New car or golden oldie: readers respond

June’s Burning Issue looked at the sustainability pros and cons of leasing cars and trading in your old car for a newer model.

We asked whether it is better to rent or buy a new car every two years, or run your old car for as long as possible. We also posed the question – will the air really clean up if new cars have the city to themselves?

Keep it in the family

Most readers agreed that replacing your old car with a new one every few years is not the most environmentally-sound method of meeting your transport needs. However, this conclusion was reached by several different routes. Responses touched on encouraging new technologies in the market by replacing cars frequently, the chain effects of faster renewal, and the necessity of establishing priorities – such as local air pollution – when determining the best route to take.

Reader Peter Van De Bilt commented, "I think we need to use our cars much longer than we do now…. Maybe ten years from now, an average car may have 20-30 per cent better mileage. Until then, just make sure you're an ecodriver and take the bus once in a while – makes much more sense."

Retire the oldie

Others believe there is no sense in investing in new cars for environmental purposes unless the old model is put to rest. "Buying or leasing a new car with greater frequency may allow you to drive a more fuel efficient and less polluting car, and therefore reduce your personal CO2 footprint. However, it does not lead to a reduction in global CO2 emissions unless the old car is taken off the road," wrote Wendy Williams.

Neither solves the problem

Ian argued that neither new nor old cars are the answer. It would be a better idea to reduce the total number of cars in cities altogether. He said, "What about the energy used and pollution produced when manufacturing the new vehicle? …Surely the answer is to have less cars, less parking/storing requirements, less energy and material use, and build more compact cities."

Lone vote for replacing

The debate was not without a bit of healthy disagreement. Peter Van Der Bilt challenged Jennifer R.’s view that regularly replacing cars makes the most sense. Jennifer was the only respondent to vote in favour of continually replacing cars. She wrote, "If you can spare the money, buying a new vehicle regularly is the way to go."

Peter responded as follows: "Jennifer, I am not quite sure I agree with that. Can you really expect individual buyers to pay a premium to do what is good for all of us, while the great majority of car buyers don't really care a lot?"

The expert chimes in

We contacted Dr. Evert Nieuwlaar of UtrechtUniversity’s Department of Science, Technology and Society to get his perspective on this hotly debated topic. This is what he had to say:

"The answer to this Burning Issue is complex. If fighting local air pollution was the main aim, I imagine that replacing a fleet more quickly can contribute to a cleaner local environment. If owners of second hand vehicles also change cars more regularly because of the increasing amount of second hand vehicles on the market, this could be a factor as well.

"Life-cycle considerations could also play a role. The average vehicle may have a shorter life-span and drive less kilometres. This means that the environmental impact of production will have to be distributed over less kilometres.

"If the distance driven overall remains the same, these kilometres will be driven by making use of more cars, which means that vehicle production impact will take a larger share in the vehicles' overall environmental impact. However, it would take more scientific research to draw any concrete conclusions."

Still open for debate

It looks like this Burning Issue will be smouldering for a good while yet.

Have your say here:

• The Burning Issue: new car or golden oldie?