Environmental Costs of the Automobile Production Process - Essay Example

Car Industry Car Industry Introduction Any product has a life cycle beginning with the extraction of raw materials from the groundfollowed by processing or refining and the manufacturing process. It will then be consumed for a given period and recycled or disposed of because of breakage or the end of its usefulness (Barrett 2009, p. 17). In the modern world, cars have become more of a necessity than luxury, which has pushed production, consumption and disposal to high levels and this paper will focus on the environmental implications of automobiles throughout their lifecycle. The reason for choosing cars is because the automotive industry forms the economic sector that is most symbolic of the modern times as well as the environmental consequences of modernity. The effect of the automobile, as well as the auto-centered transport system on U.S.’s ecology and the world over has been large. From the production process to its end of life, automobiles consume resources; pollute land, air and water in addition to transforming space. The production of cars needs collecting many quantities of metals, plastic, glass and rubber plus other materials, and then assembling tens of thousands of vehicles through machine and human labor (McGranahan & Murray 2012, p. 45). This process of production itself uses gigantic amount of energy, plus the factory output creates its own range of pollutants. Once the automobile is on the road, they are the main consumers of gas and oil, which stimulates deeper drilling, transporting plus refining of petroleum products so as the meet the increasing demands. Because the internal combustion engine still dominates automobile propulsion, vehicles give out huge volumes of pollution in form of noise, air emission, disposable parts and used oil (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Scrapped or derelict vehicles pile up once vehicles conclude their productive lives. Beyond their roles as artifacts and polluters, cars have transformed towns and the entire country more than any other technology ever created by human beings. In spite of their dramatic effect, the ecological history of automobile is hard to depict (Gasana et al., 2012, p. 36). This is because, over the years, vehicles have be considered both as a benefactor and also a threat, as a advantage to freedom, individualism and liberation and as the bane of contemporary society. By the turn of the 20th century what had only been a technical curiosity, a noise-belching menace to humans and a rich man’s plaything, started to gain acceptance (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Optimists touted the automobile as a reliable means of conveyance, which made a majority of places seem accessible; that was less expensive, much easier to maintain and longer-lived compared to horses; and this would transform the quality and pattern of transportation from one place to another (McGranahan & Murray 2012, p. 45). To most individuals, the spread of vehicles did not appear any more hazardous than the speed of electric streetcars (Gasana et al., 2012, p. 37). Gas fumes appeared much worse compared to manure from horses and coal smoke from steam engines. Street sweepers acknowledge vehicles for making their worker much easier: less manure to collect, fewer stables and manure pits and less animal carcasses to dispose of. Nevertheless, there were many early critics of automobiles (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Some protested about the “car nuisance,” but this was reference to the reckless driving that some drivers acquainted themselves to, which threw dust pedestrians and also caused some deaths to people. Farmers and pastoralists became infuriated with urban vehicles supporters, who showed no concern to their livestock and the countryside’s tranquility, while they were driving. Longer-term liabilities were not considered at first such as accidents in excess of those on mass-transit; the environmental, economic, and social costs of endorse vehicles together with their infrastructure; and ever-present smog (Seinfeld & Pandis 2012, p. 67). By the time vehicles became the main mode of transportation, in the U.S., in the early 1900s, condemnation grew harsher and more impeaching in spite of the constant enhancements of its product through the automobile industry (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Vehicles were blamed for a majority of the urban problems, including energy exploitation, pollution, congestion, suburban sprawl, scores of traffic fatalities, and the termination of downtowns. Melosi (n.d., p. 1) referred to the vehicle as the greatest consumer of personal and public space ever developed by man. Melosi (n.d., p. 1) proposed that advantages of the vehicles are personalized for people who can afford them whereas the expenses are shared by everyone, even if you cannot afford them. The gap between the optimists and critics has created what some refer to as the automotive paradox or enigma of automobility (Seinfeld & Pandis 2012, p. 67). From an ecological point of view, the effect of the automobile is no less multifaceted and, in some situations, no less contradictory (Seinfeld & Pandis 2012, p. 67). Environmental Costs of the Automobile Production Process Mass-produced vehicles, like a majority of the other mass produced commodities, required the application of many and huge amount of resources, the urge