Thinking Beyond Electric Cars
A new report on climate change argues we must change our behaviour, not rely on technology, to solve our carbon problems
From listening to the headlines about the report from the Committee on Climate Change, you might think that a wholesale switch to electric cars over the next few decades would magic away our carbon emissions from transport. Many politicians would dearly like that to be the case: switch to electric cars, extend the use of biofuels, make conventional cars more fuel-efficient and we can all carry on driving as much as we like.
Take the technological route to solving our carbon problems, and ministers won't have to make any hard decisions about policies to make us use our cars more wisely. Senior civil servants who enjoy driving and can't imagine getting on a bus won't have face up to their own unsustainable behaviour. Instead, they can take refuge in the comforting notion that it's impossible to change our collective travel behaviour, and thus not really worth even trying. Best of all, it will be the next generation of ministers and civil servants who will take the rap if it all goes wrong.
But the technological route involves lots of uncertainties. It is far from clear that we will be able to generate enough electricity from renewable sources to be able to power electric cars (as well as everything else). Much biofuel production emits more carbon than it saves, for example by destroying rainforest. And on past showing, we can have little confidence in the motor industry's willingness to play ball in developing more fuel-efficient vehicles.
This isn't to say that future technology is unimportant. But it is only part of the answer, and a credible strategy to decarbonise transport should include action to change the way we travel right now. Look behind the headlines, and the report from the Committee on Climate Change is indeed advocating a combination of investment in technology and action to change travel behaviour. Policies to change travel behaviour could deliver carbon savings on a similar scale to the savings from new technology, and they could deliver these savings now, not at some indefinite future date.
What's more, a lot of the measures to get us using our cars more wisely are politically feasible. The committee highlights the Sustainable Travel Town programme in Darlington, Peterborough and Worcester, where better bus services, new cycle routes and information about alternative travel options have enabled residents to make "smart" travel choices and cut their car use. It recommends national rollout of a sustainable travel town programme, coupled with an expanded eco-driving scheme and incorporating eco-driving into the practical part of the driving test. It highlights the carbon savings that could be made through use of intelligent speed adaptation: in-car technology a bit like cruise control, which adjusts your speed automatically to match the speed limit. And it points out that new housing should be located where it is easy to use public transport (principally cities and large towns) and new shopping development should be in town centres rather than on edge-of-town or out-of-town sites.
The worry is that the government will focus on long-term technological solutions and do little to encourage short-term behaviour change. But trusting exclusively to future technology is the Superman solution. It's like ignoring the gently downward sloping footpath and hoping instead that at some point in the future you will be able to safely jump off a cliff to get down to sea level. The only trouble is, unlike Superman, we may be heading for a crash landing.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
23 Comments so far
Show AllPublic transport, anyone?
eCars are better than gas-powered. Probably none of the things that might contribute to a solution are adequate in themselves.
California has rolling blackouts and brown-outs every August and September as people crank up their air conditioners. It's a bit ridiculous in a climate where the temperature rarely goes over 100 degrees F, when traditional architecture in hotter, dryer climates has allowed people to live comfortably for thousands of years.
I don't suppose we can get people to pass a moratorium on buildings that need AC or excessive heating, but even loosening or altering housing codes to allow for the construction of hay bale or earthen houses would allow people to get some idea what they're missing.
Public transport is fine, but it will require as a first step, a complete reuilding of communities into the "old-fashioned" compact, walkable, main-street and blocks model.
I live in a rust belt city that has such neighborhoods, but when I travel, I despair at the how few US communities are built so convienient public transit will ever be possible.
The measure of our cultural stupidity is that all the 'good' car designs still result in a ton or more of car. Moving a ton of metal and plastic around for the sake of a sub-300-lb payload is so disconnected from reality that it's virtually psychotic.
For me, it'd be a plus-400-lb payload :-(
But I don't (never have) drive, and in DC I always take the bus or walk.
I apologise for being presumptuous, and I'll certainly shut up if you feel I'm being rude as well, but many Ashkenazim seem to have a problem with weight. There might be a genetic predisposition, as there is in (e.g.) the Tohono O'odham population, but I'm sure the traditional high-carbohydrate diet plays a significant part. A strict low-carbohydrate diet might do very well for you if your current size is a concern. Because of your height (I think you said you're 6'4? Or am I thinking of someone else?) you'd likely never get below 225, but that would be quite a difference to 400+.
(Just out of curiosity, did you ever go into the intelligence trade after you got that scholarship?)
I'm not sure if I'm related to that ethnicity, my great-grandparents were Russian Jews. I'm 6'2, and I have decided on 220 being my ideal weight, but I think I'll be satisfied when I reach 250. My problem for a long time was just eating a lot of pizza and fried junk and never exercising. Now I eat organic produce from farmer's markets, organic grass-fed milk, whole grains, etc. And once I get over this stupid cold, I'll be up for walking several miles a day, thanks to the cold weather...it's much more fun to exercise when you don't break a sweat just from being outside :-)
And no, I didn't go into intelligence. I switched my focus and my college courses to environmentalism and human rights at the end of 2007.
