Car Heaven

[kimmy]

Where do cars go when their time on earth has come to an end? If your car has been good, perhaps it will go to... Car Heaven.

This is apparently another piece of our Kyoto-commitments puzzle, along with the TV commercials featuring the loathesome Rick Mercer admonishing people to make less smog.

And I don't want to sound overly negative. This promotion certainly has some obvious merits:

-offers tangiable incentive for people to change their habits, or at least update their smog-belching clunker with a newer (and presumably cleaner-running) vehicle.

-is refreshingly Mercer-free.

-appears to run at a minimal cost to the taxpayer. Aside from a modest advertising budget and a modest budget for the "rewards", there doesn't appear to be much expense involved.

That said, it certainly seems a rather half-hearted effort. First of all, only 3 provinces-- Alberta, BC, and Ontario-- seem to be involved. Why? Secondly, the "rewards" are rather modest. Albertans who participate can receive a $1000 rebate on a new GM vehicle, up to $300 towards a new bicycle, or 6 months of free public transit in Edmonton or Calgary. The rewards in Ontario and BC are even lamer-- you're entered into a raffle for a new Chevrolet micro-compact car or a train-trip. This seems like rather modest incentive for anyone to consider parting with their vehicle. And lastly, the benefits are available only to those who are currently driving old cars. Why not provide someone (like, say, Kimmy@!) with some reward for being an environmentally friendly person? I got no present from the government when I ditched my mighty Reliant a few years ago, and I've been a bicycle and public transit person ever since. While I recognize that the intention here is to get older, polluting vehicles off the road, couldn't there be some recognition for people who choose not to obtain polluting old wrecks? I could certainly go out an plunk down a few hundred dollars and get another mighty Reliant; I choose not to, but many, many people my age do go out and purchase polluting old cars; other than high insurance prices there's nothing to dissuade them from doing so.

What I wonder is ... if we're serious about air-pollution and climate change, is this the best we can do? We've spent a huge amount of money on the gun registry, where the benefits could (even in the most optimistic situation) be quantified at a few hundred lives a year maximum. I don't want to trivialize a few hundred lives, but I would suggest that air pollution carries a far higher human cost. I think that if you research the amount of people who die each year from respiratory ailments, and consider the additional costs to our healthcare resulting from respiratory ailments and huge numbers of people in Canada's large cities who are suffering from breathing problems, I think the overall impact makes guns seem like pea-shooters by comparison.

-k

[cybercoma]

What I wonder is ... if we're serious about air-pollution and climate change, is this the best we can do?  We've spent a huge amount of money on the gun registry, where the benefits could (even in the most optimistic situation) be quantified at a few hundred lives a year maximum. I don't want to trivialize a few hundred lives, but I would suggest that air pollution carries a far higher human cost. I think that if you research the amount of people who die each year from respiratory ailments, and consider the additional costs to our healthcare resulting from respiratory ailments and huge numbers of people in Canada's large cities who are suffering from breathing problems, I think the overall impact makes guns seem like pea-shooters by comparison.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our environment isn't at as great a risk as people would have you believe. I'm currently reading the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: The Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg. He's a statistics professor that was a former member of Greenpeace and he shows that environmental organizations have often been misleading and selective in their evidence. I just picked it up, so I wish I could offer you more facts, figures and insight, but alas I can't.

If you are interested in the environmental movement and have ever wondered how dire the situation really is this may be a book you want to read.

The point being, of course, that we're simply being mislead by these organizations which is taking taxpayers money away from more important issues that need to be addressed, such as food shortages.

[SirSpanky]

I'll agree mr. coma, that things aren't so awful, but I'd rather deal with this issue (and it will only get worse) now, than in 20 years when it will be exponentially more costly.

ie) a dollar spent on the environment in developing China, would do far more than a dollar spent in developed Germany

People need a good smack in the face to take action that doesn't immiediatlely affect them.

[kimmy]

cybercoma, global warming has been argued here ad-nauseum. I purposely avoided any reference to it in my message because I wanted to steer clear of reopening that whole mess again.

I focused on the health-related effects of pollution in Canada's major urban centers, which I think is a problem that most should be able to agree on whatever their views on global warming.

And, for better or worse we're already committed to Kyoto (aren't we?) so meeting our targets is something we need to address anyway.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

He's a statistics professor that was a former member of Greenpeace and he shows that environmental organizations have often been misleading and selective in their evidence

Every 'statistic' can be misleading, it depends on how you present it.

