Get real. A tiny fraction of the population own dream cars. An even smaller fraction keep those collector dream cars garaged most of the time. The majority of those who own dream cars also own several other cars, including one or more gas guzzlers. Car collectors aren't the greenest people on earth, not even close. Garaging a collector car to ride a bus is an inefficient use of resources. Why not be altruistic and donate the car to a museum? Because car collectors are in love with cars. Sports cars, muscle cars, monster trucks, SUV's, luxury cars, etc. They aren't in love with buses or light rail.

There is a grain of truth to be garnered from this article of mass deception. Often, owning and wearing out an existing lower MPG car is preferable to manufacturing and driving a brand new higher MPG one. The carbon expenditure sunk into making new cars is a big part of the total carbon expenditure of any vehicle, from raw material mining and processing, to the ultimate scraping and recycling of those waste materials. Americans have a new car fetish. Cars are, unfortunately, status symbols and components of psychological self worth. The cultural and psychological factors are a big part of what makes cars less green than they should be.

Cars should be efficiently manufactured, for efficient use and efficient recycling. They should be replaced by carbon friendlier upgrades which have optimal longevity. Maybe someday cars will be purely utilitarian, and completely emotionless. They can be owned collectively by society and be "checked out" for usage like books in a library. For now, that's a utopian fantasy.

We have such a service here in Vancouver and, if I'm not mistaken, it is in the US too. The Co-operative Auto Network and Zip-Car allow you to check out cars from parking spots all over the city for part of a day or longer and return them when you are done. It's kind of like a rental, but without the shop and the paperwork.

Is art green? Is it practical? There are a lot of things with are inefficient and energy intensive. This article is about changing your transportation (from car to public) by replacing your car with something that makes you happy.

The issue is a little more complicated than you suggest. If you change from a car to public transit you are reducing your utility in most cases (for most Americans). You lose time, you lose reliability and you lose comfort. To maximize your utility you should in most cases drive, but if everyone does the total utility is going to fall. What the author has done is suggested some trade-offs that would help people be more happy with such a switch.

Yes only a tiny fraction of the population owns dreams cars, but maybe more could. Your 'donate the car to a museum' suggestion does not make sense - this only works until interested museums get enough 1968 Porsches (not sustainable). Furthermore, if someone is buying it as their to replace a Camry would that not be more efficient from a total user standpoint. Yes they could just dump cars, but people do not want to do that for obvious reasons.

Well, the analogy to art makes some sense, but I'd say it's more comparable to a toy. And the article is an extended mid-life rationalization of a toy. I've done it myself, but I ended up with a motorcycle, which gets in the high 50s when I drive it "right" and in the mid 40s when I drive aggressively. There are some bikes coming out, like the Indian-made little 500cc Royal Enfield that can get (supposedly) 80mpg. So if you're look for thrills, risk, machismo, and all that sort of stuff, maybe a bike is your "green" ethical toy. Of course that last word, the noun, the thing itself, blows it all. Then again, if you're taking the bus all the time, you have to have something to fantasize about.

Because I have to tell you that almost 80% of all of the Porsches ever built - that would be from the first models umpteen years ago - are still on the road. How many econoboxes can say that? If that isn't efficient manufacturing, then what is? They don't NEED to be recycled - they just keep going. Besides, scrapping a Porsche is like scraping the paint off a Rembrandt and reusing the canvas. It may seem thrifty, but it's idiotic.********* *************** ************* *********** ************* ********** ********* ************** ********* ************ *************** ************* *********** *********** ********* The car the writer is talking about truly is a work of art. It's beautiful. The engineering and design that went into something as simple as the dials in those cars are little miracles or efficiency and creativity. Everything about Porsche has always been about the drive - it's about combining a driver with a car and making magic. If you don't understand it, no one can explain it for you. A perfect drive is a transcendent experience. The world falls away and you feel like you're floating. Wonderful. ********** ************* ************ ************* ***** **** ********* ********* ************ *********** ************ ************ ************* *********** ********* **** I've noticed, over the years, that the people who disapproved of my Porsche for the reasons you state seem to be talking through their sour grapes. They don't get it. Yes, those cars are expensive high maintenance babies, but taking care of them is part of the fun. It's like trying to explain "pink" to someone who's color blind. You can't do it.

Cracker:

And the article is an extended mid-life rationalization of a toy.

It was that. And I think it points to a larger problem with the environmental movement. As we’ve seen here at Slate in the Green Lantern section, environmentalism is often as grim as it is bothersome. No clothes dryers. No beef. No non-hybrid cars. Hell, no cars at all, ideally. No, no, no.

The article itself is a good example. A man can’t just have a fun car. He can’t just enjoy it. It has to be an eco-statement as well.

good comments all around.

I'm fine with the article, and am similarly saddened at how efficiency vs. culture is being improperly weighted by some people on both sides. But that's their right to opinions, just have to hope they understand the personal and social consequences of either extreme.

My only beef with the article is the title. I know that longevity=greener. I know the author was moving towards making that point. He didn't really finish explaining "why," and he certainly didn't help himself by supplanting his personal life-choices in the place of that explanation.

Then again, this is an article in "Gearbox," so he can talk life-choices all day if he wants. Which brings me back to my original beef: why assert something in the title that won't really be covered in the article?

So here's a premise from me: Slate=Greenwasher.