Welcome to Must Read, where we single out the best stories from around the automotive universe and beyond. Today we've got reports from The New York Times, Forbes, and the Associated Press.
After a temporary reprieve, we're back.
When I was at Richmond earlier this month I got to meet many great people, including Jenna Fryer, who explains the madness and drama that is NASCAR lately.
Michael Waltrip Racing is fighting for its survival in the wake of a race-fixing scandal and a driver who woke up two Mondays ago in the Chase for the Sprint Cup championship is now looking for a job. Sponsors are taking a stand, too — against a team over ethics, maybe even against NASCAR for the perception that all teams are not treated equally.
Behavior is more important than technology.
Back to that price that respondents were willing to pay for a carbon-eating car. The researchers found, as expected, that there’s two types of people: those who would pay something and those that wouldn’t pay anything. As they found: “the degree to which the respondent believed that carbon emissions from human activity contributed to global warming predicted whether the respondent would offer to pay some amount of money for an in-vehicle carbon capture system.” If you don’t think carbon emissions are a problem, you naturally won’t be willing to pay a dime for a more complicated car to capture them. It’s like asking a dairy farmer if he’d pay more for a cow that passes less gas but also makes less milk — no thanks!
Why Not Keep Your Favorite Car Forever? – New York Times
Our favorite Virginian brings up another interesting point.
So what is it that makes some people keep cars forever and others to discard them after a few years? People in Cuba have done a nice job keeping Detroit iron alive for eons, but they’ve really had no choice. But what if more of us were like them; not because a restrictive economy forced us to be, but because we found ourselves able to really enjoy having the same car for that long?