If You Drive a Porsche, You Might Also Be Saving the Planet...

Discussion in 'Auto News' started by GTPNewsWire, Apr 23, 2019.

  1. GTPNewsWire

    GTPNewsWire Contributing Writer

    Messages:
    8,255
    Location:
    United States
    PSN:And-War likes this.
  2. Danoff

    Danoff Premium

    Messages:
    24,244
    Location:
    United States
    So much of being kind to the environment is about matching your outward appearance so that you can be treated like the hero you feel like. And this doesn't do that.

    You buy a tesla, everyone knows you care about the world and are a good person. You buy a porsche, you're a 1% elitist who is ruining the lives of everyone around you. No matter whether you're doing all the right things behind the scenes and you drive the porsche 1000 miles per year and consume less gas than most of the people on the road, you're the enemy. This will do nothing to address that.
     
  3. Crazy Taylor

    Crazy Taylor Premium

    Messages:
    3,020
    Location:
    England
    If you don't drive a Porsche, you're potentially saving a lot of money.
     
    bloodyboyblue and dice1998 like this.
  4. sumbrownkid

    sumbrownkid

    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    United States
    If I’m driving a Porsche, I won’t really care what some schmuck thinks about me.

    If I want to make a net zero carbon footprint it’s because I made it my personal responsibility to do so. Not because I want some strangers approval.
     
    20832, Aphelion, Frizbe and 2 others like this.
  5. venancio

    venancio

    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Brazil
    The thing is, the only way to "help" the planet is by not burning fossil fuel, donating some bucks for somone to produce "clean" energy will not balance the CO2 that you car put into the air, that's nonsense. Now if the car manufacturers want to truly help they need to put pressure on the development of new types of fuel that do not rely on fossil fuel.
     
    Moby45 likes this.
  6. Corsa

    Corsa Premium

    Messages:
    1,653
    This.
    You know these little programs mean well and are great, maybe just to spread awareness but in the big picture of global warming achieve nothing.

    We may not feel intolerable temperatures in our lifetime but I do think about the people 200 years from now. What will life be like when ambient air temps are 130° in New York?

    I never paid attention to Al Gore was much too young. I am older now and have been doing a lot of reading lately it's serious stuff.
     
  7. Danoff

    Danoff Premium

    Messages:
    24,244
    Location:
    United States
    Really? Why?

    So for example let's say you put X amount of CO2 in the air with your car, and you fund a project which reduces X amount of CO2 emissions. Where's the issue?
     
  8. TAU_GTP

    TAU_GTP

    Messages:
    51
    This only applies to people who care a lot about ultimately superficial and pointless things. It's the same as the dreadful "charity happenings" vs contributing actual help in the form of manhours or similar tangible engagement.

    BTT: I'm a bit torn on this one. It does amount to little more than throwing money at the problem, but could eventually raise conscience, too. It is at least a mighty name behind it, so maybe other manufacturers will follow or create joint ventures.

    Sadly there is no way of transportation with the same range and speed as a car that achieves that. EV's really aren't much of an improvement over ICE-powered cars (yet) as they carry their own set of environmental issues. Power often comes from extremely dirty sources and the batteries themselves require materials which will likely foster more pollution and - not least of all problems - human exploitation.

    Some reading material on that last point: https://earthworks.org/publications/responsible-minerals-sourcing-for-renewable-energy/
     
  9. Danoff

    Danoff Premium

    Messages:
    24,244
    Location:
    United States
    Throwing money at the problem is sometimes the best thing you can do. As an example, suppose that someone makes $300/hr at their job. Should they stop making $300/hr to make sandwiches to hand out to the homeless for an hour? Or should they donate $300 instead and hire someone who needed the work at $10/hr for 30 hours of making sandwiches?

    "Tangible" engagement is often less about helping than it is about making the person themselves feel better. It feels a lot more charitable to spend an hour doing something different (making sandwiches) and seeing the faces of people you're handing them to than it does to just do what you do and let someone else be the face of your charity and receive the thanks.
     
