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?

• » See also: #4 Copenhagen, Denmark: Great Bicycle City Photo Tour
• » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.

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.

Tweet This Post