Study On Car Fleet Renewal Gives Astonishing Results

The International Transport Forum, an intergovernmental think tank, recently published a study on car fleet renewal scheme in three countries. The study was conducted to measure the impact of governmental incentives in the US, Germany and France (all car friendly nations with a production of cars) which aimed to trade old cars for newer ones hoping that this will stimulate both sustainability and the car industry.
Now, 2 years later, a first study is published that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the car renewal from a sustainable and social point of view. Factors like CO2 and NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions as well as road safety are measured.
The study, however, didn`t give the results the politicians had hoped for. One could have expected that newer cars caused less pollution and reduced the risk of traffic accidents, in other words achieving a positive cost-effectiveness. That is true in the short term but in the long run the positive aspects diminish.
The study shows that a lot of consumers have traded their old small car in favor to a new medium-sized one. Bigger cars need more fuel and cause higher air pollution. As the new car is more comfortable consumers spend more time travelling and road safety per car decreases. Logically, both CO2 and NOx-emissions increase. Taking a look on the cost-effectiveness shows, of course, negative values, too.
What did the government miss? They forgot to take into account a changed consumer pattern and the rebound effect on emissions in the long term. Given incentives on new cars no matter car-size makes buying small cars less attractive. The car is at first a status symbol, not an environment symbol.
Giving incentives on car renewal needs chance management, as it is a process with many parts involved. Consumers need a pathway on how they can contribute. To put it that way like the Heath-brothers did in their book: direct the rider – motivate the elephant – shape the path. It reminds me on an initiative at my job recently. We reduced the number of cars and bought some bicycles instead. A very good initiative besides the fact that the bicycles haven`t been used often. People are lazy and find many reasons to take the car. Maybe a competition of who used the bikes most combined with a spa-weekend for the winner could have made the switch. Point out the direction and make it attractive.
- About WFS
- Resources
- Interact
- Build

Like us on Facebook
Comments
Not that astonishing really
Paul Higgins: In part I am not surprised by this and you should not need a major study to measure it. If the program is not designed to reward people for reducing car size or a significant improvement in efficiency then it is unlikely to happen. Just looks like poor design to me. The second part of changed behaviours is less obvious but has been documented elsewhere.
A similar thing happened here in Australia with a free insulation program for houses. As soon as the person who received the product had no "skin in the game" they did not care about the cost of the product and therefore paid no part in checking or worrying about price.Therefore the scheme attracted con artists and overcharging. The money grab also led to people diving into being suppliers in the scheme with without the required skills and people died as a result. If the house owners had been required to pay half the cost they would have been a lot more involved in the process and it would have minimised any problems. Another example of not thinking through second and third level consequences - something I find a futures/consequence wheel very useful for. Also a fan of "war gaming" the process - getting people in with the skills and an incentive to try and break the planned system before it is implemented.
Paul
rewarding systems - house insulation etc. in Germany
Stefan Frischauf: without any kinda rewarding and participation system consumers won't act. They will go the easiest way - business as usual - like everybody indicates them. In addition to Paul Higgins comment about insulation in Australia I might add kinda evaluation of that in Germany. Here we have about 75 % of the housing market owned by landlords - about 40 % owned by small private amateurs - individual heritage etc. The tenant instead has to pay higher prices for heating etc. As there's no kinda program for balancing the investment interests we got an enormous accumulation regarding renovation of existing homes for making them thermally more efficient. Already proposed kinda participation legislation regarding that three years ago - nothing has happened. And - architects don't have no jobs. Like many others - they are just thwarted out and trapped by monopole like structures, that aren't efficient any more at all.
Best - Stefan
stefan@anyarchitectsandengineers.com
Post new comment