for substantial amounts of mechanical power and human labor, and the generation of abundant waste products (Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2013, p. 813). Some scholars conservatively projected that, by 1980, almost two million Americans were involved in producing automobiles and nearly another three million in making their components, with as many as another 20 million the world over relying on motorized cars for their livelihood (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The business focus of the car industry by the 920s, particularly after Henry Ford’s transformation in mass-production methods, contributed considerably to the huge production scale. While there were almost 500 small firms in the steam-, gasoline-, as well as electric-vehicle businesses, in 1910, they only produced limited vehicles. The small large organizations, which came to lead the industry, radically raised the output. By the 20s, they were manufacturing 98% of the world’s cars. From 1920 to 1929 alone, the manufacturing of automobiles ascended from 2.2 million to 5.3 million (Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2013, p. 823). By the 70s, the car industry was the globe’s biggest manufacturing industry. Projections for 1990 propose that there were 630 million cars on the road the world over, and out of the number, 460 million were private passenger cars. Approximately 40% of vehicles worldwide were in North America alone (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Historians have projected that nearly a third of the entire environmental harm caused by cars were even before they were sold and driven. They cite that fabricating a vehicle creates 29 tons of waste and 1.2 million cubic yard of polluted air (Zhang & Batterman 2013, p. 3007). Extracting bauxite, iron ore, petroleum, lead, copper, and a variety of other raw materials so as to process steel, plastics, aluminum, rubber, glass, as well as other products important to construct vehicles uses vast amount of energy, limited resources and has stern ecological repercussions (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Today, for instance, the car industry in a number of developed nations is the number one buyer of steel and iron, aluminum, lead for batteries and platinum for fume exhaust control. Nearly 75% of the power used in the industry is from electricity but they also use natural gas, coke and coal, plus propane, oil and steam (Mudd 2012, p. 67). Automobile assembly plants are key polluter. In the early 90s, in the U.S. alone, there were 20 engine plants over 40 assembly plants, thousands of car parts suppliers and countless metal stamping facilities. Automotive plants discharge sulfuric plus other smokestack emission into the air. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed truck and car plants among the main waste producers in the nation (Melosi n.d., p. 1). By 1990, the U.S. car industry had account for 2% of all hazardous waste or 172 kilogram per car produced. In particular, paint shops use vast volumes of solvent; in Michigan, these solvents account for a quarter of the entire volatile organic compounds pollution (Chandrasekaran et al. 2013, p. 56). The brining in of water-based paints was for drastically reducing solvent pollution, but the retrofitting of paint shops was overly expensive, and the large volumes of fluid used do not leave as hygienic as when they went in (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The network of building infrastructure, supply industries and transportation systems essential to manufacture and deliver cars to the client also should be factored into any talk of the ecological effect of the car industry. It is not apparent whether the car industry pollutes or has polluted suspiciously to other kinds of manufacturing in the U.S. This is because, these days, car manufacturers, like other manufacturers, have been held responsible for some pollution regulations or have tried to enhance some conditions willingly (Melosi n.d., p. 1). That aside, the level of the operations are such that people cannot just overlook the production role in the complete picture of the effect of the cars on the environment. Auto Emissions and Air Pollution The oil spill at Santa Barbara is a striking prompt of the dangers inherent in the hunt for energy resources. However, discharges from the internal combustion engine, are the most significant environmental effect of oil creation (McGranahan & Murray 2012, p. 91). Street sweepers who sang praise songs for motor vehicles for reliving them from tons of horse dung could not appreciate that the ecological cure of one generation attested to be the curse of another (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The technical restrictions of the internal combustion engine, as well as the scale of car use produced overwhelming forms of pollution. A number of pollution predicaments in the postwar eras were forerunners of things to come (Gasana et al., 2012, p. 40). A temperature inversion, in 1948, kept a thick smoke cloud of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide near the ground for almost a week in the steel production town of Donora, Pennsylvania. On the 5th day, on October 30th, 17 citizens of the town died, followed by 2 more deaths 24 hours later. Nearly 43% of the settlers in the town became sick, with more than 10% (1,440) harshly affected. The misfortune at Donora made postwar citizens conscious of the health dangers of air pollution. Those hazards were reaffirmed by the "killer smog," which hit London, UK, in 1952, resulting to 4,000 deaths, as well as the harsh smog attack in New York City, which resulted to 200 deaths, in 1953 (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The American Congress passed the 1955 National Air Pollution Control Law in order to conduct research on air pollution, but how vehicle emissions fit into the story took a number of years to estimate and even longer to tackle (Seinfeld & Pandis 2012, p. 74). A fairly new source of air pollution, car emissions posed diverse problems compared to manufacturing discharges like coal smoke. