What environmental, political, and cultural factors might contribute to a desire for cars with higher fuel eff

Question

What environmental, political, and cultural factors might contribute to a desire for cars with higher fuel efficiency or cars that use alternative energy sources?

Answer 1

price

Answer 2

To make a long story short:

1. It uses less gas, saving money and the environment.

2. You may receive government incentives depending on your location.

3. The petroleum supply is running out, so we need a different source of energy.

4. It may be more culturally appropriate to walk or ride a bicycle than use "modern technology" in some places.

5. A new, innovative car is certainly something to show off!

Now the long story:

It is important to realise that fuel efficiency does not directly relate to emissions causing pollution and potentially leading to climate change.  Rather, it depends on the fuel source used to drive the vehicle concerned.  Cars can, for example, run on a number of fuel types other than gasoline, such as natural gas LPG or biofuel or electricity which creates various quantities of atmospheric pollution.

A kilogram of petrol, diesel, kerosene and the like in a vehicle leads to approximately 3.15 kg of CO2 emissions.  Additional measures to reduce overall emission includes improvements to the efficiency of air conditioners, lights and tires.

There is also a growing movement of drivers who practice ways to increase their MPG and save fuel through driving techniques. They are often referred to as hypermilers. Hypermilers have broken records of fuel efficiency, averaging 109 miles per gallon driving a Prius. In non-hybrid vehicles these techniques are also beneficial. Hypermiler Wanye Gerdes can get 59 MPG in a Honda Accord and 30 MPG in an Acura MDX.

Hybrid vehicles can spare petroleum fuel and so, be more efficient than nowadays conventional vehicles.

In the future hydrogen cars may be commercially available. Powered by chemical reactions in a fuel cell, that creates electricity to drive very efficient electrical motors; these vehicles promise to have zero pollution from the tailpipe.  Potentially the atmospheric pollution could be near zero, provided the hydrogen is made by sustainable methods using solar, wind power or low CO2 energy sources such as nuclear power plants or hydro electric dams.

Currently railways can be powered using electricity, delivered to trains through an additional running rail or overhead catenary system.  The atmospheric pollution, like electric cars, is no longer "at site", rather at a distant power station.  Some railways, such as SNCF and Swiss federal railways, derive most, if not 100% of their current from hydroelectric or nuclear power stations, therefore atmospheric pollution from their rail networks is very low (although the atmospheric effect of hydroelectric plants is controversial).  This was reflected in a study by AEA Technology between a Eurostar train and airline journeys between London and Paris, which showed the trains on average emitting 10 times less CO2, per passenger, than planes, helped in part by French Nuclear generation.

Controversially, it is thought by scientists that where emissions take place in the Earth's atmosphere has an overall effect on climate change.  Atmospheric changes from aircraft result from three types of processes: direct emission of radiatively active substances (e.g., CO2 or water vapor); emission of chemical species that produce or destroy radiatively active substances (e.g., NOx, which modifies O3 concentration); and emission of substances that trigger the generation of aerosol particles or lead to changes in natural clouds (e.g., contrails).  What this means is that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of the carbon dioxide alone.