Less Rhetoric, More Investment
Carbon emissions from transport, as a contributing factor to climate change, is a hugely complex subject. Yet we must continue to address it, look for solutions, if we are ever to tackle global warming.
Transport is too vast a topic to discuss as a whole. Instead, I want to just look at our behaviour on the roads. Can it ever be possible to curb this behaviour when we seemingly continue to believe that the car is the only way forward?
I don’t drive, yet this piece is in no way the sideswipe of some hypocrite speaking from the pavement. Not at all; my partner drives, and so we as a family are all part of the problem. But can there be a solution?
Regrettably, the environmental impacts of car use go way beyond carbon emissions. We are discussing here a subject that is absolutely inherent to the developed world’s lifestyle and, somewhat inevitably, car use continues to grow. When you consider the eagerness with which Asia and the rest of the developing world play catch up, I’d hope we can begin to set a better example.
Look around you. Urban sprawl catering to the car. Just as an example, take the shopping trip. I know in this family at least we are incredibly reliant on the car – and this involves a trip to the out-of-town supermarket. Purposefully built out of town, it should be noted. It’s convenient, there’s more choice and, damning for the local shopkeeper though what follows is, the trip will invariably work out cheaper.
Local air pollution, noise, the impacts on health, congestion, road traffic casualties, all these negatives seem to be cast aside in favour of the convenience afforded by owning a car.
Furthermore, land take is enormous and as swathes of the countryside become asphalt, yet more car use becomes a necessity. Shopping, along with business and leisure; all require that we travel. And as more roads are built, so our destinations become further and further away.
But as is well known, the main environmental impact from cars is of course those emissions. There is perhaps the rather naïve belief that technology has the answer here. But let’s take the catalytic converter as an example of why it will take more than technology to clean up our act.
Since 1992, it has been mandatory that petrol cars have catalytic converters fitted. And certainly, once fitted, they can indeed reduce the amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons emitted. However, they reduce fuel efficiency and therefore to an extent negate the original benefits. Coupled with this, since more fuel is required, more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere.
Not only is more CO2 being produced, the original reason for these catalytic converters being introduced is being undone by increasing car ownership and travel.
It’s imperative this be understood. Any technological advance, be it in fuel efficiency or a reduction in emissions will always become nigh on negligible because the sheer volume of traffic on our roads continues to rise. No matter how clean the technology, unless we are dealing with zero emission transport, an increase in volume outweighs the advance. So what of our alternatives?
Public transport? Well, why is it still a running joke that buses seem to always turn up in threes? And why does our rail network continue to be the butt of so much satire? The answer to both these questions is simple. It’s because there’s more than an element of truth to them.
When one considers arguments against the use of trains or buses such as the price of fares, overcrowding, the length of time needed to complete the journey, lack of personal safety, lack of reliability, you realise that as things stand, the answer is far from on our doorstep – where, incidentally, you’ll find the car is parked.
But I would suggest that we could at least collectively push for improvements, demand investment, rather than continually wait on the unsubstantiated rhetoric that comes from the mouths of Westminster. These issues do indeed need to be resolved, but I’m sure that with awareness and investment, they can be.
As an example, consider the use of the Metrolink in Manchester. This is no new project. It officially opened in 1992 and according to their website, 52,000 passenger journeys are undertaken each day. Annually, this equates to 18.8m passengers and this has led to research suggesting that at least 2 million car journeys have been taken off the road each year along the route. This is more like it. Especially as light rail transport is considered to be around three times more energy efficient than your average family car.
The Metrolink is of course just one example – but it does highlight that alternatives are out there, and as stated, this was opened 15 years ago. I am not suggesting here a mass exodus to a greener, more sustainable way of life, via a light rail network. But as experts are telling us, an efficient public transport system must be seen as part of the future.
Certainly, technical improvements to cars can also be seen as a candid part of this – consider for example the hybrid cars now on the market, but somewhere along the line, our behaviour and reliance on the car will have to be curtailed as we begin to see the catching of a bus, train or tram as more a part of our daily routine.
This article first appeared in the Western Daily Press © Pem Charnley 2007
Picture Obtained from Flickr here.
[…] « Less Rhetoric, More Investment […]
Thank you for the thoughtful article. I think many people will find your point about catalytic converter surprising. I for once did not know that it makes cars less efficient.
This problem needs to be attacked on so many different fronts. As individuals, we can choose to use cars less by taking more public transport, running multiple errands in on route, and buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars.
As you have noted, individuals can only do so much. Public officials need to revise the law so that developers can build pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, instead of encouraging sprawls that require you to drive 15 minutes to get to the other side of the street because of a barrier. After reading “Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream”, I learned that US cities are flawed by their design, that so many Americans are not given a choice of public transport or even walking. I’ve never been to the UK, but I hope officials there have better sensibility to promote healthy development.
New York City’s mayor Michael Bloomberg visited Paris recently to look at the bike rental program you mentioned. He’s a breath of fresh air in the political world of rhetorics, someone with a vision to propose bold changes. His proposal of congestion pricing has yet to work, although he modeled it after London’s program which has proven to work. We need to elect more leaders like him in this world so that they can fulfill their vision.
Yes, Grace brings up a good point (and topic). I recently came across this website on NYC congestion pricing. (http://ga3.org/newyorksfuture/index.html) It seems like things might be looking up for that city if it works. It might mean better public transportation through more funding too.
There’s also a good reference website on international congestion charging here: (http://web.archive.org/web/20060619191308/http://www.cfit.gov.uk/congestioncharging/factsheets/world/)
Many thanks Grace and Gavin for your comments.
You both sum it up well. I think authorities must be held more responsible for changing individual behaviour.
I use as an example the out-of-town store for weekly shopping. Regrettably, for those on a budget, there is no alternative than to use a car.
Town planners, governments, investment into credible public transport systems - all these must be considered. And perhaps equally importantly, remember that if a car is not zero emission, then it’s damaging the environment. Obvious I know, yet often this is conveniently forgotten.