Mexican colectivos - shared taxis which are often old toyota or volkswagen minivans - seem to me to be the best way to reduce greenhouse gasses. Old SUVs from the United States that used to be single occupancy vehicles can also work. Many can fit up to ten people, but in the US, they have too often been used as single occupancy vehicles. If Mexicans are going to use these kinds of vehicles as colectivos, then it seems that would be a good thing for the environment.

but it's depressing to me that my 18-year-old truck isn't good enough for Mexico.

The real devil is in the way we populate the land. People often drive hundreds of miles a week just to travel to and from work. Think about that. A vet's assistant might drive 35 miles to her place of employment. That same employee may drive by 3 other animal hospitals on the way to her gig. People travel too far to perform tasks they could often perform closer to home. And, this assistant could travel all that way just to answer phones and weigh doggies. We need to think more locally.

The other two devils are: #1) population growth and #2) the economic sytem we've created which mandates unending growth, which in itself, is an impossibility.

And those are three simple reasons why the world, as we know it Andrew, doesn't work.

There is a drug war going on in Mexico right now that has claimed thousands of lives. The US Joint Chiefs report says the Mexican government is at risk of sudden collapse because of this ongoing conflict.

If the chaos in northern Mexico spreads to the rest of the country, Mexico won't be able to ban anything successfully, including older used cars.

I find it amazing, by the way, that this conflict can rage on and there's not a word about it to be found in Salon.

You guys talk about Mexico like it's a stable healthy country whose environmental policies will be enforceable for the foreseeable future.

That's not what the Joint Chiefs are saying.

Raising gas taxes during this post apocalyptic economic nightmare might not be the smartest thing you've suggested so far.

Are we going to be stuck with an extreme solution of either high CAFE standards or high gasoline taxes? Why can't we craft a mix of the two that is export neutral? It's seems obvious that raising the CAFE mileage standard somewhat and increasing the gas tax somewhat will produce cleaner cars without changing the mix of old cars exported to Mexico.

I applaud the Mexicans for running their cars into the ground. Unlike most Americans, I do the same (I also like burritos, habanero sauce, and can sing "Happy Birthday" in Espanol, although I think the Pope is a lizard-person). Much of the environmental cost of a car comes with its manufacture, and to junk them before their time is just another stupid luxury Americans will soon have to learn to live without (along with their ridiculous lawns and disposable dipper-daps diapertrons). It's all well and good for everyone to drive Prii, but I shudder to think of the environmental cost of quickly migrating the global fleet of cars to this very-environmentally-destructive-upon-manufacture vehicle.

That is a cute name "climate change clunkers" and I suppose it could even be true since a variety of un-burned hydrocarbons (soot) and the various associated metalloids do issue out of the tailpipe and accelerate some processes, but I'm sure you were referring to the CO2 supposition, which is looking more and more like a real scenario only if every negative feedback is ignored and every amplifiying feedback is plugged in at full amplitude. So, is it better to buy a newly manufactured car considering the taxing costs on the environment from exracting resources and the energy used to refine and assemble it? Complicated? If it isn't it probably isn't very accurate either when it comes to complexity.

Make it illegal for Mexicans to buy anything but new Hybrids.

Andrew, this is an interesting post and one that concerns a nexus area that I'd love for you to explore more in the future. As climate moves on the national list of priorities (now with the leadership of our 44th "decider") more and more progressives are exploring this nexus to better understand the connections and connect the body of work that has already been done on trade with the growing body of work on climate. See for example, Sierra Club's responsible trade program: http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/climate/

Godspeed!

All this is far beyond the comprehension of nasty simple-minded Republicans. If they ever really got control, they would send you to prison for writing such an insightful, detailed article, because it does not fall into the established conventional cliche thinking-ruts.

In environmental terms, is it worse to make a new, more fuel-efficient car or to continue using a fuel-inefficient car? The answer may seem obvious, but a new car has all kinds of environmental costs, including mining/fabrication of the materials, manufacture, and delivery.

I would suspect driving a car into the ground isn't as bad as it seems when you look at it this way.