|
About Me
Automotive analyst
Recent Posts
Categories
CarSpace
Connections & Associations
This blog is dedicated to real world events and the impacts they have on the auto industry.
Climate change is a controversial topic with few agreed upon conclusions. While I'm not convinced humanity is affecting climatic changes through the increase of 'greenhouse gases', I am convinced we are doing a great deal of damage. Many of these changes are certainly apparent. The best listing I've found is buy Jared Diamond in his book Collapse detailing the major effects we've had on our planet.
1. Destruction of natural environments
We've eliminated over 1/2 of all forests with another 1/4 expected to go by 2050. Coral reefs, wetlands, and other sensitive environments are suffering a similar fate. Rainforests suffer a great deal more.
2. Overharvesting
The tragedy of commons has allowed businesses to overexploit resources in just about every location imaginable.
3. Extinction
Many resources are being overharvested to the brink of elimination. While many of these species do not have a direct impact on us (like earth worms), they do have an indirect impact. The ecological cycle is very fragile and the elimination of any species can have dire consequences.
4. Erosion
Land used for farmland (or nothing at all) erodes over time. As land is deforested, the roots holding soil in place are removed, leaving nothing to keep the wind and water from carrying it away. In Iowa, Mr. Diamond visited a church that was 10 ft higher than the surrounding farmland. When asked why they built a church on a hill, the farmer replied that the church was actually built on level ground.
5. Energy is only getting harder to attain
The Earth has almost boundless energy, but the means of attaining it become harder (and thus pricier).
6. Depletion of fresh water
Currently water resources are heavily overutilized. Aquifers are drying up, lakes and rivers are drying up, and desalinization is expensive.
7. Photosynthesis ceiling
There is only so much sunlight that hits the Earth. As of 1986, it was estimated humans use roughly 1/2 of all the energy derived from the Sun. That is, if we developed a photovoltaic cell capable of achieving the efficiency of plant photosynthesis, we would still have to cover half the planet with them to achieve the energy needs of today.
8. Chemical pollution
Whether chemical wastes are affecting our environment or not, they are certain affecting us. At least 130,000 Americans die each year from pollution-related illness.
9. Alien species
While certainly not new, we continue to introduce new species around the world. Just like the diseases brought to the New World or the rabbit infestation of Australia, we decimate local populations by bringing along predators they are unadapted to.
10. Greenhouse gases
This one is arguable, but the potential that we are producing vast surpluses of methane and CO2 is unquestionable.
11. Population growth
Humans are hugely successful. We stretch across the entire globe in places no other plant or animal can survive. The problem is as we continue to perpetuate, our resources continue to dwindle. At some point, we will hit a breaking point.
12. Lifestyle
More important than the number of folks is the standard of living they enjoy. A First World inhabitant consumers 32 times as many resources as a Third World inhabitant does. The trouble is that many countries are striving for 1st world living. If China alone reached 1st world status, we would reach the limits of our resources and they would deplete rapidly.
Auto Industry
So how does this affect the industry? Well, raw materials will only get more expensive. Oil prices will only go up (despite the controversy of a short term drop in gas prices). So the obvious is that we must find alternatives. The problem is, every 'alternative' costs resources. Solar power has a great deal of initial resource consumption (silicon, plastic, various metals, etc), not to speak of the cost. Wind power has substantial initial costs as well. Nuclear power offers many benefits, but comes with a strong social disapproval. Hydroelectricity also offers moderately cheap energy, but destroys aquatic environments. So do we simply continue to produce oil-consuming vehicles? I would say yes. But the key is to make them as fuel efficient as possible. There are many questions concerning whether we can continue to live as First World societies. If suchh societies are doomed, the personal automobile may be doomed with it.
As recently as the 80's, that was an easy question to answer. It was any vehicle that had superior performance and could dance circles around anything else on the road. But in a world of 270hp family sedans and road-ready rally cars, that's become much harder to answer.
So what happened?
