Cars Aren't The Main Culprit: Rethinking Pollution Sources

Banning cars from cities is an increasingly popular idea, with places like Oslo, Madrid, and Paris implementing car-free zones or restrictions. While this is an effective way to reduce pollution, it is not a comprehensive solution. The transportation industry is responsible for 29% of greenhouse gas emissions, with personal vehicles and trucks contributing the majority of these emissions. By reducing car travel, we can significantly reduce global emissions and mitigate climate change. However, it is important to consider the practicality of banning cars entirely and the potential impact on those who rely on them. Alternative forms of transportation, such as improved public transport, biking, and walking infrastructure, must be accessible and efficient to ensure a successful transition away from car-centric living.

Electric cars need charging, which may increase power plant usage

Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions, but the electricity used to charge them may create carbon pollution. The amount of carbon pollution generated depends on how local power is produced, such as through the use of coal or natural gas, or renewable resources like wind or solar energy. In 2015, 60% of electricity in California came from burning fossil fuels, while solar and wind energy made up less than 14%. Similarly, in 2014, coal generated 72% of all power in China.

The Union of Concerned Scientists believes that electric cars are better for the environment, even with a fossil-fuel-dependent grid. They claim that there are no areas in the United States where electric vehicles have higher global warming emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle. Using their formula, a Tesla Model X achieves a fuel efficiency equivalent to 81 miles per gallon, which is far higher than a gas-powered car.

However, some experts disagree with this assessment. Joshua Graff Zivin, a professor of economics and public policy, argues that the time of day when electric vehicles are charged is critical. In California, the cheapest power is produced at night, mostly from natural gas, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear energy. However, the greenest power is generated during the day when solar power can feed the grid. As a result, charging electric vehicles at night could generate more emissions than charging a gasoline car during the day.

The life cycle emissions of an electric vehicle depend on the source of electricity used to charge it. In geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources, electric vehicles typically have lower emissions than similar conventional vehicles. In regions that depend heavily on conventional electricity generation, electric vehicles may not demonstrate a strong emissions benefit.

Banning cars may not be enough to reach national climate targets

While banning cars can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are several reasons why this alone may not be enough to reach national climate targets. Firstly, it is important to consider the role of other significant emission sources, such as power plants. For example, the increased use of electric vehicles may be offset by the emissions from power plants used to charge them. This is known as carbon leakage, and it highlights the interconnectedness of the energy system, where reducing emissions in one area can lead to increased emissions in another.

Secondly, the impact of banning cars may be delayed due to fleet inertia. Even if internal combustion engine cars are banned, it takes time for the existing fleet of vehicles to turn over and be replaced by electric or alternative fuel vehicles. This delay can hinder the immediate effectiveness of a ban, especially if the target year for climate goals is soon after the ban is implemented. For example, a study on Sweden's climate targets found that a ban on internal combustion engine sales in 2030 would not be sufficient to meet their 2030 targets. An earlier ban or increased biofuel use was suggested as a solution.

Thirdly, the automobile lobby and the design of cities can pose challenges to the effectiveness of car bans. The automobile industry actively works to find ways around CO2 regulations, and many cars are designed to cheat on air pollution tests. Additionally, cities, especially in industrialized nations, are often designed with a car-centric approach, making it difficult to suddenly shift to alternative modes of transportation. The infrastructure for public transportation, biking, and walking may not be adequately developed, hindering the potential benefits of a car ban.

Finally, while banning cars can reduce emissions, it is important to consider the broader context of a country's energy system and economic development. Electrification of the transport sector is a necessary step towards decarbonization, but it must be accompanied by a comprehensive package of policies to reduce carbon emissions in the power sector and improve energy efficiency. This includes addressing the emissions from power plants, which are often fueled by coal or natural gas, and promoting the development of renewable energy sources.

In conclusion, while banning cars can be a step in the right direction, it is essential to recognize that it may not be sufficient to reach national climate targets. A multifaceted approach is needed, addressing emissions from various sectors, improving energy efficiency, and promoting sustainable urban planning and transportation options.

Cars are only part of the transport pollution problem

Furthermore, the problem of transport pollution extends beyond just greenhouse gas emissions. For example, road accidents are a major cause of death and injury worldwide. In 2010, road crashes killed 1.24 million people, making up 1.95% of all global deaths. This is a higher number of deaths than those caused by tuberculosis, malaria, diabetes, or HIV/AIDS.

