Old Truck: Life Cycle Analysis

In my last post I told you about my old truck. Unlike some folks out there, I do actually need a truck. I use the truck to cart manure and other things that would not be pleasant to transport in the back of a Subaru Outback. People always ask me why I didn't get a newer, more fuel efficient one. You know, one that would be better for the environment. Other than the cost of a new truck being a deterrent, I would always respond that by purchasing a new vehicle I would be using more energy by creating a demand for the manufacturer of that vehicle. This sounds rather obvious and silly unless you consider the energy used to create a vehicle. Metal must be smelted or recycled, formed into new body and frame members. Plastic and Foam must be created from petrochemicals. The new truck would have to be transported on a truck from the factory to me. Not to mention, I would be selling my old truck to another driver (using the 12 mpg) instead of retiring it at a junk yard. This type of argument would continue with out any resolution. With no concrete facts to go on except our opinions, it was hard to reach consensus.

Then I discovered a really cool website: The Institute for Life Cycle Analysis
Check it out. They have all sorts of cool debates analyzed. Paper or Plastic? Cloth or Disposable Diapers? On it they summarized a Carnegie-Mellon study looking at the energy and pollution debt of manufacturing a car versus the energy and pollution associated with its operation. That one can be found here: Automobiles: Manufacturing vs. Use

Basically 12% of the car's life time energy use was chewed up in manufacturing. This is a lot less than I thought. Score one for my challengers. However, check out the graph on toxins released into the environment. 58% of the toxins released over the lifetime of the car are set loose during the manufacturing process. Score one for me and for those toxins.

However, after crunching a bunch of other numbers I probably should buy a newer used truck that gets better mpg, but only if I retire my old one to the junk yard. Oh No! Carnegie Mellon didn't talk about the energy used and the toxins released during the junking of a car. As you can see, life cycle analysis can be quite a rabbit hole, but one we should probably start going down if we are going to make things better. Life cycle analysis should be the premier way of looking at environmental decision making. For example if you buy native landscaping instead of run-of-the mill non sustainable plants because you want to use less energy in taking care of the shrubs around your house, you may be thinking that you are helping the earth. But what if those plants were raised to market size in a green house heated by oil and sprayed with fungicides and lots of water etc? What if the "sustainable" ones where trucked in from 3000 miles away? How would you know which shrub actually used less water and energy over its life?

So will I buy a new truck? Probably not, because of my bank account's life cycle. Its in a declining period of its life right at this moment. But that's just me. Don't let that stop you. You should definitely buy a new energy efficient car. Hey, I could be a great politician: live as I say, not as I do.