There is no way around a car not having substantial weight. It needs securely enclose four or so people plus luggage and fuel over all road conditions over years of use - and produce the enormous amount of power needed to propel the whole mess.
Better to avoid using cars altogether - or use a low-power 2-wheel vehicle for personal transportation.
My intention isn't to insult you, but your first paragraph represents the same conventional view that's producing the current lot of cars. The majority of cars are used the majority of the time for carrying one person, and their design should reflect that.
As to 2-wheelers, I can testify from extensive and painful personal experience that 2 wheels are one wheel too few for stability and safety. There's nothing that brings on an engineering epiphany quicker than trying to slow down while going down a hill toward a red-light intersection in winter.
A one person car would still weigh a considerable amount. Steel isn't light. IC engines aren't light. Aluminum has too low an elestic modulus and prone to fatigue for most kinds of ground-travelling vehicles, except certain kinds of trailers.
And we don't need more single occupant vehicles running around.
Better that we return to traditional communities where cars aren't needed - you can walk or ride a bus or trolley wherever you need to go. Development on the suburban model should be outlawed.
Actually, have a look at http://www.pembleton.co.uk/. 300Kg unladen, 2 seats, 50-60mpg with a Citroen 2CV engine. Not much attempt has been made to optimise it: the proto was designed *and* built in *4 weeks* for a holiday to Ireland, because the spouse of the builder noticed that vehicles with fewer than 4 wheels travel free on the ferry. The designer is a trained engineer and prize-winning motorbike builder/racer, so throwing together the proto was child's play for him.
Or, for another example of a lightweight, small-footprint vehicle, see Moonbeam -- seat-and-a-half, 100mpg, kludged together by a non-engineer from junkyard motorscooter parts
http://gizmodo.com/202834/moonbeam-100mpg-homemade-car
Imagine what could be done with a small-motorbike engine and a proper multispeed transmission similar to the Rohloff
(http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/rohloff.html)
rather than putting something together from whatever's handy
But your point about reforming how we live is very well-taken.
"Small Is Beautiful" by Shumaker addressed this. But we could also start taking Erlich's "The Population Bomb" more seriously. In a world of finite resources, simplify, reuse and recycle can only take us so far.
Yes, we have to take in the overall impact of all the humans on this little globe and any advantage of changing over to electric cars would soon disappear as the population explosion continues.
One child per family for the next three or four generations. Empower women.
And do it by sterilisation of both parties after that one kid. The Chinese are a good example of how *not* to reduce overpopulation: make it voluntary, and grant plenty exceptions.
One live birth, snippety-snip, snippety-snip. Any guy who gets 2 women knocked up at the same time gets to choose between 20 years in prison no parole or losing his dangly bits.
Education is said to be the best way to stop overpopulation. I think donating used computers and getting everyone online is one of the best conventional ways to spread education.
I'm sure it's said by people who've a vested interest in *not* stopping overpopulation, because (as of course you know) the best ways -the only ways- are sterilisation or no sexual activity. With the best will in the world, chemical and mechanical means fail. And, as the old RC joke goes: what do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents.
Good point about the military.
This article is, of course, correct in targeting the need to increase public transport. But if all cars were electric, then the issue is how they are charged. And the potentially good news is that decentralized solar production is already a decent investment for upper-middle class size homes, and if developed (read: supported by govt. to get there) there could be a sea change of household getting completely off the electric grid.
Needless to say, "sea change" means re-arrangement of profit-taking, so no rapid change coming there.
How many people own homes these days? I can't imagine installing a solar panel if I live in an apartment. The way economy is going, the upper middle class are shrinking year after year. Decentralized solar production will be necessary instead of just optional and don't forget to lower those prices. Affordability matters too.
That's when you get the residents of the apartment building together with management and work together to install a solar array on the roof, to help generate power for the entire building. We shouldn't be trying to rely on only ourselves.
That's a great idea. I remember getting separate costly electric and gas bills when I used to live in apartments. I couldn't believe myself getting electric bills all the way from the midwest even though I was living in VA and still do. A solar array is a great way to go local on power. I hear Israel is pushing solar energy full steam ahead. I wished this country would learn that good lesson from them.
My wife and I haven't been living in apartments for years. We enjoyed installing solar powered heaters and panels and getting really local on power. :)
"short-term behaviour change"
The underlying problem is that all nations use a military that runs on oil. Militarism is the guiding force in societies. Once the "short term behavior change" for societies changes from stealing what other people have (oil and soon water) to sharing everything, everything else will fall into place.
Nothing will change, short term or long term, until the militarism crap stops.
After all, military's aren't going to run on solar power, now are they?
"After all, military's aren't going to run on solar power, now are they?"
Don't say they won't. They're already learning about the Hindu Sun God Surya and you can bet your horses that they'll use that to proclaim "power from the sun god". They're that crazy.
Considering the M1 Abrams tank is powered by a jet turbine, not likely.
Perhaps, as we write, they're trying to figure out how to "unload" those tanks. FDR apparently knew how inefficient and ineffective our fleet of battleships were (compared to a few carriers loaded with airplanes), and chose to use them as decoys at Pearl Harbor, while the carriers slipped quietly away to fight again another day.