"All structural elements, switchgear and trim are made from fully recyclable materials. Better still, it is highly unlikely that your car will ever need recycling at all. After all, more than 60% of all Porsche vehicles ever produced are still on the road today. This exceptional longevity is fundamental to the Porsche philosophy and, in particular, our approach to the environment."
so to me it seems the longevity negates the need for the parts to be recyclable? unless i'm missing something...
Posted by: george | Feb 18, 2007 at 19:44
Its better to keep something in use rather than expend energy in recycling and reproducing the product all over again. However the face that something isn't likely to be recycled at the moment doesn't negate that possibility in the future. Nor does it have any effect on the amount of energy or materials used in its manufacture or during its product life.
As no real concessions have been made in its construction - it can't be sustainable, whether it gets recycled or not isn't a valid point.
Cars like this are just not going to be sustainable, especially porkers.
Posted by: Ulysses or a newspaper | Feb 18, 2007 at 21:09
The environmental implications of longevity sound more like a convenient truth than a fundamental philosophy. When they started making Porsche no car manufacturers were bothered about the environment. Still a good point though.
Posted by: Mark McGuinness | Feb 19, 2007 at 09:48
But do Porsche cars only last longer because their owners look after them better than less expensive vehicles?
Posted by: Mat | Feb 19, 2007 at 10:47
being able to recycle a small number of porsches is the least of our worries when it comes to the environment.
don't any of you read the independent?
Posted by: biv | Feb 19, 2007 at 11:45
No it's not. Every time someone uses a Porsche, the environment gets a little more damaged. If they were serious about the environment they wouldn't produce cars that run on petrol.
Posted by: Maaike | Feb 19, 2007 at 12:11
Depends whether you factor in the inevitable use (driving). As a standalone object it might be sustainable, but driving will negate this. But what is sustainable anyway? There are virtually no products, or printed items, that don't have a least a small break in the sustainablilty chain somewhere along the line, even if it's in the items eventual distribution and not in its manufacture. Basically we're screwed.
Posted by: Edd | Feb 19, 2007 at 16:27
No this isn't sustainable. Full Stop. However continued use, or re-use, is always preferable to recycling.
This claim on their site: "The result, of course, is a strictly positive impact on every kind of environment."- is where the suspension of disbelief really starts to be stretched, (well, that, and the god-awful Porsche Cayenne).
Posted by: Neil | Feb 19, 2007 at 22:07
isn't the cayenne one of the most polluting cars ever manufactured?
Posted by: biv | Feb 20, 2007 at 11:04
The parts of the car are "made from fully recyclable materials". This does NOT mean the parts are MADE FROM RECYCLED materials. If it only 40% of Porsches are recycled in a Porsche life span how exactly is this benefitting the environment NOW? Driving a vehicle that emits CO2 is not benficial to the environment. Show me a hydrogen, electric, or even grease fueled Porsche. Sustainable, no. Marketing tool, yes.
Posted by: Crystal | May 04, 2007 at 23:11
The environmental footprint of manufacturing a car is apparently factors of tens or hundreds larger than that of using it for many years. So I’ve been told anyway. I have no data to back that up, but it seems sensible enough.
Emotional design is a positive way ahead - keep products (including cars) in use rather than contributing to a culture of disposability. Think along the lines of a beautifully aged Zippo rather than fifty disposable Bic lighters.
Classic cars fit that paradigm pretty well.
I would say that though - I drive a twenty-year-old Porsche.
Posted by: Tony | Jun 27, 2007 at 17:15
A majority of Porsches are still on the road because they're worth keeping on the road. So yes, their owners potentially care for them more than your average automobile. Also, it's just a good quality vehicle (except for some mid 70's magnesium block motors that had cyl. head studs work their way out)
Time to make some points:
"Show me a hydrogen, electric, or even grease fueled Porsche." Okay, and what does it take to produce large quantities of hydrogen? Energy, from an oil burning power plant. Electric car? Where you gonna get the lithium for the battery, and then were are you going to ship it to to be refined? Nice carbon footprint there. Pfft.
Prius's are a joke. Great marketing to a frightened population. Shameful. Not nearly as shameful as Porsche saying they're making an effort. Yes the "positive impact on every kind of environment" thing is rediculous.
I'd like some numbers on hydrogen transportation/distribution costs to power the equivalent of what's running on gasoline today.
And lastly, who wants to start a company that buys up old CRX's, refinshes them, and updates the fuel injection algorithms? I'm ready to go.
Posted by: Alan | Aug 16, 2007 at 08:54