Electric vehicles are supposed to eventually emit half of the total CO2e compared to ICE vehicles, but importantly that's as calculated over the entire expected lifetime of the compared vehicles. The manufacturing process massively frontloads the EV's emissions such that if you only keep it for ~5 years, you actually end up worse off emissions-wise than if you were driving an economy ICE vehicle. Then there's externalities such as increased damage to roads (asphalt is still a petroleum product), microplastics off tires entering waterways, etc., due to EVs' higher weight.
It makes more sense in almost every case, if you're concerned about emissions, to just buy used whenever possible. This applies across many kinds of products.
Circular economy and cutting excess production are way more effective for mitigating emissions than buying new $SHINY_GADGETs but the nascent cultural default is to buy new because of this or that feel-good ads campaign and/or some kind of stigma around buying things that were previously someone else's.
Used cars are not supply-constrained. Inventory is declining only because new car supply has been so suppressed over the past couple years, but that doesn't mean they're running out any time soon. So the opportunity cost on the individual level is as I describe: do you reutilize an existing car or do you incarnate (heh) a new one with your market participation? It's true that your new car will likely be someone else's used car, but the argument has a whiff of trickle-down-style economic reasoning that would take more space to unpack.
Further, more demand for used cars would spur the industry to reclaim/refurb salvage titles that were otherwise destined for the scrap heap and sell them on.
We could easily do this wrong, e.g. by shipping busted cars overseas, having them refurbed there, and shipping them back. Or we could do it right and create jobs in America that would stimulate economic activity locally.
This has nothing to do with trickle-down economics - it has everything to do with supply-demand curve.
All cars like this exist on the demand curve - if you don't buy it because you find it undesirable for one reason or another, someone else will. Eventually that falls so far down the curve that it's not worth anyone buying it (no demand) and it either gets scrapped, or it gets exported and someone else uses it outside of the country (which, does happen quite a bit).
Refurbing salvage cars broadly is just not worth it - the time and effort would be better spent make 10-20 new cars, rather than potentially dealing with the liability of a salvage branded car. It's why nobody wants a salvage car.
Comments
Electric vehicles are supposed to eventually emit half of the total CO2e compared to ICE vehicles, but importantly that's as calculated over the entire expected lifetime of the compared vehicles. The manufacturing process massively frontloads the EV's emissions such that if you only keep it for ~5 years, you actually end up worse off emissions-wise than if you were driving an economy ICE vehicle. Then there's externalities such as increased damage to roads (asphalt is still a petroleum product), microplastics off tires entering waterways, etc., due to EVs' higher weight.
It makes more sense in almost every case, if you're concerned about emissions, to just buy used whenever possible. This applies across many kinds of products.
Circular economy and cutting excess production are way more effective for mitigating emissions than buying new $SHINY_GADGETs but the nascent cultural default is to buy new because of this or that feel-good ads campaign and/or some kind of stigma around buying things that were previously someone else's.
The car doesn't get scrapped if you only use it for 5 years -- it gets sold on to somebody else.
And if you buy a vehicle used, you're preventing someone else from buying and using that vehicle.
Your argument only really works if you buy a car that was destined for the scrap heap and fix it to make it usable.
Used cars are not supply-constrained. Inventory is declining only because new car supply has been so suppressed over the past couple years, but that doesn't mean they're running out any time soon. So the opportunity cost on the individual level is as I describe: do you reutilize an existing car or do you incarnate (heh) a new one with your market participation? It's true that your new car will likely be someone else's used car, but the argument has a whiff of trickle-down-style economic reasoning that would take more space to unpack.
Further, more demand for used cars would spur the industry to reclaim/refurb salvage titles that were otherwise destined for the scrap heap and sell them on.
We could easily do this wrong, e.g. by shipping busted cars overseas, having them refurbed there, and shipping them back. Or we could do it right and create jobs in America that would stimulate economic activity locally.
This has nothing to do with trickle-down economics - it has everything to do with supply-demand curve.
All cars like this exist on the demand curve - if you don't buy it because you find it undesirable for one reason or another, someone else will. Eventually that falls so far down the curve that it's not worth anyone buying it (no demand) and it either gets scrapped, or it gets exported and someone else uses it outside of the country (which, does happen quite a bit).
Refurbing salvage cars broadly is just not worth it - the time and effort would be better spent make 10-20 new cars, rather than potentially dealing with the liability of a salvage branded car. It's why nobody wants a salvage car.
Used cars aren't supply constrained only at current prices, which are significantly higher than they used to be.
Demand is keeping prices high, there is no lack of demand.