. On an energy balance, the methane emitted by the cow is a dead loss. Potential energy unrealized to the benefit of the organism. Much as the methane coming out of a sewer is a dead loss unless you collect it and burn it.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas… it counts heavily against us in the CO2 tally. Burned to CO2 and H20 it would give us both energy and a lighter carbon “footprint”.
So the replacement issue may not be as straightforward as all that.
I think you’re on the right track with this question. Just wish someone would do a better job of answering than I can.
respectfully
BJ
January 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
thanks kevyn & bjchip - anyone else care to have a crack at answering?
kevyn, NOT SOY! http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
January 18th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
andrew,
on top of what bj and kevyn have said, i would point out that large amounts of land arnt neccacarily needed to supply food, different crops and animals produce different yeilds per acre and produce different levels of polution, some doing more good than bad in terms of eco-damage.
An interesting project ive been watching for some years now is the Vertical farm (www.VerticalFarm.com), it is a study of growing crops and some animals such as fish and poultry in a tower environment in a efficent manner which uses little land and has little to no need for fertilisers and pesticides as it is inclosed, studies of the economics show that is is practical if you have the initial capital, and with rising food and fuel prices its only going to become more so, plus it can be implimented localy
Sapient
January 18th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
and another thing, the vertical farm also takes in the waste from the community, be it food scraps or black water, converts it indirectly back into food and drinking water, or at least gray water.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:11 am
andrew, I stand corrected. If soy and dairy products are both unfit for human consumption then that only leaves “economic” reasons not to convert dairy farms into forests.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
not so - we still need to eat something! & i’m not sure what yeild of tuis, nuts & huhu grubs we could expect from forest replacing all our dairy land, but in any case would they be as palatable? & could we ever create a foreign demand for huhu milk? oh well, if they can sell civet coffee…
(anyway is dairy really unfit for human consumption or does it all go back to the a2/a1 controversy?
January 25th, 2008 at 2:48 am
I’ve been drinking cow’s milk all my life and I aint dead yet.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:57 am
yes kevyn..
but how ‘thick’ is your blood..?..currently..?..
..and yr age..?
the (recently stopped cos’ of fears of harming subjects being given calcium supplements) study at auckland university has proven the link between our chronically high rates of ‘thick blood’ deaths..(heart/hypertension etc etc)..
..and our world beating rates of dairy consumption..
that’s cos’ the researchers/scientists have found/discovered/proven that dairy/milk/cheese ‘thickens your blood’..
and fans of irony will (wryly) applaud the fact that this longitudinal study was funded by the dairy industry..
their worst nightmares have come to pass..
they have funded/instigated the research that proves just how unhealthy/bad for you/us their product is..(!)
and kevyn..!..the longterm effects from this blood-thickening don’t kick in untill yr 40’s-50’s..
so..i guess you (and other readers/cheese-eaters) need to do the math..
and maybe..think on..!..
eh..?
“would you like some grated cheese on that..?..”
so..let’s summarise..
meat is bad for you..
dairy is bad for you..
(both age/obesify/kill you..)
maybe ‘it’s time’ to consider the vegan option..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
& what’s your main source of protein?
January 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
phil,
How thick is my blood? Judging from the effect it’s having as it passes through my brain, it’s getting thicker every day.
You’ve answered andrew’s question better than I could have.
and fans of irony will (wryly) applaud the fact that my throw away line was plaigarised from a song about “nicotine slaves” released way back in 1947.
Smoke Smoke Smoke - Tex Williams/Merle Travis
chorus
“Smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
puff puff puff it
if you smoke yourself to death
tell St Peter at the golden gate
that you hates to make him wait
but you just gotta have another cigarette”
Clearly the evils of tobacco were common knowledge in 1947.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
what, you mean you couldn’t have answered in whole sentences?
seriously though, he didn’t answer my question. to show that cows milk has some problems doesn’t answer whether those problems would be eliminated if we switched to the other kind, and it doesn’t alter the fact that every form of nutrition has something good to say about it & something bad.
i ask phil again, where do you get your protein?
January 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
So, how bout that car…lol
Iron as well please
January 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
actually we could just get off our arses and do some research
January 25th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
go there fr answers..
http://www.veganoutreach.org/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
so how about it phil, tell us where you get your protein?
it should take only one sentence
January 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
o.k. if you’re just going to reply with a website phil u, then i can do likewise right?
here you go then
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/