<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE>@font-face { font-family: SimSun; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: @SimSun; } @font-face { font-family: Verdana; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } PRE { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } SPAN.EmailStyle18 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US vLink=blue link=blue bgColor=white> <DIV>Well, there are some environmental issues related to car OWNERSHIP.  From a CO2 standpoint, about 22% (US) to 30% (Europe) of the total emissions emanate not from usage but from manufacturing and disposal.  There is also significant solid waste produced in manufacturing and disposal.  The German EPA did an interesting study a few years back tracing the solid waste of car manufacturing from a cradle to grave analysis.  To manufacture a one metric ton vehicle, about 20 metric tons of waste is produced (most of which is mining tailings from iron ore processing), and most of this waste is incurred in developing nations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are also a fair number of studies suggesting that auto manufacturing can be an inefficient economic transaction, which in turn has opportunity costs affecting investments elsewhere (e.g. nutrition, education, and healthcare).  The automated nature of auto manufacturing today means it has a very poor employment multiplier when compared to alternative uses of capital.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bottom line...we should also be a bit concerned about OWNERSHIP, although I certainly agree that USE is a serious issue.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Walter Hook Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car </DIV> <DIV class=Section1> Carlos,   You are way off.  Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits.  The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location.  In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not.  It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership.     If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds.  But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car.    Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge.  In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief.   If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge.  If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either.   With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is).  This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car.     Best Walter   of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>