Definition and implications of the clean car concept

[Woodcutter]

This is a report from the Parliamentary Office for the Assessment of Scientific and Technical Choices dated December 14, 2005.

Visible on this page, it is quite generous document but in my opinion very interesting.

Arm yourself with courage and read it, you will see!

Available in .pdf format here: https://www.econologie.com/telechargement-3090.html

PS for Christophe: I hope I have put it in the right place?

[Former Oceano]

Bucheron is right, he has 383 pages of this report downloadable in pdf (5,8 Mo) ... The appendices start on page 253 ...

I started by looking at the conclusions and they seem to be consistent ...

Thank you Bucheron and aspirin for my next few hours to come

[Rulian]

I have neither read nor downloaded this paper but how can we want to read 383 pages on a subject at the bottom completely con

"Clean car" ... pffff ....

And why not "anti-cancer cigarette" or "flying elephant" ???

When are we finally going to twist this damn myth?!? It is a dangerous illusion !!!

[Woodcutter]

I have neither read nor downloaded this paper but how can we want to read 383 pages on a subject at the bottom completely con

"Clean car" ... pffff ....

And why not "anti-cancer cigarette" or "flying elephant" ???

When are we finally going to twist this damn myth?!? It is a dangerous illusion !!!

Hem ...

Super constructive reaction, thank you for your intervention Mister Moderator ...

The car-free world is for the moment (and for how long?) A complete utopia.

So alongside people who swear by it (I need to, I don't deny it), maybe other people who think about "how to do less worse than today"is not bad too, right?

Intellectual curiosity allows, in my opinion, a higher capacity for reflection and hindsight.

[nonoLeRobot]

It is true that the title of "clean car" is misleading and unwelcome, unless they are pedal cars.

However Rulian, you may have gotten a little excited ...

But it is true that all these noble titles and expressions are unhealthy, however, the content can still be interesting in the sense or I imagine that they mean car a little less polluting even if suddenly we will tend to use more (especially if it is "clean") what will probably not be better can be worse.

That said, I admit that I have not read.

[Woodcutter]

The title of the post reproduces the title of the parliamentary report.

Indeed, we might be better, in old Europe, to be inspired by Californians who use the English acronyms ZEV and LEV for vehicles with zero emission (and low emission) of pollutants, implied in their place of use ...

That said, if you consider LCA, a pedal car is not clean either ...

[Rulian]

I do not criticize the content of this paper because I have not read it. There may be some interesting stuff in there, I don't throw a stone at the content. And I don't want to get into my personal positions with regard to the car.

However I find it regrettable that such a document (parliamentary source in addition !!) has for title a linguistic amalgam as doubtful as widespread. It is this kind of bullshit that keeps the average rainy in the idea that soon we can "roll clean".

It is a scandalous lie by abuse of language which makes it possible to wash the conscience and the hands without daring to say the things such as they are: the car is an ecological and energy nonsense, it is the ground transport by far the more polluting, it's completely dirty even with vegetable oil or batteries or whatever. Not to mention mortality ... After no one reacts by seeing the pubs for cars with only visuals and eco-friendly slogans. Very seriously I know people who are sincerely convinced that their new latest-model-thing-stuff car respects the environment. It makes me want to scream! And these kinds of stupid titles help to maintain this illusion!

After I would have been fully satisfied with this paper if its title had been about the "less dirty car". I completely agree with Bucheron's remark on this.

[Former Oceano]

In any case, since there is no clean car, we can make sure that we have the least dirty car possible ...

Here's a very website which presents a more extensive classification of vehicles than the Topten WWF.

We can also go to the site of citizen car talking about 772 vehicle models.

If it helps someone ...

[Christophe]

Some elements of reflections (Rulian will be happy) on the clean car (which does NOT exist yet) in this excellent pdf:
https://www.econologie.com/file/technolo ... mobile.pdf

(which I will soon present on the site)

[jean63]

Agree with you when you say:

Very seriously I know people who are sincerely convinced that their new latest-model-thing-stuff car respects the environment.

What does "clean" mean? we have already had lots of heated debates on the subject. For me, the least dirty possible is "which sends the least amount of filth that is harmful to health at ground level, in cities". However, we talked at length about the harmfulness of particles (still there), precious metals taken directly from the catalytic converters and which advantageously replaced the lead of the old super, not to mention all the additives put in gasoline especially and diesel to improve PERFORMANCE of engines but harmful to health, NOx ... etc.

When it comes to CO2, can we consider that it enters the notion of "clean" when we know the huge amount of CO2 sent by everything that is not a private car (industry, air transport, maritime transport, operation oil shales in the state of Alberta in Canada to obtain oil, .... etc ... etc ...).