  10. PSN:And-War

    PSN:And-War

    Messages:
    420
    Great idea Porsche, still the big elephant in the room is the amount spent to raise animals for us to eat, they does the car have to always be the scapegoat.
     
  11. bloodyboyblue

    bloodyboyblue

    Messages:
    1,337
    Location:
    Canada
    I don’t think that’s how climate change works...we’re talking about average temperatures rising just a few degrees here, potentially melting pack ice, which in turn would increase sea levels, which in turn would put coastal cities like NYC underwater at some point (and also thawing permafrost which releases methane, compounding the problem). But that’s down the line. The bigger threat at the moment is weird and unpredictable weather patterns/natural disasters. Climate change is a natural process, that is being accelerated to an unnatural rate (shifts that usually take thousands of years are now taking hundreds or even decades) and that’s what’s causing problems.

    Unless that comment about NYC being 130 degrees in the future was sarcasm, then fair point. It probably will be when the sun expands in size a few million years down the line.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
    kembro and Voodoovaj like this.
  12. Voodoovaj

    Voodoovaj

    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Canada
    NET benefit is a valid goal.

    If you removed 1000 cars from the road OR you find a carbon reduction solution that is the equivalent of removing 1000 cars from the road, the net benefit is the same.

    Every breathing animal emits carbon. so ceasing all carbon emissions is not possible. However, offsetting carbon emissions is.
     
    bloodyboyblue likes this.
  13. venancio

    venancio

    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Brazil
    Because every time you burn fossil fuel you are adding CO2 to the air, one way to offset it would be funding a project that absorbs that pollution. One example that reduces the CO2 emissions is a company that burn fuel on a powerplant to produce energy changed to wind turbines, stopping the use of said fuel driven powerplant, this way you reduce the emission.

    The thing is, the air already has a set amount of CO2, when we burn fossil fuel, we are adding to it, and there is nothing that can get that extra CO2 and put it back on it oil form, when animals breathe they are not adding to the pollution, we are just exchanging the gases.

    One example of a offset of production of CO2 is the use of ethanol, from sugar cane for example, the plant absorbs CO2 from the air and then we convert it to ethanol, the car burns it and release the same amount that the plant has absorbed, the problem with fossil fuel is that there isn't a good way to remove the extra CO2 that it's burning generates.
     
    kembro likes this.
  14. kikie

    kikie Premium

    Messages:
    18,211
    :eek:

    *Runs to the nearest Porsche center*.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  15. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    65,042
    Location:
    United Kingdom
     
  16. -Fred-

    -Fred- Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    22,776
    Location:
    Canada
    You buy a Tesla, everyone knows you're first and foremost making a fashion statement and you're actually an intolerable person in everyday life, you mean.

    Or at least that's par for the course around here.
     
    axletramp likes this.
  17. venancio

    venancio

    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Brazil
    those projects doesn't reduce car emissions, they are cool projects, but they do nothing about car emissions, renewable energy powerplants only offset fossil fuel powerplants, like you build a hydropower instead of a diesel one, forests have their own carbon cicle, they help but they are not that effective.
     
  18. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    65,042
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I'm thinking you've not read the article.

    The general idea is that you drive your Porsche, the app tells you how much CO2 you've produced and then you give money to these projects which are offsetting CO2 - by generating power from non-fossil fuel sources, or preserving forests - to offset your own CO2. The investment you make from your driving reduces CO2 elsewhere in proportion to the CO2 you make...
     
  19. ferhound

    ferhound

    Messages:
    324
    Saving the GT Planet...
     
  20. kikie

    kikie Premium

    Messages:
    18,211
    With Porsche in GTS. :p
     
  21. axletramp

    axletramp Premium

    Messages:
    18,861
    Location:
    Jersey
    Also... over 70% of all Porsches built are still on the road (an even higher percentage of 911s), which means there's a very healthy second-hand market, which means they're the ultimate eco-car! Even electric vehicles have to be constructed from parts built all over the world in huge factories (using fossil fuels) and transported to another huge factory (using fossil fuels) to be bolted together and then shipped again (using fossil fuels) to the showrooms.

