World’s Cheapest Car Requires a Climate Change Plan B


indian traffic jamIndian industrial giant Tata today unveiled the world’s cheapest car. Selling at $2,500 the Tata Nano is targeted at a rapidly growing Indian middle class who until now have been reliant on bicycles, mopeds and public transport for mobility.The Nano has been eagerly awaited by potential customers eager to enjoy the benefits of their newfound wealth, and eager to escape the inconvenience of crowded public transport and the dangers of two wheeled transport on some of the world’s most dangerous and congested roads.

With the Indian market alone expected to grow from 50 million to 583 million customers in the next 20 years environmental groups have raised concerns over the potential pollution created by increasing numbers of private cars in the developing world. Tata currently expect to sell up to one million Nano’s per year.

This highlights a significant issue. As affluence in the developing world grows, global emissions and resource usage is likely to explode. Even the most conservative environmental observers must harbour some concerns about the environmental impact of billions of potential new Co2 sources. And even the most optimistic Co2 reduction schemes will be severely challenged by the emergence of a whole new breed of motorists. Yet the developing world obviously has a moral right to enjoy similar standards of living to the West and can hardly be expected to make sacrifices when their per capita resource usage is still far lower than that of developed nations.

As the battle against climate change increases in intensity, the prospect of reducing global Co2 emissions looks less and less likely. We urgently need either a plan B, or to choose a different battle.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
January 10th, 2008
12 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Commentary
News
Our Environment
Stopping Climate Change

Other Posts
The Fisherman and the MBA
The Pro’s and Con’s of Emissions Cap & Trade

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
January 10, 2008 at 7:19 pm

The head of the IPCC is from India. The UNFCCC uses the per capita number to determine participation in the treaty using the mitigation proposals from the IPCC. Coincidence?

Huge population should not be a free pass, nor should a small population be a disadvantage.

India and China…
“we got a right, you got 50 years”

My Answer…
“in one decade you will have produced more GHG then we did in that 50 years”

( India and China Combined vs Europe and North America based on CO2 emission projections and historical emissions estimates )

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Phil
Posted on:
January 10, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Yes, but a lot of those emissions are created to produce goods that will end up in the West.

Surely, per capita figures are the only really fair comparison? Most of these people live on next to nothing. I find it hard to begrudge them a few of the trappings of a modern lifestyle whilst in the West we idolise moron celebrities who bath in Perrier water, fly on private jets and drive cars big enough to house a whole Indian family.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
January 10, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Phil,

Yes because we pay them for it, if we did not they would still be like they were 20 years ago. Their economic growth is as a direct result of our pocketbooks. A large portion of most countries wealth is because of trade.

The rich make up less than 2% of the total population in the Western World. Poor ( less than poverty line ) people make up 15%, that leaves 83% of us in the three middle classes, the middle class and the lower middle class mostly live paycheque to paycheque, have minimal wealth ( typically a home ) and feel the effects the most of rising prices and taxation. They are also the first to lose there jobs as a result of economic slowdowns.

Everyone of us does want to have more money, and would bathe in Perrier if we could, that is not a bad thing. It has built the society and civilization that educated, fed, provided medical services, protects you and gives you your income.

You do not begrudge them a few of the trappings? Then why do you IMO feel so guilty because you already have them? Perhaps you personally have too much?

Per Capita figures are wrong for almost everything they are applied to, simply because there are many other factors to consider. How about this, only include the population above the poverty line, the people who are benefiting from the emissions?

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Phil
Posted on:
January 10, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Well, by Western standards the car that we are talking about here is rubbish.

These people still have a long way to come before they catch up.
I’ve seen how the Indian middle classes live - it’s not too pretty.

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
Neil
Posted on:
January 11, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Both total and per capita numbers are useful, for different analysis. It is useful to know how much more resources we consume in the West per capita, mostly because we can’t be hypocritical and expect people of other countries to live with less than we do. It should give us pause to realize there are over 2 billion people (just India and China) struggling to reach the bar we have set, and if that ever happens we’re all dead. IMO this should tell us to scale back our lifestyles or properly invest the money to build the technology to power our lifestyles in a sustainable way.

ClimateHeretic: You’re stretching to assume everyone would bathe in Perrier if they could. A lot (most?) people correctly see that as totally and unnecessarily wasteful.

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
January 11, 2008 at 5:56 pm

This is where we differ Neil, I do not want to restrict anyone.

You make the mistake that I have the same under-pinning of “if they live like us they we all die” attitude that you have. This is problem with climate change debate in general, you could not even consider that anyone does not think like you.

I want them to modernize, they are doing it better and faster then we did, mainly because of their populations and available technology, the advancements that will come as a result of them dealing with the demands are beyond comprehension.

They graduate many times the number of scientists and engineers we do, thay are going to leave us in the dust in 25 years, we will be the under-developed countries.

Do not be shy, if you were insanely wealthy you would bathe in Perrier and you know it.

Comment Number:
7
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
January 11, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Sorry for the typos above, having written so much lately I am having difficulties proofing.

Comment Number:
8
Written by:
Neil
Posted on:
January 11, 2008 at 7:00 pm

ClimateHeretic: Why do you assume that me stating my opinion “If they ever do that we’re all dead” implies I can’t understand there are other points of view? Why, after my 2 paragraphs which don’t give any evidence of implying my opinions are the only opinions, do you lump me into your whole “climate change debate.”

You seem angry, and also seem to be projecting some other emotions onto me.

Not that it matters at this point, but I also didn’t say I wanted to restrict anyone. I explicitly said I thought we should consider either scaling back OR investing in technologies (ie: renewable energy sources) to make our lifestyles sustainable.

Comment Number:
9
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
January 11, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Neil,

My apologizes I broke a personal cardinal rule, never assume.

If I misinterpreted your comments of the certain demise of humanity and by extrapolation catalogued you as an alarmist I am really sorry.

I have a bad habit of doing that then having to make these apologies.

BTW I am not angry, I am passionate about this issue and that sometimes comes across wrong, I had hoped my perrier comment would have illustrated my personality a little… you do know that was a just a bit of fun, right?

I also apologize to the site, all readers, and my mom ( she brought me up better than that ).

Comment Number:
10
Written by:
Mark
Posted on:
January 11, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Apologies not required. Healthy and sometimes passionate debate are what this site is all about..

Comment Number:
11
Written by:
Derek Wall
Posted on:
January 12, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Plenty of Indians object to the car and this model of economic development, the opposition in West Bengal want to close the factory making the cars because they say it is on stolen land.

http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-burning-cars-later.html
is my survey of some of the Indian voices of objection.

Comment Number:
12
Written by:
Martin
Posted on:
January 14, 2008 at 2:07 am

Great article. Made me start to consider the impact of the oil crisis which is looming. I am curious what will be the outcome of the Peak Oil/Climate Changed interaction. What happens when these two waves collide?