Additionally, the issue of car dependency and the space that cars take up in dense urban areas must be considered. Cars are parked 95% of the time, and with the world population growing and an increasing number of people living in cities, space is becoming a scarce resource. The space dedicated to cars for driving or parking could be better utilised for alternative modes of transportation, green spaces, or housing.

Moreover, the shift towards electric vehicles may not be the solution to reducing transport pollution. While electric vehicles typically produce fewer emissions than standard vehicles, they still rely on energy generated by power plants, which may be burning fossil fuels. Therefore, the increased use of electric vehicles may be offset by the increased demand for electricity from power plants.

Car-free cities may not be practical for everyone

While the idea of car-free cities is gaining traction, it may not be a practical solution for everyone. The success of car-free cities depends on various factors, such as infrastructure, transportation alternatives, and the specific needs of the residents. Here are some reasons why car-free cities may not be practical for certain individuals and communities:

Infrastructure Challenges:

• Existing Infrastructure: Some cities, particularly in developing countries, struggle with inadequate infrastructure. They face challenges in optimizing road networks and constructing new roadways to accommodate the increasing number of private vehicles. However, transitioning to a car-free model may not be feasible without significant changes to the existing infrastructure.
• Parking and Transportation Hubs: Car-free cities require efficient transportation systems and adequate parking facilities outside the car-free zones. Inadequate parking options or inconvenient transportation hubs may deter people from embracing car-free alternatives.

Transportation Alternatives:

• Public Transport Reliability: The practicality of car-free cities heavily relies on the availability and reliability of alternative transportation options. In areas where public transport is unsafe, unaffordable, or unreliable, individuals may be reluctant to give up their private vehicles.
• Longer Commutes: Car-free cities can result in longer commute times, especially for those living in suburbs or exurbs. Without efficient public transportation, residents may have to rely on walking or cycling for longer distances, which may not be feasible for everyone.

Individual Needs and Preferences:

• Disability and Mobility Issues: Car-free cities may pose challenges for individuals with disabilities or mobility issues. While alternative transportation options like buses and trains can be accessible, they may not always meet the specific needs of all individuals with disabilities.
• Cost of Alternatives: Walking, cycling, and public transportation can be more cost-effective than owning a car. However, for individuals or families on a tight budget, the upfront cost of purchasing a bicycle or the regular expense of public transport fares can be burdensome.
• Job Requirements: For individuals whose jobs require them to travel long distances or transport equipment or goods, a car-free city may not be practical. Certain professions, such as sales representatives or tradespeople, often rely on private vehicles for their work.

Social and Cultural Factors:

• Social Inequality: Car-free cities can potentially contribute to social inequality. Individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds may not have the financial means to access alternative transportation options, reinforcing existing social disparities.
• Cultural Attachment to Cars: In some cultures, there is a strong emotional and social attachment to cars. Transitioning to a car-free model may face resistance from individuals who view cars as a symbol of freedom, status, or personal expression.

In conclusion, while car-free cities offer environmental and health benefits, they may not be practical for everyone. A successful transition requires careful planning, infrastructure development, and consideration of the diverse needs and preferences of the residents. A balanced approach that reduces car dependency while ensuring equitable access to alternative transportation options may be a more feasible path for many communities.

Cars are advertised as becoming more sustainable

The interior of a vehicle is a key area of focus for sustainability. The use of natural fibres and sustainable materials is becoming more common, with some manufacturers utilising natural fibres such as hemp, flax, and kenaf in vehicle interiors. These materials are more environmentally friendly and cost-effective than traditional glass fibres. Additionally, the development of electric motors and lightweight construction methods are also contributing to more sustainable vehicles.

However, it's important to note that the manufacturing and charging of electric vehicles can still have environmental impacts. The production of batteries, for example, can be emissions-intensive. The overall sustainability of electric vehicles depends on how the electricity used to power them is generated. If the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, the environmental benefits of electric vehicles are reduced.

Despite these challenges, the automotive industry is moving towards more sustainable practices. Manufacturers are working to comply with legislative requirements, meet consumer demands, and reduce their carbon footprint. This includes implementing strategies such as a circular economy, battery recycling, and the use of biodegradable components.

Frequently asked questions