    I think I'm really just trying to justify something here... :lol:
     
    LMSCorvetteGT2, TexRex and Danoff like this.
  22. GTV0819

    GTV0819

    Messages:
    2,632
    Too bad the new cheapest Porsche is still expensive for a usual ordinary folk.
     
  23. Ace Carrera

    Ace Carrera

    Messages:
    14
    If you drive a Porsche, you might also be saving Porsche.
     
  24. Danoff

    Danoff Premium

    Messages:
    24,244
    Location:
    United States
    No I think you're right. There is something to the fact that fewer Porsches become trash.
     
    LMSCorvetteGT2, TexRex and axletramp like this.
  25. blug

    blug

    Messages:
    16
    Well they just help their customer feel good about the pollution they create.

    But first : people who praise electric cars for being clean forget one thing : the environmental cost to make the batteries (lithium) for these cars. It is the equivalent of 50k+ miles in a diesel car, so before your car is actually worth it for the environment your battery will probably be dead. And also the way to generate the electricity is not always (not even often) green. So yes you may not create pollution where you drive but the problem is just moved elsewhere.

    Second : I believe sport cars are not the main contributers to pollution : OK they ceate more pollution per mile driven, but a lot of sport cars owners drive that car occasionally for leisure. The problem is all the cars that circulate for commutes every day. That is the habit that has to change to have a big impact.

    Last: cars are an easy target but not many target other sources of pollution, meat consumption for instance. I won't debate all that here but if we really want to go greener, then a lot has to change.
     
  26. homeforsummer

    homeforsummer Premium

    Messages:
    26,058
    I do wonder to what extent it's calculated. Carbon offsetting for say, 10k miles based on official CO2 figures only goes so far if you go over that mileage and your car's only doing 75% of the MPG quoted in the brochure. Or whether it's tailpipe CO2 alone, or it's well-to-wheels. Or whether it changes depending on production and raw materials impact; the Cayenne mentioned is 2+ tons, so before it's even turned a wheel it's consumed 2x the raw materials of say, a Ford Fiesta.

    Carbon offsetting does seem a bit like a band-aid to me. It's better than nothing I guess, but it's a bit like recycling plastic - better simply to avoid things made of plastic in the first place than it is to continue as normal and throw it in a different bag afterwards. It's prolonging the inevitable rather than dealing with the root cause.

    That, and it goes against the physical laws of the universe. You can carbon-offset one or a hundred cars in isolation but unless you can say, conjure full-sized trees into existence from nothing there's always energy being lost elsewhere.
    This has long been overplayed, particularly with EV comparisons:


    In simple terms, during the average car's lifecycle, far more of its environmental impact comes from use than from its construction. EVs can offset their production impact pretty quickly. Regular cars less so, but basically the thirstier something is, the sooner buying something less thirsty will make a difference.

    It's probably less the case with old Porsches, which will probably be used relatively sparingly compared to say, the average repmobile, and given they do stay on the road longer than most cars you can effectively ignore the energy related to their recycling since they rarely die and get recycled (whether that's offset by the energy relating to the odd restoration here and there, plus various fluids and parts over their lifetime I'm not sure).
     
    axletramp likes this.
  27. axletramp

    axletramp Premium

    Messages:
    18,861
    Location:
    Jersey
    To be fair, I was basing this on something Clarkson claimed once. :lol:
     
  28. homeforsummer

    homeforsummer Premium

    Messages:
    26,058
    There's always going to be some merit to it - that's how it sounds plausible.

    If say the industry produced new cars and they were scrapped two years later that would be horrendously damaging, so there's definitely an argument for at least making good use of anything that's required so much energy to produce.

    And there is an impact in having to move stuff around the world on obscenely dirty transport ships, and in the raw materials something has required, so there's something to be said for buying say, a 1.5-ton 911 rather than a 2-ton Tesla if you live in the UK - the Tesla has required a third more raw materials than the Porsche before it's even turned a wheel, and it's then had to travel from California rather than Stuttgart just to get to your front door (ignoring where the raw materials might have come from in the first place). It'll take a little longer for that Tesla to offset its energy use relative to the Porsche than in a like-for-like example.

