 |
 |
 |
|
|
        |
| |
|
|
|
The Little Car that Environmentalists Love to Hate
Car A gets a fuel efficiency of 46 miles per gallon. Car B gets about 50 miles per gallon. Car A is called the Toyota Prius and is hailed by environmentalists as a step towards solving global warming. Car B, a new car called the Tata Nano unveiled by an Indian company, is reviled by environmentalists as disastrous for global warming.
This is a guest post from Siddhartha Shome, of Fremont, California. He holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and works as an engineer in Silicon Valley. He writes about international development, global warming, and India. ----- Car A gets a fuel efficiency of 46 miles per gallon. Car B gets about 50 miles per gallon. Car A is called the Toyota Prius and is hailed by environmentalists as a step towards solving global warming. Car B, a new car called the Tata Nano unveiled by an Indian company, is reviled by environmentalists as disastrous for global warming. The New York Times devotes an entire editorial condemning the Tata Nano. Columnist and author Tom Friedman calls for the Tata Nano to be "taxed like crazy." The reason for this extreme criticism? The Tata Nano is cheap - very cheap. It is a revolutionary new car design that will cost only about $2,500 and will bring car ownership within reach of millions of new people in the developing world.
The environmentalists' hypocrisy is breathtaking. How can anything be criticized simply for being affordable? Tomorrow, if college education is made more accessible and affordable in India, will the New York Times denounce it on the grounds that college graduates tend to earn more and buy more consumer goods and hence enlarge their environmental "footprint"? The attitude of many environmentalists today is not unlike that of the Duke of Wellington at the dawn of the railroad era, who criticized the railways on the grounds that they would "only encourage the common people to move about needlessly." Many environmentalists take the view that human civilization and development have been unmitigated disasters for the planet. In this view, human activities such as economic development, industrialization, consumerism, car-ownership, etc., have been guilty of destroying the environment and causing global warming. Supposedly the only way out is to curb these human activities and abandon our vain attempts to achieve progress and "growth." In this view, an ideal society is one that is based on limited ambition, limited needs and subsistence production. Based on this core idea that human activities are inherently bad for the planet, the solutions that environmentalists propose generally involve imposition of limits, quotas, punitive taxes, restrictions, etc., with the aim of curbing human activities and human initiative. True, limits and quotas can certainly lead to some modest reductions in energy consumption. However, to address global warming, it is necessary to achieve not just modest reductions, but fundamental paradigm-changing shifts in energy usage. This calls for key breakthroughs in energy technology, which can hardly be achieved through a limits-and-quotas approach. Consider the following: - As authors Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger point out, it is highly unlikely that simply introducing restrictive quotas for typewriters would have instigated critical breakthroughs in computer technology. Rather, public investment in science and technology was the key. - One of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century was the Green Revolution in countries like India. It dramatically increased food production, thereby avoiding the Malthusian catastrophe of a global "gigantic inevitable famine" caused by population growth outstripping food supply. The Green Revolution was built upon new agricultural technologies and infrastructure. Just like the Computer Revolution, it was not primarily the introduction of food quotas, but rather, large public investments and human ingenuity that made the Green Revolution possible. What many environmentalists do not seem to understand is that if global warming is ever to be solved, it will be solved by human ingenuity, by technological innovation, by further human progress. The idea that the environment should be saved by severely curbing human ingenuity and human initiative is fundamentally flawed. While we should certainly seek to mitigate the negative side-effects of development, the emphasis must be on moving forward, on further human progress. Human civilization and development have been wonderful. People today live longer, fuller, lives, with more prosperity, freedom, opportunity, and choice, than ever before. How can this be a bad thing? The world needs more progress and development, not less. The solution to global warming lies not in restricting, but rather, in encouraging human ingenuity and human initiative to develop new innovative clean energy technologies. The Tata Nano is part of a trend: the tendency of companies in countries like India and China to take a product, squeeze costs out of it, and make it much more affordable. The most prominent example is the proliferation of ultra-cheap "made in China" products on the shelves of Wal-Mart. Another example is Indian drug companies selling antiretroviral AIDS drugs in Africa for a fraction of the price charged by Western drug companies. Rather than