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, toxic levels chemicals in the air were moderately low, but raised fossil-fuel production plus use noticeably reduced the quality of air (Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2013, p. 815). The adding of many tens of thousands of vehicles on the road after the Second World War increased the spread of air pollution, increased more and fresh sources of contaminants, and most instantly threatened a lot of major cities. In the 40s, settlers of the car-dominated LA basin protested concerning about a white or, at times, yellow-brown haze, which made their eyes tear. They named this exasperation as "smog." The phrase was obtained from a blend of "smoke" and "fog," a phrase supposedly created in 1905 by Dr. Des Voeux of London’s Abatement Society of Coal Smoke (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The more contemporary version of smog, mainly from automobile emissions, is composed of carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, waste heat, nitrogen oxides, and aerosols (solid particles, liquid droplets, as well as other various mixtures of solids and liquids suspended in air). Tropospheric ozone, situated a few feet above the ground, is another considerable element of smog. In the late 80s, almost 60 million citizens in North America frequently breathed air, which failed to accomplish federal air quality regulations established a decade earlier; in the summer heat wave of 1988, the figure climbed to 120 million. Ozone is obviously one of the worst offenders, particularly in cities like Houston, LA, Baltimore, NY, Washington, D.C., plus Toronto. Personally or all together, these components pose a great danger to humans (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Car emissions can contribute to lung cancer, headaches, emphysema plus many other respiratory and cardiovascular issues. Pollutions from vehicles have, at times, been claimed to be the case of low birth weights for newly born babies. Furthermore, they modify weather conditions and eat away textiles, rubber, dyes and other materials and damage vegetations (Zhang & Batterman 2013, p. 309). The application of tetraethyl as from 1923 brought in yet another toxic substance to vehicles, which threatened human health. Issues in public health officials concerning the hazardous nature of the substance did not stop GM and other car manufacturers from using leaded gasoline (Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2013, p. 816). With the combustion of such large volumes of gasoline (particularly in the following three decades after 1950), lead was deposited on the soil and, naively, tracked into houses all over the country. Babies crawling on the ground then picked it up on their hands and consumed it, impeding with the development of their nervous systems and contributing to hearing loss and hyperactivity, among other effects, even though it would be years prior to the full scope of the issue becoming evident. Sadly, lead does not break down immediately after its release into the air, and between the 20s and to the 80s—when it lastly was being considered as a gasoline additive—7 million tons of lead had already been spewed out by automobiles in the United States alone (Melosi n.d., p. 1). While air contamination from cars was a rising problem all through the immediate postwar era, it was not a problem among oil companies, automobile manufacturers, or even the public. LA, the "smog capital of the United States," was most likely the first metropolitan to key major public issue over vehicle pollution, and turned into the living lab for researching the causes and impacts of gigantic releases of smog. California also was the first American state to develop new-automobile emission regulations (Melosi n.d., p. 1). As early as 1959, irritation of the eye was reported in LA County on 187 days and 212 days, in 1962. A normal vehicle produced, in 1963, released 1,700 pounds of carbon monoxide, 520 pounds of hydrocarbons, as well as 90 pounds of nitrogen oxide, for every 10,000 miles it travelled. In 1966, nearly 146 million tons of pollutants released into the air in the U.S. were because of motor vehicle traffic (Melosi n.d., p. 1). As from 1947, LA had reduced sulfur dioxide discharges through banning the use of fuel oils and coal for industrial aims, but the smog issue continued to argument. In the late 50s, doubts were being raised on the contribution of cars to the air contamination problem of LA (Mudd 2012, p. 81). Scientists carrying out significant chemistry research at the California Institute of Technology found out that hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides exposed to the sun produced minor pollutants (PCS or photochemical smog), which caused throat and eye