Anentertainment industry publication, recently published an op-ed titled “Should Old Cars Be Banned to Combat Pollution?” In the piece, it is argued that eliminating old cars would reduce pollution and carbon emissions, ultimately aiding in the fight against global warming or climate change.
However, the argument relies heavily on emotion and makes numerous assumptions, likely influenced by traditional media narratives: that outdated, inefficient vehicles are destroying the environment, transitioning to electric vehicles will rectify the issue, and that the science behind rising temperatures is unquestionable.
It takes an assertive stance, suggesting that older cars—though without specifying how old—are inherently more polluting since they were manufactured under looser emissions regulations.
This perspective assumes that vehicle emissions are a one-dimensional issue, disregarding the complexities involved.
As governments implement stricter emissions mandates along with increased safety regulations and more robust vehicle structures, cars have become larger, heavier, and significantly more expensive.
For example, a 2021 Honda Civic weighs between 2,771 to 3,012 pounds, whereas a 1989 Honda Civic had a curb weight of just 2,286 pounds, marking a substantial difference.
While modern internal combustion engines are more fuel-efficient, the added weight of contemporary vehicles partially offsets these advancements. This highlights the complexity of the issue, which is often oversimplified.
There is a common saying that the least-polluting car is one that is well-maintained and kept on the road.
When individuals discard their older vehicles in favor of new ones, they are supporting a manufacturing process that itself generates a considerable amount of pollution, potentially exceeding that produced by simply continuing to drive an existing vehicle.
The article references various government measures restricting classic cars, particularly those without catalytic converters, in specific areas, most notably Paris, France. The author suggests that such policies would significantly reduce urban pollution.
However, data indicates that most Americans who own classic cars use them sparingly, mainly on weekends for leisure. It is rare to find someone commuting daily in a 1970 Chevelle SS, meaning that banning older or classic vehicles would likely have a negligible impact on overall emissions.
Restricting vehicles that are approximately 20 years old from public roads would also have severe economic repercussions for low-income individuals. Many rely on older vehicles as an affordable means of transportation and lack the financial resources to purchase newer models.
Those unaffected by financial constraints may fail to recognize this reality. Some have proposed government assistance programs to help economically disadvantaged individuals acquire electric vehicles, though such initiatives remain controversial.
Regardless of one’s stance on electric vehicles, it is undeniable that their production results in significant pollution. Due to the processes involved in battery manufacturing, the production of electric cars is even more polluting than that of internal combustion engine vehicles.
Additionally, the extraction of rare earth minerals required for electric vehicles poses substantial environmental and ethical concerns.
In China’s Jiangxi region, for example, workers dig holes and introduce ammonium sulfate to dissolve sandy clay. The extracted material undergoes multiple acid baths and is baked in a kiln to isolate the rare earth minerals, which constitute only 0.2 percent of the total output.
The remaining 99.8 percent, now contaminated with toxic chemicals, is dumped back into the environment, causing severe ecological damage. Other mining operations rely on heavy machinery powered by diesel or coal-fired electricity, creating an ironic contradiction in the push for cleaner transportation.
Most electricity powering American homes still comes from coal-fired plants. As a result, the majority of EVs rely on coal-generated electricity rather than sustainable sources like wind or solar.
While hydro and nuclear power are more environmentally viable options, they are less prevalent. Since coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, using coal-powered electricity to charge EVs contradicts the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
Whenever someone asserts that “the science is settled” on any issue, it signals an attempt at manipulation, whether intentional or not. A fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry is the presence of dissenting viewpoints. Scientists rarely reach absolute consensus on complex subjects.
Similar to mathematical theorems, a single credible scientist who challenges the consensus that carbon emissions from automobiles significantly contribute to global temperature increases is enough to warrant skepticism.
One notable dissenter is MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, who argues that numerous variables influence Earth’s temperature. Other climate skeptics exist, but mainstream media frequently omits their perspectives, creating the illusion of unanimous agreement.
A de facto ban on older cars has already been attempted through the Cash for Clunkers program. Despite efforts by some media outlets to portray it as a success, the initiative ultimately failed.
Forcibly removing vehicles from owners would not only result in similar negative consequences but also raise serious ethical concerns. Those who genuinely believe they are saving the planet may overlook the authoritarian implications of such policies, disregarding the civil liberties of the public.