railing against this trend for bringing "Western-style" consumerism within the reach of millions of the world's less-wealthy, will it not be better if environmentalists seek to utilize this Indian and Chinese ingenuity to drive down the price of clean energy technologies? At its core, our approach to dealing with global warming must articulate a positive vision that people - including millions in the developing world - can embrace, not just a nightmare that people need to be scared of. As Nordhaus and Shellenberger point out, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., is remembered not for his "I have a Nightmare" speech, but for his "I have a Dream" speech. Imagine if, instead of painting the Tata Nano as a nightmarish "carbon-emitter," the New York Times editorial had said something like this: "We have a dream that one day every Indian family will be able to afford a car that runs on clean energy. This dream can become a reality if technological innovations make clean energy affordable to all. We call upon the U.S. government to fund a massive new initiative to develop new affordable clean energy technologies." Now, that would have been a vision I'd have loved to embrace. Dreams, after all, are far more powerful than nightmares! On a personal note, my father worked in Tata Motors for many years, and I spent my childhood in India in a township dominated by a Tata Motors factory. Years ago, I myself worked in the company for a few months. For me, the Tata Nano, with its innovative technology, is certainly something to celebrate. 19 COMMENTS:
There's more to being green than miles per gallon. The Nano has none of the pollution restricting technologies that modern vehicles have.
Posted by: Rob
at January 31, 2008 6:08 PM
Siddhartha,
You mention specifically "The Green Revolution." Are you speaking about the generic environmental movement worldwide, or a specific program of the nation of India? Excuse my ignorance, but it is an interesting use of the term "Green" and would love to know if there is an Indian usage different from the U.S. and Europe.
"The Tata Nano is cheap - very cheap. It is a revolutionary new car design that will cost only about $2,500 and will bring car ownership within reach of millions of new people in the developing world. The environmentalists' hypocrisy is breathtaking."
This statement seems implausable as a reason for "hypocritical" environmentalists to put the Tata Nano down. It "feels" to me like you may have an ax to grind but your point is not adequately or appropriately substantiated. Surely there is more behind the Tato Nano's put down than you have revealed in your article.
Rob, Tata Motors has claimed that the car will meet all Indian as well as Euro IV regulations, which is a pretty stringent pollution/smog regulation. They have not yet revealed further details about the car's smog restricting technology. However, smog is not the main issue environmentalists are complaining about. Environmentalists are complaining mainly about Carbon Dioxide emissions that cause global warming. CO2 emissions are not considered pollution/smog in the traditional sense. Nowhere in the world is CO2 emissions regulated (though the EU is working on this), and no car in the world has any CO2 restricting technology. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions today is to increase miles per gallon.
Tom, the "Green Revolution" I have mentioned is very different from the worldwide environmental movement. Sorry for the confusion. I should have made it clearer. The "Green Revolution" I am talking about is the transformation of agriculture through technology and infrastructure that took place in India and other developing countries in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. For more about this, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Charles, The logic used by environmentalists is as follows: if cars become much more affordable than they are today then many in the developing world who cannot currently afford cars will be able to do so, thus increasing the world's car population and CO2 emissions. What makes the environmentalists see red is the low price of the Tata Nano, which makes it widely affordable. Had the Tata Nano come with a huge sticker price, most environmentalists would likely not have criticized it so vehemently. The point I'm trying to make is that it is simply the affordability of the car that is so disliked by environmentalists.
Its not about MPG of gasoline its about the car not having any emissions controls like modern day cars do. Its also about the fact that India as a developing country has an oppurtunity to correct the environmental mistakes that other developed countrys have made as far as urban planning and transportation. India has this great oppurtunity to build a country that runs on mass transit and public transportation as well as the use of bicycles and walking which is far more environmentally freindly than some 50 MPG car, and through this cheap car that is opening up the automobile market to hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) that would otherwise need other forms of transportation, India is throwing away that oppurtunity.
Who says they are throwing away opportunity? I think affordable transportation is increasing opportunities. Do you use a vehicle in Clarence, NY? Why should people in India be restricted from the comforts you allow yourself?