As kimmy states,

global warming has been argued here ad-nauseum. I purposely avoided any reference to it in my message because I wanted to steer clear of reopening that whole mess again.

and I have to agree.

[Black Dog]

Our environment isn't at as great a risk as people would have you believe. I'm currently reading the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: The Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg. He's a statistics professor that was a former member of Greenpeace and he shows that environmental organizations have often been misleading and selective in their evidence. I just picked it up, so I wish I could offer you more facts, figures and insight, but alas I can't.

Science versus Lomborg

A skeptical look at The Skeptical Environmentalist

[cybercoma]

Dear cybercoma,

He's a statistics professor that was a former member of Greenpeace and he shows that environmental organizations have often been misleading and selective in their evidence

Every 'statistic' can be misleading, it depends on how you present it.

As kimmy states,

global warming has been argued here ad-nauseum. I purposely avoided any reference to it in my message because I wanted to steer clear of reopening that whole mess again.

and I have to agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That statement is pretty much the first sentence of the first paragraph in the book.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::We've spent a huge amount of money on the gun registry, where the benefits could (even in the most optimistic situation) be quantified at a few hundred lives a year maximum.

Well it's a start folks!!!!!!!!!!!! The right wingers have gone from ranting about gun control has not saved one life to admitting it has saved hundreds of lives!

It's like pulling teeth sometimes but sometimes it pays off IF at least one of them finally get it!

Gun control works and it is a bargain because it only costs each working Canadian 1.4 cents a day and it saves (according to the right winger who started this thread) hundreds of lives!

It's a start folks!!!!

[Riverwind]

What I wonder is ... if we're serious about air-pollution and climate change, is this the best we can do?  We've spent a huge amount of money on the gun registry, where the benefits could (even in the most optimistic situation) be quantified at a few hundred lives a year maximum.

Personally, I think the real problem is over-population and the resources used to sustain that population. If global warming is a real phenomena (which it probably is) I don't think marginal increases in energy efficiency in rich countries will make any difference.

I read a study on global warming that showed a direct correlation between CO2 levels and human population - even 6000 years ago. Major population shifts: the black plague in Europe, the spread of small pox in the 1500s that wiped out 90% of the population of North America, etc. caused dramatic drops in C02 levels. The recent jump in C02 levels in the last 200 years happened while the earth's population went from 1 billion to 6 billion. Sure fossil fuel use went up at the same time but can the scientists really be sure that it was the fossil fuel and not the population itself that caused the warming?

It is a cruel irony of nature that AIDs may be the most effective way to combat global warming.

So Kimmy, to answer your original question about how we should best spend money to save lives: maybe saving lives for the sake of lives is not something we should be doing any more. I realize that statement will be controversial but maybe it is time we talked about the moral and ethical implications of over population and whether our technology is really capable of sustaining the current population over the long term.

[Canuck E Stan]

One thing that always bothered me about Mercer and the one tonne challege was after listening to Rick telling us about the challenge and how inportant it is, he always ended his commercial without actually going into specifics about what we could do. Instead he gave us a phone number to get more info. If I was in the advertising business wouldn't it have been better to use the time to actually tell people some of the things they could do. There must of been a lot of money spent on TV ,radio and newspaper ads that all said to take the challenge and to phone the number. Looking at ads and commercials I see all of them sending out their messages in their a short period of time. Drink Pepsi, drive a Ford,use Sunlight. How many people would bother to phone for a pamphlet. With all the fuss to phone why not have the pamphlet available in stores, inside newspapers ect. Seems like a poorly thought out campaign. How would you have gotten the message across?

[I Miss Trudeau]

One thing that always bothered me about Mercer and the one tonne challege was  after listening to Rick telling us about the challenge and how inportant it is, he always ended his commercial without actually going into specifics about what we could do.

Looking at ads and commercials I see all of them sending out their messages in their a short period of time. Drink Pepsi, drive a Ford,use Sunlight.

To be fair, Pepsi has never provided the details on how you too can become a hugely overrated pop star by drinking pepsi.

The cost of advertising, combined with the attention span of the audience, has made made product info (be it Pepsi or the one tonne challenge) virtually impossible to include in most forms of advertising. All you can hope to accomplish is to establish an image or generate some interest in whatever you're selling.

