Their error was indeed huge. Here is some data that should indicate that:
In 2006, US emissions of CO2 from transportation were 1,884.7 MMT, emissions from industry were 1,776.8 MMT.
If we assume that the US produces as many vehicles as it uses (I don't know how true that is), vehicle production emissions must be considerably less than use, or the rest of industry would produce no emissions at all!
Hmmm..,
At first sight these figures look damning, but I think that they cannot be interpreted quite as easily as they may at first appear:-
1) They don't allow for the fact that a great many of the vehicles used in the USA are NOT manufactured there. There is a substantial enrgy cost in both their manufacture and transporting them there, which will not feature in the figures.
2) Of the vehicles made in the USA, many of the components are manufactured at different sites (including abroad), and the emissions of the vehicles that transported them to the place of manufacture will have been included under vehicle emissions, whereas they should in fact be classified as manufacturing output since they are an integral part of the vehicle's production.
3) Those vehicles need to be transported to their place of sale..... see (2) above.
4) Old vehicles need to be disposed of, there is an emissions cost with this too...unless they are just 'dumped'
4) These figures will not, in most cases, include raw material energy and emissions costs. Many of these materials are mined, quarried, processed and transported from many different parts of the world, at huge emissions costs, including transportation. In addition don't forget that caterpillars, tractors, diggers, swingshovels, lorries, ships, and trains, all feature in 'vehicle emissions' - it's far from solely down to the private car.
5) When the car is manufactured, it still has an energy cost. It may be say 15-20% more efficient than it's predecessor, but what you have to do is enough miles to allow that DIFFERENCE to make up the total production and manufacture emissions, and disposal of the old vehicle. I dare to suggest that in most cases that is one hell of a lot more miles than most of us will ever do in our cars.......
6) Don't forget that in the manufactuing process everything from the
quarrying/steelmaking/fabrication/plastics moulding/ (plus the vehicles and plant used in these processes), car manufactuirng plant, factory machinery etc also has to be included in the energy cost, as does a proportion of the ship building/lorry/train/plane building and running costs used in their transport.
Total energy costs for complex items are almost incalculable due these factors, and the diversity of sites in which these processes are carried out makes the problem all the harder.
I still reckon overall, that unless you are a very high mileage user (and let's face it most of us electric bikers aren't!), you do the environment a favour by sticking with the old jalopy!!!!
Of course, if you fancy a change you must do as you please, I AM NOT a believer in in the 'nanny state' and firmly believe in your freedom to choose. I do think however, that the 'facts' as presented by both governement and many environmental lobby groups are a great oversimplification and very misleading, so make sure that you exercise your decision wisely and interpret all official figures with the caution they so richly deserve!
Finally, I DON'T count myself as an expert, so if you disagree with me, FINE I don't mind, so keep your hair on when you reply please!!!! (I'm not casting any aspersions on anyone, and I'd rather not have too many personalised ones back. I'm concious that Flecc was given rather a hard time of it for expressing his personal preference not wear a helmet. What happened tolerance?)
Cheers, Phil