irritations and decreased visibility in the LA area. More studies proved that the multifaceted and different pollutants present in car emissions came from four sources: crankcase blowby engine exhaust, the fuel tank and the carburetor. These researchers were vital to the growth of different emissions-control technologies (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Multiplied by tens of thousands of vehicles, the smog problem in LA was dangerous. California turned into the logical testing region for a number of emissions-control tools and some pioneering laws. Initially, neither the car industry nor the fuel industry was a keen to take part in tackling the issue. For its part, the car industry was not concerned in pledging money or time to redesigning its cars, and only unwillingly and mainly due to new legislation was implemented in order to retrofit vehicles with emission-control tools. Interestingly enough, not serious regards was given to requiring or encouraging drivers to change their driving habits (Melosi n.d., p. 1). In 1953, LA County investigated whether Detroit car makers were conducting research to know how to eliminate emissions before manufacturing vehicles, but the response they got was somewhat vague. With the danger of obligatory federal laws, car makers started to mount crankcase blowby devices on their vehicles. This was a key advance since crankcase blowby reduced engines hydrocarbon emissions by 25%. These tools became compulsory on all cars sold in California starting with the 1963 models (Melosi n.d., p. 1). This was just a beginning because no attempt was made to control exhaust emissions, which were accountable for 55% of the hydrocarbons, most of the waste heat, as well as all of the nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide plus lead emissions. Once more the industry cringed, but, in 1966, the state called for exhaust-control tools on all newly manufactured vehicles. Nevertheless, the 12% reduction in carbon monoxide and drop in hydrocarbon releases experienced in LA from 1965 to 1968 was followed by a 28% rise in nitrogen oxides. In 1968, nitrogen dioxide, which is extremely poisonous, went beyond the "unfavorable" degree on 132 days (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The solemn boosts in nitrogen oxides were because the incapability of available antiemissions tools to carry out their roles and to the increase in cars and increasing gasoline use. A new technical tool was searched for by automobile makers and, in return, catalytic exhaust tools were developed to change nitrogen oxides into safe by-products. These catalytic converters were needed on every 1975 car put on the market in California. However, leaded gasoline played chaos with the catalysts (Chandrasekaran et al. 2013, p. 50). One answer was to utilize unleaded or lead-free gasoline. Whereas non-leaded gas was available, the full phase-out of leaded oil, as confirmed earlier, did not start till 1986. Outside California, other states moved gradually to fight car emissions. By 1966, cars contributed over 60% of the pollutants in the atmosphere all through the nation. Temperature changes in nearly 27 states, as well as in DC, created harsh smog problems (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The more broad utilization of airplanes and trucks worsened the nations air contamination problems. It became clear in the 60s that smog was not only a California problem, but a nationwide issue needing the concentration of the national government. Whereas California still led the nation in emissions-control laws, national laws shifted toward appreciation of the issue. The Clean Air Act of 1963 began giving the federal government restricted implementation power over interstate contamination. The 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Law produced national standards similar to California law mainly to ensure the 1968 model kept these restrictions. Also Air Quality Act of 1967 was the earliest portion of federal legislation planned to control lead emissions (Melosi n.d., p. 1). National funds became were channeled to pay part of the inspection cost programs. It was in 1868 when hydrocarbon emissions first came under federal jurisdiction. Whereas emissions laws tried to tackle one environmental issue linked to motor vehicles, it, in reality, produce another. From 1968 to 1974, with the main stress of control on emissions regulation, fuel economy of car went through a rough time, therefore rising inceasing demand for gasoline (Chandrasekaran et al. 2013, p. 50). One method of improving fuel economy was decreasing the weight of cars, and information for 1977-1980 shows that fuel economy enhanced nearly in direct proportion to decreased vehicle weight. The brining in of the oxidation catalytic converter back in 1975 also aided in enhancing fuel economy and decreasing emissions. Later, electronic engine control put another layer of technology (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Noise, Visual Pollution, and Derelict Cars Whereas air contamination is the most talked about environmental impacts of functioning cars, it is, for sure, not the only one. Traffic noise is significant pollutant. As in other cases, cars did not create noise or noise pollution. Particularly around and in cities, factory machinery, throngs of people, the clop-clopping of horse hooves, steam whistles, screeching brakes and grinding gears from streetcars, and ringing bells all