I think the pivotal point was the introduction of some of a greatest "sub-super" cars the world has ever known. In the 80s, you could go as far as a 230hp Corvette before a price gap separated the peons from the elitist Ferraris and Lamborghinis. But in 1990, Honda released a car with supercar performance for half the price: the NSX. Suddenly there was a supercar within reach of a middle class consumer (besides the 911, but I'll delve into that later). But a barely sub-$100K car was difficult to sell in the early 90s. Then four more affordable sports cars came out: the Dodge Viper, the Nissan 300ZX, the Toyota Supra, and the Mazda RX-7. These cars undercut the NSX and even the Corvette. While none of these cars were sales successes for long, they sparked a rebirth on automotive expression.
So what's wrong?
These cars developed a bridge that had been previously nonexistant. The closest thing you could get was a Porsche 911. But I'd separate the regular 911 (which was affordable) and the turbo (which was/is not). Before, the line between sports car and supercar was very distinct and even broad. But in this world of high output economy cars and 13.x quarter mile trucks, that line is quite skewed.
So what makes a supercar now?
The honest answer: I don't know. If you want to base it on pure statistics, you could include the likes of Lotus or the BMW M5, depending on which stats suit your preferences. If you base it on price, you invite a great deal of controversy to your argument. Should a supercar be exclusive? Does it need to be? Does performance even matter? What about heritage?
Top Gear addressed these issues, albeit not conclusively. Jeremy Clarkson feels a supercar should be almost uncontrollable and completely unconventional. Richard Hammond feels a supercar should excite you and cater completely to your childish wants. James May feels a supercar should have heritage and a dominating persona.
I agree with all of them, but then again I don't. By combining those attributes, there really aren't any contenders. While I disagree that a supercar must be a member of some aristocracy of performance, I do feel a supercar needs a certain amount of pedigree. A supercar should excite you, but it need not be childish in nature. It should feel purposeful. And a supercar should be purpose built, but not to the point of making driving difficult for its own sake.
What do I think a supercar is?
I think a supercar is any vehicle that is purpose built for a specific task and does it better than anything else.
While I don't think a Lotus Exige is a supercar, an Ariel Atom is.
While I don't think an M5 is a supercar, a Bugatti Veyron is.
While I don't think a 911 Turbo is a supercar, a Nissan GT-R is.
While I don't think an Audi R8 is a supercar, a Ferrari 430 is.
I think the very term supercar has morphed in the past 20 years without our even knowing it.
There have been a lot of reports concerning the value of SUVs and trucks and the forecasted demand for such vehicles. Is such pessimism warranted? On Karl's blog today, there was a statement that the actual value of any vehicle deemed a gas guzzler was naught because of a stance of dealerships rejecting trade ins on such vehicles. While this is an oversimplification, there is a definate negative impact on the economy. Suddenly, SUVs aren't worth the metal they're made of.
Is this a good thing?
As with most answers, yes and no. A dramatic decrease in fuel consumption has the potential to lower gas prices for everybody. Unfortunately, gas prices are not relegated to the world of supply and demand. Instead, it is determined by the futures speculators that, I imagine, are paid by the suppliers of the very commodity they are hired to oversee. Because of this, I do not expect oil prices to drop.
How do we work around this?
First and foremost, alternative solutions need to be researched and developed. There are already a number of economically viable energy solutions available to consumers. If you live in a reasonably windy location (like me), there are companies that sell windmills at profitable prices. If you live in a sunny location, photovoltaic cells can alleviate your energy cost woes. The problems are twofold:
1. It's 'cool' to drive a Prius but not to have a self-reliant source of energy.
2. Initial costs are high and tax rebates require effort, both of which deter most potential buyers.
Enough already! How do we get to point B?
The government needs to become more active in the development of near-free energy. Streamline the tax rebate process or simply subsidize the companies. I guaruntee you if the average joe sees solar panels in Walmart for $200, he's going to buy. The 'cool' factor will follow once people realize how fantastic it can be to be self-reliant.
|
|
