World’s Cheapest Car On Market…F#*K

By Dave Semeniuk On January 12, 2008 · 1 Comment · In >archive, >news, development, environment

tata nano

Yea. I said it, F#*K. Although this word has many meanings, and has even had a song dedicated to it, my definition of this heinous (yet oddly engaging) word is both unique and topical:

A company in India, Tata Motors, has unveiled the world’s cheapest car, the Tata Nano, costing ~$2500. The car production takes mere days instead of weeks, and meets new regulatory guidelines on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. According to an article in the Telegraph…

The basic Nano is aimed at people in India and China looking to buy their first car – the kind of people who previously climbed on a battered scooter, along with their entire family, a pig and a few geese.

So, they want to appeal to a mass market of billions of people, and encourage them to buy their first family car.

All that said, my definition of F#*K is actually two fold, because we’re F#*Ked if we do and we’re F#*Ked if we don’t. On one hand, CO2 from cars will skyrocket in the coming years. On the other, how can more developed countries say, “No, stop, don’t do what we did!” if only the beneficial pieces are mined (i.e. increased mobility) by developing countries, leaving the ugly, stinking slag behind?

What do you think Terryians – what role, if any, do more developed societies play in regulating others if, like climate change and environmental pollution, their actions have a significant impact on the entire world?

One Response to World’s Cheapest Car On Market…F#K*

Chris Cochrane says:

January 14, 2008 at 9:01 pm

In some respects Tata’s sales of this car and, sales of all cars everywhere in the world, may become self-limiting as increased demand for fuel drives prices out of the reach of many (including poor Indian farmers and Canadian graduate students). Developed countries should focus their political pressure on ways citizens in develping countries can improve their life in a sustainable way. Examples might be local generation of electricity by sustainable methods, or farming techniques which require less water. Insisting that the 2.5 billion people in China and India should stick to travelling by foot and be content without power or plumbing is unethical and is unlikely to impress those people eager to benefit from the technology we’ve taken advantage of for decades. Once again, it falls to us to take the boldest steps. Do you suppose Stephen Harper reads this blog?