aided to urban din (Melosi n.d., p. 1). Vehicles also aid indirectly to visual intrusion or visual pollution. The entire automobile infrastructure paved over landscapes for highways, roads, and parking lots; high-rising cement interchanges; dealerships, service stations, auto and garages; strip shopping centers; fast food restaurants; car washes; as well as automobile-level signs, billboards, and other forms of advertisements, which stabbing the aesthetic sensibilities of a lot of people (Melosi n.d, p. 1). Perhaps the most striking kind of visual contamination in the vehicle age is the derelict vehicle on the road. New York alone had to deal with 57,000 deserted cars in 1969. And scrapped tires develop their own land-pollution issue. After the Second World War, rubber from worn out tires could be recycled to make new ones (Melosi n.d, p. 1). However, in the 60s, already used rubber was in much less demand due to the surplus of synthetic rubber, as well as the changes in tire production such as the creation of steel belted radials. In 1996, there was a nationwide hoard of nearly 700-800 million worn out tires. A lot of tires were dumped anywhere or left along roadsides, developing not only frights but good breeding ground for insects. Tire dumps’ fire formed heaps of toxic sludge and billowing smoke (Melosi n.d, p. 1). Presently, the US alone has close to 300 million passenger vehicles in use, out of which at least 10 million come to the end of their valuable lives and must be disposed of (Barrett 2009, p. 24). This creates such a considerable impact on the environment that it cannot be ignored, especially with the fact that manufacturing a new car will create as much carbon pollution as using it. Before manufacture, ores are dug from the ground for the extraction of metals that are turned into parts. Then, there is the bringing together of other components such as paint, plastic dashboards and rubber tires. The environmental significance of this is that it will involve the transportation of materials around the world and result in inevitable emissions (Melosi n.d., p. 1). In the consumption phase of its lifecycle, a car will need petroleum products for fuel and lubrication. This raises environmental concerns since cars will be driven throughout their useful life times and, in the US, cars are the biggest compromisers of air quality (Barrett 2009, p. 39). Then, apart from the emissions that result from the consumption of the petroleum products, even their extraction from the earth entails energy-intensive processes that are harmful to local ecosystems. Further, when the petroleum products are shipped to the consumers around the world, they create potential disasters to the environment such as oil spills (Melosi n.d., p. 1). The consumable parts of cars such as tires and brake pads also pose environmental hazards since they will need periodic replacements, meaning that they must be manufactured through processes that require further raw materials and energy. When a car reaches the end of its usefulness, not all of the components and materials used in its production are recycled. This means toxic battery acids and some plastics will remain in the environment as pollutants (Barrett 2009, p. 42). Conclusion In conclusion, cars have been shown to have environmental implications throughout their lifecycles starting from manufacture and through consumption and disposal. Raw materials are extracted from the ground, which negatively impacts the ecosystem. During consumption, cars damage the environment through emissions and disposing of consumables such as rubber tires batteries. When they complete their useful lives, not all parts are recyclable. These findings will be expanded in Essay 2 by providing more details and statistics as well as suggesting ways of mitigating the environmental impacts. Mitigation strategies include the use of carbon-neutral energy sources, energy-efficient engines and modern and efficient industrial processes and equipment (Barrett 2009, p. 69). References Barrett, S 2009, Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making, Oxford University Press, New York. Chandrasekaran, S et al. 2013, Automated control system for air pollution detection in vehicles, In Intelligent Systems Modelling & Simulation (ISMS), 2013 4th International Conference on (pp. 49-51). IEEE. Gasana, J et al., 2012, Motor vehicle air pollution and asthma in children: a meta-analysis,. Environmental Research vol. 117, no. 4. pp. 36-45. McGranahan, G & Murray, F 2012, Air pollution and health in rapidly developing countries Earthscan, New York. Melosi, M V n.d, Automobile in American life and society the automobile and the environment in American history, viewed 23rd March, 2015, at http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/E_Overview.htm Mudd, J B 2012, Responses of plants to air pollution, Elsevier. Raaschou-Nielsen, O et al. 2013, Air pollution and lung cancer incidence in 17 European cohorts: prospective analyses from the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE), The Lancet Oncology vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 813-822. Seinfeld, J H & Pandis, S N 2012, Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from air pollution to climate change, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Zhang, K & Batterman, S 2013, Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic, Science of the Total Environment vol. 450, pp. 5, pp. 307-316. Read More