Lots of food for thought in George Monbiot’s Guardian column on electric cars last month. And I can’t help but feeling that anyone’s opinion on electric cars depends on just how much they think cars can—in general—be replaced by other modes of transport in modern-day life.
If you’re a rabid anti-car person, electric cars are an abomination. If you like your car, but see yourself as environmentally friendly, you’ve likely decided that electric cars are the solution to all of the world’s problems. If you’re a cyclist, you’re afraid of cars when you have to cycle on the road. Fuck Cars! says Mr Cyclist, every day. And so on.
“A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.”
I had no idea.
“Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.”
If a Tesla lasts for 2 million km, it’s one tiny step in the anti-Co2 argument. But yes, having less cars out there in general would certainly help.
And from a more general, “What is Life? Baby don’t Hurt Me” kind of perspective:
“Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.”
There is more encourage news, but with a small dose of danger included:
“Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.
“Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.”
Where I live—Paris—the cycling infrastructure has been massively expanded since everyone’s favourite coronovirus arrived, including turning the main East-to-West shopping street, rue du Rivoli, into a massive bike, bus, and taxi lane, which is so surreal I try to go back once a week on my bike to check if it’s still there. Well, I did until I got locked down again into a 1 km radius from home a few weeks ago. Cycling in Paris remains borderline scary but the adrenaline is—I must admit—quite a fun rush.
Monbiot rounds up with a hint of hope for the future:
“Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.”
“This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.”
Basically what he’s saying is that trains are the answer, right? Lol. Ok, I may be biased. Though a good long train trip through some nice mountains is definitely a solution to at least half of life’s problems, I find.
Ciao.