[August1991]

The following article says little about air pollution, but it does deal with the "one tonne challenge" as what to do with the one tonne of Reliant when, as Kimmy did, it gets ditched:

Le nouveau projet de déchiqueteuse à voitures qui serait située près de l'incinérateur de Lévis continue de susciter la controverse.

Les opposants au projet ont finalement mis leurs menaces à éxécution.

Ils ont recours aux tribunaux pour bloquer le chantier.

Les opposants ont même retenu les services du réputé cabinet d'avocats Heenan Blaikie Aubut pour faire parvenir une mise en demeure à la ville de Lévis et au promoteur du projet, la compagnie A.I.M. Québec.

On veut carrément bloquer l'émission des permis ou les autorisations nécessaires à la réalisation de cet équipement.

Les citoyens opposés au projet redoutent les rejets polluants dans l'environnement, particulièrement dans la rivière Etchemin et sa population de saumons.

TQS

The article refers to neighbours who don't want a plant that will tear to pieces old cars.

[Canuck E Stan]

I guess if Rick's message said things like" take transit " "or turn down your air conditioner" there would have been some facts that people would get out of the commercial. How many people do you know phoned for a pamphlet to be sent to their home. I know of none. It just seems like a poorly thought out campaign. Remember Hinderland spots? what if the voice over told you to phone for more information instead of giving you factual information?

[kimmy]

Well it's a start folks!!!!!!!!!!!!  The right wingers have gone from ranting about gun control has not saved one life to admitting it has saved hundreds of lives!

It's like pulling teeth sometimes but sometimes it pays off IF at least one of them finally get it!

Nice try, nut-cup, but I admitted nothing of the sort. Nowhere did I say that I think the gun registry saves hundreds of lives. I'm still not sure it's saved any. Here's what I said:

We've spent a huge amount of money on the gun registry, where the benefits could (even in the most optimistic situation) be quantified at a few hundred lives a year maximum.

I didn't even say it has saved one life. I said that at most, it could save a few hundred lives a year. That's because gun violence claims at most a few hundred lives a year in Canada. But as I said, I didn't want this thread to get sidetracked.

Gun violence affects a comparatively small number of lives in Canada; air quality problems affects millions, and claims many lives. It's a much bigger issue; yet doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a priority in Canada.

The cost of advertising, combined with the attention span of the audience, has made made product info (be it Pepsi or the one tonne challenge) virtually impossible to include in most forms of advertising. All you can hope to accomplish is to establish an image or generate some interest in whatever you're selling.

So... by selecting Rick Mercer as the spokesman for the One Tonne Challenge, I gather they're trying to capture the interest of the "snarky homosexual" demographic?

Personally, I think the real problem is over-population and the resources used to sustain that population. If global warming is a real phenomena (which it probably is) I don't think marginal increases in energy efficiency in rich countries will make any difference.

Well, critics of Kyoto point out (perhaps correctly) that if the world's largest producers of air pollution and greenhouse gases aren't on-board, then marginal increases in efficiency in Canada aren't going to make much difference.

But what about quality of life in Canada's major urban centers?

Emissions from Toronto vehicles might make up only a tiny percentage of the gases that are causing global warming, but they make up a large percentage of the gases that are causing air-quality problems in Toronto.

And, again, if we've agreed to reduce our emissions, then we ought to do it, don't you think? If we're going to sign agreements, we ought to honor them.

So Kimmy, to answer your original question about how we should best spend money to save lives: maybe saving lives for the sake of lives is not something we should be doing any more. I realize that statement will be controversial but maybe it is time we talked about the moral and ethical implications of over population and whether our technology is really capable of sustaining the current population over the long term.

Well, there are many days I would agree with you. Believe me, I've often felt that the rest of you could use a little thinning out, to leave more room for me. However, I'm not entirely sure that pollution is a suitably efficient method of reducing the population, either. Perhaps restrictions on retail of hand-grenades could be loosened.

However, as much as I'd personally love to kill a bunch of you off, our government sadly feels that preserving, protecting, and prolonging lives is a priority. They even spend tremendous money providing medical treatment for people to stop them from being sick or dying. Since combatting the effects of airborne pollutants are a major expense of our healthcare system, it seemed to me that putting more money and a more thorough approach to reducing airborne pollutants might partly pay for itself in reduced medical costs.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

Nice try, nut-cup,

I'm pretty sure Greg asked everyone to avoid personal insults, even ones trying desperately to be witty.