Andrew, Tata Motors have said that the Nano will meet or exceed all Indian emissions regulations, and also that it will meet Euro IV emissions norms. These are fairly strict regulations for emissions (for smog but not for CO2). I expect that the Nano will have a catalytic converter of some sort.
I agree completely with James that India is not "throwing away opportunity" with respect to mass transit. I feel that mass transit is indeed highly desirable and that India should invest heavily in mass transit (and in infrastructure in general). However, I think that it is a completely mistaken belief that simply restricting small cars will lead to the automatic appearance of mass transit systems. I think that if you want mass transit systems, you must invest in them. Banning small cars will not directly lead to the magical creation of mass transit systems. I do not think that this is a zero-sum game, an "either-or" situation. Encourage mass transit by all means, especially in densely packed cities, but why discourage companies from developing innovative new small cars? Let companies come up with increasing affordable cars. Let people have a choice. I think that if effective mass transit systems are built in large Indian cities, the most likely scenario will be that people will use mass transit for their daily commute to/from work, but if they can afford it, people will still want to have some access to personal transport, for trips that are not on the mass transit route, for family outings, for late-night or holiday travel, etc. Note that even in cities with extensive mass transit systems, like New York City, London, Paris, etc., there are numerous private cars and taxis. France, in spite of its very extensive public transport infrastructure, has some 500 cars per 1000 population; while India has only about 7 cars per 1000 population (the U.S. has some 700 cars per 1000 population). Also note that mass transit is usually much less suited for small towns and rural areas, and India is still far less urbanized than Europe or Japan or the U.S.
It is clear to me that many members of the so called environmental movement have no desire to make things better for humankind.
Their agenda is for all of us to live in log cabins and grow just enough food for ourselves in our back yards.
You seem to be making a false assumption with statements like "What many environmentalists do not seem to understand is that if global warming is ever to be solved, it will be solved by human ingenuity" You assume that global warming is man made. There is scientific proof that global warming can not happen as described by Al Gore.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for
granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is alsified.
see whole research paper at:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
Robert, I believe that global warming is indeed a very serious problem that we need to deal with. There is a widespread scientific consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon. There is also empirical evidence of global warming. From what I understand, the empirical evidence is irrefutable and the vast majority of scientists believe that a significant part of global warming has been caused by human-generated greenhouse gases. My understanding is that the theory to fully explain this phenomenon is not 100% there yet, and further research is still needed. This is not unexpected since global climate is an incredibly complex phenomenon with many variables and many unknowns. However, the broad outlines of a global warming theory that is consistent with empirical data has been established and is widely accepted by scientists. It is quite possible (as you seem to indicate) that some of the equations used to model climate change may need some adjustments. But I doubt that this calls into question the fundamental idea that human-generated greenhouse gases are contributing global warming. Unfortunately, I was not able to follow the technical argument you made in your comment, and the link you provided did not work.
I believe that global warming is a serious problem. I do not think it is a hoax. However, I reject most environmentalists' approach to dealing this problem, which (as James points out above) is to severely curb human initiative and human progress and embrace a society based on limited ambition, limited needs and subsistence production.
Sid,
Great post! Like you, I am taken aback by the environmentalists reaction to Tata Nano. It reeks with hypocrisy and dilutes their stand.
Which Tata town did you live in. My father was with Tata Motors for 39 years and I was born and brought up in TELCO Colony, Jamshedpur.
Here is a blog I had written in May 2007 on the Tata small car:
http://guldasta.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/11/
Hi Gurdas, I too spent my childhood in Telco Colony, Jamshedpur. Such a nice nice little township. Also enjoyed reading your blog post on the Tata small car. Thanks.
While the arguments above generally focus on the likely C02 increases that will come with the proliferation of cheap, entry-level cars such as the Nano, the most immediate effect on earth's environment and on the livelihood of our species appears to be entirely left out: the imminent end of cheap oil. The very idea of peak oil was a major disagreement among oil experts and researchers just a few years ago, but is largely now a matter of consensus. The concern has now shifted from 'if' peak oil will occur, to 'when' it will occur (it likely already occurred in 2006) and just how dire the effects will be.
What is most alarming now is that India and China are driving the demand way up whilst the supply is slowly and inexorably falling.