    My job makes it a bit... difficult to talk about this subject without sounding preachy (let he who is without sin burn the first dinosaur, etc), but I've long thought the problems with transport are a bit like the problems with food.

    You don't lose weight and become healthy with fad diets, you do it by eating well, eating less, and exercising more. You can take the same Occam's Razor to transport: the best way to reduce environmental impact and emissions isn't by making everything a 2-ton electric SUV or carbon offsetting and carrying on as normal, it's by driving less. You don't consume and don't need to offset what you don't use...
     
    axletramp likes this.
  29. Danoff

    Danoff Premium

    Messages:
    24,244
    Location:
    United States
    Recycling is not very efficient. There's a lot of energy that goes into re-using materials, so I understand why you might prefer to avoid certain products than to recycle them. It doesn't undo the plastic, it just mitigates it. But I don't see why Carbon offsetting is like that.

    I don't see how it goes against any physical laws. The carbon presumably already exists, it's just being moved around in different forms. We're not capturing carbon from space and bringing it to Earth here. Sure maybe some of it is trapped in another material, but it's here. In this case, it's in oil under the ground. So there's nothing saying that it's impossible to recapture that carbon.

    I think maybe a better argument is that it's not being done intelligently, which is only a partially valid argument. For example you might think that planting a tree is a good carbon offset, but not really. I mean while the tree is alive it's a carbon sink, sucking carbon out of the air and storing it in tree form. But then when the tree dies or burns, it releases that carbon again. I suppose if that tree manages to create 5 more then you've won.

    But let's say you bought a wind turbine with your carbon offsetting. That wind turbine is producing electricity presumably in place of something dirty, like coal. For the life of the wind turbine, it offsets emissions from coal use. A wind turbine could even be refurbished, I'm not sure to what extent they ever really "die". How is that not offsetting your vehicle emissions? Sure you're creating emissions, but if you're reducing emissions by more than that somewhere else, the carbon balance comes out ahead.
     
    LMSCorvetteGT2 likes this.
  30. homeforsummer

    homeforsummer Premium

    Messages:
    26,058
    I should add firstly that I know this particular program isn't just about planting trees and that the causes it contributes to do look pretty decent (and wider-ranging than just carbon capture or offsetting). But given we're specifically talking offsetting, that's what I'm responding to below:
    Perhaps not impossible, but very difficult to do on the same scale as that which is being released. Maybe if you're Porsche and selling relatively few cars you can do it effectively for the even fewer people who sign up to such a program.

    "Saving the planet" is probably artistic licence though. "Making sports car owners feel good about themselves" is probably a little closer to the mark.
    I'd agree. Planting trees isn't a good carbon offset at all, not least because we're chopping the damn things down at a rate far greater than we're sticking saplings in the ground. And also because those saplings are pretty ineffective compared to full-size trees. Not much offsetting is going on if it takes a hundred years for it to reach maturity, and even then only absorbs 48lb of carbon a year.

    Don't get me wrong either, I'm absolutely for planting more trees, and there are far more benefits to them than just a carbon sink (a lot of the flooding in the UK is due to woodland cut away to make room for arable land, reducing the ground's capacity to absorb water). But I'd not advocate it for carbon offsetting.
    Well there's more to it than just CO2 for a start... though offsetting 3.7 tons of CO2 for 10k miles in a 911 (at circa 190g/km) is a big ask on its own. CO2 isn't the only tailpipe emission though, and I'm guessing this program won't offset Porsche's emissions as a company to any great degree.

    (Again, I know it's not direct in any sense, and building dams and protecting wildlife have benefits beyond CO2 alone just like the trees example above)

    I'll bite with wind turbines though: One would have to question the motivation of erecting a wind turbine whose "carbon credits" are going towards offsetting someone's sports car, rather than erecting a wind turbine where 100% of its output is offsetting existing energy generation. If some of that turbine's energy is solely going towards ensuring some dude in a 911 can feel better about themselves, then it's energy wasted on not doing something more productive.