David Suzuki: Our obsession with private automobiles is unsustainable
Are we driving ourselves into oblivion? Or will new automobile technology save us from the environmental impact of the fossil-fuelled tanks we use to get around?
On the extreme end of the consequences of our auto-centric societies, we need only to look at the recent massive traffic jam in China that stretched for 100 kilometres and lasted almost two weeks. Apparently it’s becoming a common occurrence in China, where use of the private automobile and truck transport are increasing.
On the brighter side, automobile technology has improved a lot over the past few years, partly in response to stricter fuel-emissions standards in countries including Canada and the U.S. But is it enough? We’ve had commercially available hybrid cars now for more than a decade, but they still use fossil fuels. Electric-car technology is picking up, but it doesn’t resolve all of the issues, especially as the electricity still must come from somewhere, and in many places, that means coal-fired power plants. Car manufacturing is also energy-intensive.
To resolve some of these issues, an Alberta company has developed an electric car made out of hemp fibre. Beyond reductions in fossil-fuel use to power the car, the materials used to manufacture it are also more sustainable. Hemp grows easily outdoors with little water or pesticides, and it can be used in lightweight but durable composites to build the cars.
One invention that partly avoids the problem of charging electric car batteries using electricity sources that may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions is U.S. inventor Charles Greenwood’s inexpensive HumanCar. It can operate as an exercise-based, human-powered vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric. Power can be generated by one to four people who “row” the car. It can reach speeds of up to 100 kilometres an hour. Of course, it has its drawbacks, especially as one must be pretty healthy to operate it.
Cars powered by solar cells and hydrogen are also being developed, along with cars that use alternatives to fossil fuels, such as ethanol or biodiesel.
The need for solutions is obvious. Cars not only contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, but they also cause water pollution from fuel-storage leaks, improper disposal of oil, and runoff from roads that washes into rivers, lakes, and oceans. Noise pollution, death from road accidents, and the impact of cars on the shape of urban environment are all issues as well.
Technological developments are welcome, but maybe it’s time we started rethinking our car culture as whole. The average car in North America carries 1.5 people, which means that most cars on the road only have a driver in them. Is it really efficient to use more than 1,000 kilograms of metal to transport 100 kilograms of human?
And, as an article on The Mark News Web site argues: “Requiring about 90 square metres for home storage, 90 square metres for storage at destination, 180 square metres while traveling and another 60 square metres for repairs, servicing, or sale, an automobile occupies more than 400 square metres altogether – more space than most apartments.”
Using a life-cycle analysis, which takes into account manufacture and disposal, as well as operation, you find that cars are inefficient products.
We aren’t likely to do away with private cars in the near future, especially in rural areas with low population density. But we can at least start to think differently about our “need” for them. That means improvements to public transit, urban design that is less car-centric, and other innovative ideas to reduce our reliance. Walking and cycling when possible is also great, and it improves health.
When we must drive, we should try to use cars that are fuel-efficient, and drive in ways that cut down on fuel use, such as combining trips and shutting the car off rather than idling when stopped.
Even in China, it’s not all bad news. Although car culture is growing, the use of electric bikes is exploding. In 2008, people in China bought 21 million e-bikes, compared to 9.4 million autos. China now has 120 million electric bikes on the road, up from about 50,000 a decade ago.
We take our cars for granted, but really, they haven’t been a part of our human culture for that long, and they needn’t be an essential part forever.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.




I own three cars but only drive occasionally on weekends, around 1,000 km annually, mostly in a Honda Civic getting 10 times the fuel mileage of the average diesel bus, and cycle to work every day. Today was rainy and of course, most people didn’t cycle. Too bad, if you have the proper gear, riding in rain is more pleasant than riding on hot days when the temperature is over 30 C. My carbon footprint is next to nothing but the same can’t be said about diesel buses getting 3 mpg and driving empty much of the time, except for a few peak hours in the morning and afternoon.