So... by selecting Rick Mercer as the spokesman for the One Tonne Challenge, I gather they're trying to capture the interest of the "snarky homosexual" demographic?

The wit never ends! Or begins, for that matter.

Well, critics of Kyoto point out (perhaps correctly) that if the world's largest producers of air pollution and greenhouse gases aren't on-board, then marginal increases in efficiency in Canada aren't going to make much difference.

Which is kind of like being stuck on a lifeboat and able to see land, but knowing that everyone needs to paddle in order to make it there. If someone wasn't paddling, would these critics give up and throw themselves overboard?

Emissions from Toronto vehicles might make up only a tiny percentage of the gases that are causing global warming, but they make up a large percentage of the gases that are causing air-quality problems in Toronto.

A good first step would be to create and enforce strict efficiency and emission controls on vehicles, homes, and places of business. Which means no office building sized pickup trucks or SUV's unless you can demonstrate a reasonable need for one.

Offering incentives to become more efficient should have been coupled with imposing penalties for not doing so.

And, again, if we've agreed to reduce our emissions, then we ought to do it, don't you think? If we're going to sign agreements, we ought to honor them.

For sure.

[cybercoma]

Gun violence affects a comparatively small number of lives in Canada; air quality problems affects millions, and claims many lives. It's a much bigger issue; yet doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a priority in Canada.

I really don't think air quality is as much of an issue as you're making it out to be.

An estimated 17,000 Canadians die per year of lung cancer, according to the lung association. They say almost 90% of those who die from lung cancer smoke. That leaves about 1700 people who have died from "other factors". Lung cancer caused by poor air quality is a fraction of that, considering those who have been exposed to asbestos and other industry related substances that cause cancer (see welding fumes, etc).

I imagine it's only a few hundred people, making air pollution not any bigger of a cause than gun related deaths.

[Chimera]

ICAP 2005 Speaking Notes from OMA President Dr G. Flynn

According to our Illness Cost of Air Pollution report for 2005 that we are releasing today, approximately 5,800 premature deaths will be related to exposure to air pollution - this year alone.

If the province does not take action to further improve the quality of air in Ontario, the number of premature deaths associated with air pollution is estimated to hit a staggering 10,000 lives by the year 2026.

The loss of lives must be our greatest concern, but the cost to our healthcare system is also very startling.

The combined healthcare and lost productivity costs will reach almost a billion dollars in 2005. And again if nothing is done, that number is expected to reach well over a billion dollars by 2026.

I think maybe government should start pressing the lost productivity and other related costs (increased health ins cost, disability pymnts, etc) aspect of this to try and get industry on board. Individually, we can all do our part, but without industry on side, meeting the goals will be very difficult.

P.S.

Well, there are many days I would agree with you. Believe me, I've often felt that the rest of you could use a little thinning out, to leave more room for me. However, I'm not entirely sure that pollution is a suitably efficient method of reducing the population, either. Perhaps restrictions on retail of hand-grenades could be loosened.

lmao

[kimmy]

  lmao 

I'm so glad that there are still people here who can take things in the spirit they're intended.

Good article, also. Further to the effects of air pollution on healthcare, I found this page at Health Canada that discusses the issue: Health Canada Air Quality

While I'm not sure whether I can trust a site that has

graphics that look like they were done by an

8-year old handicapped child

working with

Microsoft Paint,

the discussion does raise some points worth considering.

Cybercoma seems to assume that lung cancer would be the relevant metric in measuring the impact of air quality issues. I think that's a very limited perspective.

Air pollution exacerbates the condition of people with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and causes measurable increases in the rates of hospitalization for these diseases.

In other words, people with existing heart and lung problems are at greater risk and require more treatment because of the additional stresses resulting from air pollution.

The leap from lung problems to heart problems is straightforward: if your lungs are less efficient, your heart has to work that much harder to supply oxygen to the tissues of your body.

We do not yet understand the role of air pollution in causing these illnesses in the Canadian population.

In other words, air pollution might also play a role in creating these conditions in the first place, but we don't have hard science to back up that theory yet.

Nonetheless, respiratory problems like asthma are growing at rapid rates, and whether pollution is actually causing it or not, the combination of more people with asthma and more pollution will inevitably lead to rising healthcare expenses.

