While Tata Motors today rolls out the first of the worlds cheapest car, the Nano, at $1,980 a piece, it will enable poorer citizens in developing countries to move to four wheels for the first time. It will be a monumental celebration of Indian leadership in innovation- particularly at a time when many Western car manufacturers are facing economic crises
You’ll agree with me, it’s an adorable little car. But the celebration may be dampened if not completely drenched by environmentalists who are crying murder.
The release of Tata Nano has been hyped up so much that it is probably the most anticipated car in world history, after all, it’s the first time in history, the worlds poor will be able to afford a car.
Millions of Indians will fulfil their dreams of car ownership, and most importantly, safe transportation which indeed was one of the main motivations of Tata Motors Chairman Rtan Tata, for making this new safe family car.
But despite Tata Nano being India’s pride and joy in technology and innovation, criticism and controversies abounds about the environmental and social impacts of this car. Greenpeace have released a video criticizing Tata for it’s impacts on turtles.
Because of it’s afordability, this cheap car will lead to a reliance on cars and not mass transport. This will lead to more cars on the road and therefore more pollution and congestion in a nation that is already suffering severely from both. One of India’s most prominent scientists, Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), has called for the Tata Nano to be “taxed like crazy”. Another prominent environmentalist, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, with Al Gore) claims that he is “having nightmares” about the Tata Nano.
American scientists are also outspoken. “This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions,” says Daniel Esty, an environmental expert at Yale.
Tata however responds that the Tata Nano will get about 20 kilometers per liter of gasoline (50 miles per gallon) and will meet stringent European emissions standards that have yet to be adopted in India – check out this table. If this is true, then the Nano will pollute less than the two-wheelers it is intended to replace and get roughly the same gas mileage as the Maruti models. The Nano’s catalytic converter will reduce most pollutants by about 80 percent. Environmentalists predict that Indians will not maintain their cars in tip top shape and therfore the catalytic convertors will fail. When this happens, emmissions of pollutants could shoot up fivefold. Note that exhaust emissions standards regulate the particles that make up smog, not emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide which the EU does not currently regulate.
When it comes to carbon the story is worse. CO2 escapes catalytic converters completely. Since the Nano will replace motor scooters and motorbikes, which get about 54 kilometers to the liter, much more fuel will be burned and therefore increasing carbon emissions. According to Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, “Every new purchase of this vehicle is increasing fuel use per passenger by a factor of two to seven, depending on how many people are in the car,” says Sperling. That doesn’t even account for a decline in fuel efficiency if the cars are not maintained well.
These doomsday predictions bother me deeply. I don’t think that any of us really have the moral standing to criticize Indians for wanting safe family cars, particularly if the vehicles meet the highest Western emissions standards. Some observers feel that the environmental criticisms smack of hypocrisy.
At the same time, the release of hundreds of thousands of these cars onto Indian markets will undoubtably affect the climate change – nobody has done the projections yet on the scale of the impac but some environmentalists believe that the consequences will be far reaching if not disastrous.
I would love to consider the argument from both sides by asking you all a question. If you could, would you buy a Nano?
Donations made here are
Jan 28th Sheryl B USD 23.00
9 Comments
There is no way in hell that more cars on the road will do anything but impoverish us all. Highest Western emissions standards? I hope they’re not using our standards because they’re weak and in need of strengthening.
I wouldn’t buy a Nano because I live in the U.S. where 52 percent of the vehicles on the road are SUVs. My Civic is already small enough to be crushed to bits by the average SUV, a Nano driver in an accident here would be pulverized.
But this is what we come up with for fighting poverty? more cars? Talk about hypocrisy …
s.
Clear hypocrisy. America grew as quickly as it did in part because the car allowed growth that would not have been possible if constrained by the high capital cost of public transport. I do think the next step is nukes and plug in electric cars to reduce global emissions but we cant justifiably hinder the quality of life (that an inexpensive car will allow)in developing markets without taking the leadership role of changing our own actions. Or by fostering the technology that would allow “cleaner” growth. Lets fix the traffic and smog problems in Los Angelas before we attempt to restrict the Tata Nano.
The down side of cars is clear but the market seems to suggest that sitting in smoggy traffic is better than using public transport. If this car is a success it points to another failure of government to plan and implement cost effective and desirable public transport.
I agree with Sheryl. Except I would buy a Nano if I only traveled about 1 mile to the store. Heck, if only 1 mile I’d walk :>)
We’ll have to see how these cars and the people work out. I don’t see much good for the environment at all.
I do not even have a driving license, and never intend to have. I am happy with the public transportation in my country, and happy to have my nap on train while my colleagues drive their cars and think they save five minutes by doing it. I could not imagine living in a place where one has to have a car.
Would I buy a Nano? Admin. you are asking the wrong guy! I have not owned a car for over 15 years. I walk, use public transport and very rarely use a taxi. I decided to save money by not having a car and I have been able to help more animals and conservation projects by not having a car. It is surprising where you can get to by bus and walking is THE best way to discover things. It seems that many things that we in the western world are now rejecting are being so sort after in China, India and other developing economies. If only we could encourage them to do without the cars. Brenton.
I would definitely consider purchase. Good gas millage, and good price! Drive defensively and avoid all the bigger vehicles. I already have a Toyota Scion.
Interesting. We have terrible public transport in Africa, extremely dangerous, high speed, poorly maintained vehicles. Bus crashes are the main cause of injury and mortality (we don’t have trams or subways) and our trains are pathetic. Buses are also prone to frequent attacks robberies, even rapes. So, they aren’t an option for anyone who could actually afford a car or motorbike. But our roads are pretty pot holey so bikes are a safety hazard – espeically when combined with buses and matatus hurtling with their own agressive brand of road etiquette. I’d exchange my car for a Nano in a flash – the alternative is to work from home every day and grow all my own food….doesn’t sound all that bad…
Hi Paula,
Please forgive my ignorance about public transport in Africa. In Australia we take for granted many of the things that we have, including our public transport systems. People here complain if a bus or train is late! They dont know how fortunate they are to have such facilities. Thankyou for your site which is so educational and saying things as they are in Africa- maybe the ‘real world’! Brenton.
Yes, How soon can I get one????????