Simply put, the advent and proliferation of cheap, fossil-fuel based transportation in India and China will only hasten a global energy crisis, the likes of which mankind has never seen before.
Friedman's comment that the Nano should be "taxed like crazy" is not evidence of "breathaking" environmental hypocrisy. It is simply the opinion of one person, albeit amplified considerably by being published in the New York Times. Hypocrisy concerning the poor and/or non-American world, by Americans and other wealthy populations is rife. However I do not think environmentalists are more responsible than any other group for this hypocrisy.
One can always selectively quote extreme opinions, but it it unfair to draw generalisations from these. I personally think the Tata Nano breakthrough is very encouraging. I drive a car myself and of course I think people in India should be able to as well.
I hope the Indian environmentalist Amulya Reddy's vision of "technological leapfrogging" can be realised. The Nano is a step towards this.
Photovoltaic cell manufacture is still very low in India. I hope that greatly magnifies. Whatever one's opinion about climate change it is clear that fossil fuel use should be phased out.
Robert, the worldwide shortage of oil is an issue. However, is it fair to criticize the Indians and the Chinese for this? Don't people in India and China have the right to buy petroleum products, just as people in the United States or Europe do? Americans and Europeans criticizing China and India for oil price increases is like criticizing ordinary middle-class families for buying homes and driving up land prices, thereby making it more difficult for the rich to buy their mansions. Also, I would like to point out that demand from China and India is not the only factor driving up oil prices. The increase in the price of oil has been disproportionately larger than the growth in demand. The main reason for this is the monopolization of the crude oil market by a cartel of sellers – OPEC. It is well known that when monopolies exist, markets cease to function effectively. As a consequence, OPEC has been able to indulge in the worst kind of price gouging. In order to counter OPEC's monopoly, I feel that oil importing countries should organize themselves into a buyers’ cartel, whose combined buying power can be used to bargain effectively with OPEC to drive down the price of oil, much like what Wal-Mart does with its suppliers.
Colin, I admit that I may have indulged in a bit of exaggeration in characterizing Friedman's comment as "breathtaking" hypocrisy. As you very rightly point out, hypocrisy concerning the poor by Americans is rife, and environmentalists are no more responsible for this than any other group. Let me also assure you that hypocrisy is not the exclusive preserve of Americans and other wealthy populations. Indians, too, often indulge in various forms of hypocrisy towards other Indians, as well as towards Americans, Europeans, etc. One form of hypocrisy common in India and other developing countries is to blame Americans/Europeans for all the world's ills, rather than taking responsibility for reforming their own societies.
Side note: I am a fan of Tom Friedman, and I read his columns regularly. I am also a fan of the New York Times.
Is there any chance of this car making it to the US? I understand it has only 2 seat belts and no power steering...
When Tom Friedman and Al Gore start walking as their primary means of transportation, then I'll begin to worry about climate change. When Gore decides that it is unethical to make egregious profits from carbon credit investments, then I'll begin to take him seriously.
Ten years from now, the eco-extremists are going to be exposed for the watermellons that they are: green on the outside, red on the inside.
PD,
Just because a relatively popular journalist and former-politician aren't necessarily living what they preach doesn't mean that what they say isn't valid. Sorry to disappoint you, but they do not corner the market on the facts, ok? So, that's a ridiculous argument.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that for a long time North Americans and Westerners on a whole have not really been paying the full cost for almost any thing that we use and -- yes -- that includes gasoline. Notice, I typed "cost" not "price". What we are paying for gas now still does not take into account the distance that the oil has to travel, the many government subsidies, the uber-expensive wars and military maintenance, etc, etc.
I am concerned about climate change, but I'm equally concerned about the social and human costs of our profligate Western lifestyles. The nano, in my view, though a step in the right direction, still symbolizes the things that are wrong with our society. This idea that progress HAS to be material in nature. One of the reasons people are still stuck on material growth is really because we've lost our connection to spiritual growth, but that's a whole other topic.
My point is, this linear system of waste is not sustainable. Please check out www.thestoryofstuff.com It's very entlightening.
Post a comment |
|
|
|||
Privacy : Contact : Site Map |
||||||||