The statistics here indicate that respiratory problems caused almost 300,000 hospital visits-- 9% of the total-- in 1996.

A recent study examined the economic value of reducing the health effects of air pollution by introducing cleaner vehicles and fuels in Canada.  This study found that the economic value of avoiding these health effects was $24 billion over a period of 24 years,  compared to a cost of $6 billion to implement the program.

Health Canada: air pollution components

    * Ground-level ozone (O3)

    * Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

    * Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

    * Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

    * Carbon Monoxide (CO)

    * Airborne particles (PM)

These are not carcinogens... but all of them impair breathing and are irritants and risk factors especially to people with existing lung problems.

More later; have to run.

-k

{running}

[kimmy]

Health Canada: air pollution components

    * Ground-level ozone (O3)

    * Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

    * Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

    * Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

    * Carbon Monoxide (CO)

    * Airborne particles (PM)

These are not carcinogens... but all of them impair breathing and are irritants and risk factors especially to people with existing lung problems.

I have returned.

I wanted to add: some quick counting on my fingers leads me to thing that roughly half of Canadians live in our 6 largest centers-- Greater Toronto Area, Montreal and neighboring communities, Greater Vancouver Area, National Capital Region, Calgary and neighboring communities, and Edmonton and neighboring communities.

Most or all of these cities are growing very rapidly... and as a result will probably face increasingly serious air-quality problems affecting more and more people. I think that even if this is not recognized as an issue of national importance right now, it will be before too long.

-k

{Look at me, sounding like Jack Layton. Who'd have expected?}

[Guest eureka]

I would, Kimmy. You semm to be too intelligent to have not moved in the correct direction some day.

As for the regions affected by air pollution, those 6 are only engines of pollution. The pollution spreads all over. Also,50% of Ontario's problems come from US coal plants where the prevailing winds dump it here.

[Riverwind]

    * Ground-level ozone (O3)

    * Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

    * Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

    * Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

    * Carbon Monoxide (CO)

    * Airborne particles (PM)

This list left out Dihydrogen-Oxide: a substance proven to kill even healthy people that are exposed to large enough quantities.

[cybercoma]

I would, Kimmy. You semm to be too intelligent to have not moved in the correct direction some day.

As for the regions affected by air pollution, those 6 are only engines of pollution. The pollution spreads all over. Also,50% of Ontario's problems come from US coal plants where the prevailing winds dump it here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it's more than just coal plants...trust me...I live right next to the states.

[kimmy]

This list left out Dihydrogen-Oxide: a substance proven to kill even healthy people that are exposed to large enough quantities.

...such as by talking a long walk of a short pier?

I would, Kimmy. You semm to be too intelligent to have not moved in the correct direction some day.

I have not really moved at all; I've always been in favor of clean air; my objection is not to the goal but to our government's notions of how to achieve this goal. Rest assured that we'll always have lots to argue about; I've not suddenly developed a love of corrupt politicians, bloviated verbiage, or ineffectual national institutions, and I still think that the Maple Leaf is a moronic symbol for this country. Even if you live to be 100 (that would be another 5 to 10 years, I imagine?) we'll have lots of things to bicker about until the end of your days. Why? because I care that much.

-k

[Cartman]

I was going to buy a 51" television, but then again, there is always the temptation to throw something through my tv when I see Mercer doing the one tonne challenge commercial. :angry: Why does he irritate me so? Gotta thank Kimmy for that because I never even noticed the commercial until she brought it up some time ago. It does seem pretty pathetic and I doubt there is much return on the money spent for this campaign. It seems like a big waste of money.

[Canuck E Stan]

Well Cartman, I have to agree with you (see post#10) the whole campaign seens like a waste of tax dollars,ineffective yet expensive. Typical of government ad campaigns. Who runs this stuff? Analysis of government advertising would probably show there isn't any strategic plan in doing it. The Quebec ad scandal is typical. I always thought Ad agencies plan stragegy for getting the message across. Who in government actually has the expertise to run this stuff to make sure it's effective? Hiring mickey mouse agencies and giving these people contracts for "ideas" without substance seems to be the government way. Never mind the lost monies in the Quebec ad scandals, how about the ablility of these agencies to actually deliver a good campaign. Doesn't an ad agency have to show they can produce results(from past campaigns)and why doesn't government have as expert in advertising monitoring the effectiveness?