Regional transit sprawl isn't any better than cars traveling on freeways. TransLink likes to make a big deal about "removing cars from the roads". I don't remember a car making me recoil from the stench of toxic emissions or a car shattering my eardrums in recent memory, but on a daily basis the B-Line diesel buses do without fail. Transit does not remove cars from the roads, at least not to any significant extent.
Transit has a high turnover. People are continually taking transit, becoming disillusioned and driving a car while at the same time, new people start to take transit. Transit use is increasing in Vancouver but so are the number of people moving here. Many of these people can't afford $500/month to finance a car, up to $400/month for insurance, $100/month for fuel and $300/month for parking: approximately $1300/month in total, and they have no choice but to take transit. When they or others can afford a car, they invariably get off the loser cruiser to escape the creeps who make transit such a wonderful experience.
TransLink doesn't take cars off the roads; TransLink with its regional transit just sets people up to drive after they get fed up with it. Do me a favour and do something to rid Vancouver of the B-Line and TransLink the scam if it comes to it.
To me it looks like an addiction.
- H. G. Wells
each trip would be on demand, dedicated direct & private journey without stopping. So no empty buses moving around. No worrying about parking at your destination.
for instance www.gettherefast.org
it is an idea that's been around for a long time but no city has yet built a system although there are a couple in the works...
I’m not worried about China building power plants burning coal and natural gas for EV cars. These power plants are twice as energy efficient as diesel powered transit buses and gasoline powered cars. Power plants meet very stringent environmental regulations to limit noise and pollution and are built far away from populated areas so that people are not exposed to high levels of toxic emissions and harrowing transit noise.
I’m not worried about China on the other end of the globe; I’m very worried about Vancouver and TransLink. TransLink diesel buses don’t go through AirCare because TransLink administers AirCare and conveniently cheats to exempt its smoking diesel buses which would never pass AirCare. That way TransLink can cover up its fiscal incompetence to rob from the trolley bus budget in order to buy cheap diesel buses on the B-Line route, for instance. People on the B-Line route live within 15 m of TransLink’s stinking diesel buses and are exposed to alarming levels of toxic emissions such as arsenic, mercury and lead.
Where are the regulators in all this diesel bus mess? They are in bed with TransLink and taking it easy to quietly collect their pay checks like good little deadbeat government employees. David, I’m not giving up my non-toxic car to join the Tokyo sardine club with the fool taking mass transit on polluting regional transit in Vancouver. I’m going to drive and save the planet!
signed,
chemcial engineer
“A supply crunch appears likely around 2013”¦ given recent price experience, a spike in excess of $200 per barrel is not infeasible.”
(http://goo.gl/d6yB)
While some people will be able to afford electric cars ($41,000 Chevy Volt anyone?) many more of us are gonna be squeezing onto transit and saddling up onto electric and foot-powered bikes in the interest of saving $$$. It happened in a few years ago:
"During the gas price rises of 2006-2008, U.S. citizens turned to public transportation in record numbers. Light rail ridership was the biggest winner, as was an old and reliable form of gas-free transportation, the bicycle. The biggest losers: SUVs (RIP Hummer) and personal automotive use. Across the nation, people substantially reduced their driving for the first time in decades, particularly in metro areas that had other mobility options." (http://goo.gl/1mVk)
A multifaceted approach may involve the following:
- electric cars powered by cleaner and/or renewable sources. solar, hydro, tidal generation, geothermal and thorium based nuclear (which produces much less bomb potential from waste and more abundant than uranium).
- tax breaks/rebates for using electrical vehicles.
- increased transit/cycling.
- denser neighborhoods (less driving and makes cycling more practical).
- an understanding that the era of cheap energy is coming to an end. cheap, easy to extract oil is becoming harder to find and turns our environment into a toilet.
I'm sure there are many things I am missing, but a multi-pronged approach to dealing with pollution and congestion are what we need.
Petty infighting about singular parts of the solution from both sides of the debate makes us lose sight of the big picture.
