The other day while walking to the subway I saw a stunning little 1970's orange Volkswagen Bug for sale. I'm not actually in the market for a car, but I still stopped to admire it since I've always loved Bugs. But it's indicative of my state of mind—both personally and professionally— that the immediate thought following my burst of enthusiasm was "Ooohhh... the emissions and gas mileage have to be terrible on this car. It's probably horrible for the environment." Which brings me to greater food for thought: what is our responsibility as conscious consumers when vintage options are worse for the environment and/or our health?
We've heard the argument before: buying vintage, or buying something that is already in existence, is better than depleting resources to create something new. But given past conversations on Re-Nest (on retrofitting vs. new construction, for example) the answer is simply not as clear-cut. The fact is that new advancements and technologies have improved our quality of life and streamlined processes that were excessively wasteful or harmful a half century ago. We would never want to keep the asbestos in our electrical insulation or our old lead water pipes, for example, even though it would mean reusing something we already have.
So where do we draw the line? When is using existing or vintage items worse than buying new? Are matters of personal health the defining factor on what we should use and what we should replace? How much do environmental factors (air pollution, natural resource depletion) come into play? And what do we make then of those items already in existence? Wouldn't it still be better in the long run to use them than to NOT use them?
Tell us your thoughts below.
(Image: Volkswagen)
Apartment Therapy's Sofa Shopping Guide
Nikki’s Sweet and Cheery Print Studio
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Sprout Side Table
5 Things Paris Taught Me About Travel
Recipe: Ham, Cheddar & Chive Egg Bakes
Actually, while the emissions are probably not great, the mileage on an older VW bug is pretty comparable to today's cars (~30mpg). That's better than a lot of SUVs.
They do make kits to outfit your older car with newer power systems (including electric!). A little VW bug, with all the trunk space up front, would be a pretty good choice -- lots of space for batteries :)
I regularly got 25 MPG with my 74 super beetle. Moved house (co-op student) in the thing every 3 months, but you have to be creative with the packing but they can hold a lot.
It's simplicity and efficiency always enthralled me. They are easy to maintain and surprisingly reliable (never flinched to road trip in one). Aside from engine rebuild for HS graduation, I did most of the maintenance myself (I was hard on starter solenoids and accelerator cables - beats my brother - he still goes through clutches like Oreos).
Parts are fairly easy to find, and not as expensive as other "classic" cars.
If you get it, I think my dad has the old (non working) ac unit from mine.. You want it?
@tabbiewolf and @miran, glad to hear that! I do love them so.
this reminds me of a "stuff white people like" post about vespas, but along the same lines(http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2009/06/02/126-vespa-scooters/), "The Vespa has produced one of the great paradoxes in white culture. Vintage Vespas are infinitely cooler than newer ones, but the vintage models produce more pollution than most automobiles."
great post, I was wondering the same thing, I don't drive but I always admired bugs and can't imagine them disappearing
actually, the gas mileage & emissions of a volkswagen are less troublesome (to me) than the history of the 'people's car,' which was produced in germany under hitler using forced labor. At Volkswagen, the foreign workforce subjected to forced labour was exposed to the cold (photos in the book show young Soviet women, reduced to slavery, working barefoot), incessant beatings, malnutrition and early death. (mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag)
i ponder this thought constantly- apparently more than a third of the energy consumed in a car's lifetime is in its creation alone. so, my theory is, the longer it's on the road, the more economical it becomes & therefore my toyota grandad is almost an eco-mobile...
I think it depends on how you are going to use the vintage car. I have a 66 Mustang. But that means that my partner and I basically share his modern sedan - we carpool together, use our bikes to get around etc. - because that other car is the fun, cruising car that gets limited (but thoroughly enjoyable) outings. If we didn't have the oldie, we would definitely have two regular cars and slip into irresponsible use between the two of them.
I drove a 72 Beetle until 1998. I passed the Louisville emissions inspection with flying colors every year. Great mileage, plus not having the environmental impact of a new car being built...
My best friend at a 68 VW Bug and it was great with mileageand emissions passed the MO-STL tests. I don't think it was as wasteful or harmful as some modern cars.
And it looks cute. We all make sacrifices I think ultimately we just need to do our best to be conscious of our choices. We can't make the "greenest" choice in all areas so I think it's more about being aware of the damage you're inflict and trying to still leave things at least as if you were never there.
if its diesel you can converted to run on used deep-fryer grease, then itll be the greenest thing on the road :)
I love bugs to :)
The amount of energy it takes to make a new, environmentally-friendly car is more than the car will save during use. Using older things until they can't be of service any longer is still the most efficient way to protect the environment.
I used to get about 26-28mpg in mine. Safety might be a bigger concern...no bags, no anti-lock breaks, etc.
But I still love to hear their engines. It's almost a bell ringing sound. Sweet.
Regarding the Vespas (my husband and I have several vintage & new), you need to determine what "better" is. We definitely have a laugh about what awful polluters the vintage ones are (that is not the case for new ones), but we're using a LOT less gasoline overall. So, our gas mileage is faaaaaabulous, but we're pumping out all kinds of crap. Depends on what "better" means.
And are you considering the emissions and the complex chain of events involved in manufacturing a new car? I think the answer is, there's no right answer. If we assume that the vintage Bug (or Vespa, or whatever) is a massively inefficient polluter, does that really outweigh all of the factories (and their emissions, and water usage, and petroleum usage, and other impacts), and the pollution and impact of shipping that new car to wherever you are?
I'm with hikatie and miran, you have to consider the impact of building and mantaining a new car before dismissing the idea of getting an old one.
About me... well, life is so easier when you can't afford to buy a new one! :D
emissions standards were higher in the later 70s-80s than they are now.
jsev, you're joking right?
Emissions standards have risen continuously since the late 1960s. As have safety requirements and customers' demands for luxury features. All of which increase the complexity, cost, and environmental impact of building new vehicles. The Beetle used technology and materials dating to the early 1930s and what you need to be aware of is that it left the market because it couldn't pass the relatively lax emissions requirements of its time. It's an interesting collectors item, but if your concern is primarily environmental, a car from the 80s or 90s is much, much cleaner, and vastly safer.
@hikatie - agreed on all points. I've been dabbling in vintage 2-strokes for 10-15 years now, and there are just too many factors to take into account for an easy answer.
You have to pay attention to where you are getting your statistics - and who's funding the research.
@hitake, it depends on how local you're thinking. California's historically stricter emissions standards were created primarily for Los Angeles because by the 1960s air pollution was making the region dangerous and the changes have made a huge difference. If your Beetle or 2 stroke is running in, say North Dakota, the local impact is almost irrelevant, but in an urban environment it can really affect you and you neighbors.