I know that these comments get censored if they expose misconceptions and have toned it down this time. Really, though, can anyone flaming anti-transit comments provide proof that transit is less polluting than if the people taking transit took cars? What about TransLink, can TransLink prove it?
Most transit users take transit because they can’t afford a car or are too lazy to cycle. The environment for most transit users isn’t the main motivation for taking transit.
EV cars are very efficient and get the equivalent of over ~ 100 mpg, all things considered with a natural gas power plant producing the electricity:
http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency
Is a 3 mpg diesel bus or 4 mpg hybrid diesel bus operating in a perpetual non-stop loop with and without anyone on board for 12 hours to 22 hours, daily, really less polluting than the typical car (sold today and not in the 1970s which TransLink and many so called experts go to for data to compare transit to cars) averaging 30 mpg when the car only operates 1 hour on average, daily? Do the math and get back to me TransLink and David.
signed,
someone with qualifications
I have decided to contribute to reducing my carbon footprint by reducing the temperature in my pool to 84 from 85, reducing the idle time in my SUV from 10 to 8 minutes to warm up or cool off the interior, and reducing my hot shower time from 20 to 18 minutes. Hardships I agree, but all worth it to keep Al Gore and John (where did the fish go) Kennedy off my back.
You're right that population is a problem but our sustainability crisis is more a function of those of us in wealthy countries using too much stuff. The lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares of planet's ecosystem goods (e.g. oxygen, minerals, fresh water, trees, arable land, biodiversity) and services (e.g. waste assimilation, carbon dioxide absorption, erosion control, aesthetics, recreation, temperature regulation). Australians (7.8) Canadians (7.1) Britons (5.3) Germans (4.2) Japanese (4.9). The world average is 2.7 hectares. China (2.1) India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.
Further,
"Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians." (http://goo.gl/o3Yq)
Basically, it us who need to change. And, as the article Dr. Suzuki links to above shows our car dependent lifestyle is part of our problem.
Following WW II North America began building suburbs and for that cars were required. One great contributor to the car society is the building of shopping centres. Until these huge land and resource grapping structures are done away with and people begin, once again, shopping locally, cars will be part of our society.
China, which had the best chance of avoiding the unfettered use of cars, has chosen not to got that way. Cars are a status symbol and unless that changes, not much else will change.
But change can be accomplished if parents just started walking their children to school, if it is close enough, instead of driving them.
Now we are being sold the idea that we can consume our way to sustainability by buying "green" products. What a joke! Not saying that lightbulbs, cloth bags and recycling aren't good but they're a drop in the bucket. It's our institutions (e.g. education, media, gov'ts) that are responsible for the majority of our problem and its them that we need to change. Electric vehicles won't do it.
The ironic thing of course is that we were happiest in the 1950s before we started on this mass consumption project:
"It is no accident: workers who are earning a lot of money because they work long hours provide the market for the very goods they are producing, and never mind if they do not really need the goods in question. The consumption becomes the reward for the hard work and the long hours.
Nevertheless, it cannot be a very satisfying reward: the conditions of dissatisfaction must be maintained, or markets for useless products would disappear under a gale of common sense. We become addicted to consumption, which provides no lasting satisfaction."
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_b/mod09/uncom09t03s01.htm
More on their plan here: http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/balancing-the-budget.html or in a TED Talks presentation here: http://on.ted.com/8VlT
Having said that, I do love my car, I'm a petrohead, but I only drive on the weekend. I consider myself very lucky to have shower place at work and live close enough and healthy enough to bike 2 to 3 times a week and take transit the rest of the days. Many people have no option but to drive, those who live very far away, or need to drive their kids to school, ...etc. I think when transit becomes as fast as and as convenient as driving, there will be more incentives for people to not drive. If more work place can provide showers that would be great too.
I would like to see automobiles become a recreational thing, in which people drive for fun on the weekend. To many people, cars are wonderful, they have characters, they are inspiring, and I think they are one of the most wonderful creation of human kind.
Pages