Colin Fiske, CRTP Executive Director
When I advocate for a reduced role for cars in our communities, one of the common responses I get goes something like this: “But we’re not going to stop driving in the future, we’re just going to start driving electric.” This argument, while well-meaning, is based on a number of myths. Let’s tackle them one at a time.
Myth #1: We can rely on automakers and/or auto regulators to transition to zero-emission vehicle sales in a timely manner.
The Facts: Cars and trucks are the leading source of climate-destroying emissions in the US. But automakers are now trying to convince us that they will solve the problem they helped create by investing in electric vehicles (EVs). If you watched the Superbowl this year, you were inundated with electric SUV and truck ads, many of them explicitly aimed at convincing you to trust these companies to solve the climate crisis. Here’s something that likely wasn’t clear from those ads: many of the models advertised aren’t even on the market yet. And the major automakers are actually doubling down on their sales of big, gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, often to the point of discontinuing more fuel-efficient models altogether. They currently make their profits on those gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, and federal regulations — which swing back and forth with each successive administration — have done little to stop this trend. These corporations will keep selling gas-powered behemoths as long as there’s profit in it, despite their glossy electric-powered public relations campaigns.
Myth #2: We can replace fossil fuel-powered cars on our roads with zero-emission vehicles fast enough to avert climate catastrophe.
The Facts: Even if automakers suddenly discovered a commitment to environmental responsibility and rapidly phased out gas and diesel vehicles, the problems wouldn’t end. Once manufactured, a typical car will stay on the road for well over a decade. That means that even after we stop selling gas-fueled vehicles, they will still be driving around emitting greenhouse gases for many years to come. In part because of that lag time, scientific models estimate that in order to meet our targets and avert the worst climate impacts, we need to not only transition to zero-emission vehicles, but also reduce our collective miles driven by somewhere between 15 percent and 70 percent. In other words, there is just no way to convert the entire fleet of on-road vehicles fast enough to avert climate catastrophe without also significantly reducing the amount that we drive.
Myth #3: The only problem with cars is their tailpipe emissions.
The Facts: Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death worldwide, especially for young people. Big cars are more dangerous in a crash than small cars, and automakers are making bigger and bigger cars, whether gas or electric. And those big EVs are not only more likely to kill people, they also require a lot of plastic, metal, and toxic chemicals in their manufacture. Bigger cars mean bigger batteries, which means more mining of lithium and other rare and toxic metals. Literal and figurative battles are already being waged around the world over access to ores necessary for EV batteries, and local ecosystems are being destroyed by the extraction of metals and petroleum (don’t forget that whatever its power source, the modern car is mostly plastic!). A reliance on cars for transportation also contributes to social isolation and many of the other ills of modern society. In short, the climate is only one of many reasons to reduce the role of cars in our lives.
Myth #4: Cars are a naturally superior form of transportation that people will always prefer over other options, and nothing individuals or governments do can change that.
The Facts: This is perhaps the most insidious and deeply entrenched myth about cars in America. In his award-winning book “Fighting Traffic,” historian Peter Norton comprehensively debunks this myth, which he calls the “evolution by technological selection” or “consumer demand” theory of the rise of the automobile. This market-based myth holds that since cars became more and more popular over the last century, that popularity must have been inevitable, and it can only be explained as a result of a natural consumer preference for cars over other forms of transportation.
In fact, as Norton details, cars were deeply unpopular when they were introduced to American towns and cities in the early twentieth century. They killed people — particularly children — in large numbers, forced traditional uses like walking, socializing and commerce out of the street, and clogged up downtowns with their highly inefficient use of space. These obstacles to car adoption were only overcome as a result of a concerted and sustained public relations and legislative campaign waged by an unholy alliance of corporations, business-friendly politicians and driving clubs. As the decades continued, this campaign reshaped both the American landscape — through massive public investments in automobile infrastructure and land use rules that dictated car-oriented development — and the American mind — through a propaganda campaign that continues largely unchanged to this day and associates cars with ideas like freedom, power and masculinity.
This examination of transportation history underscores the fact that cars did not become popular because they are naturally superior or preferred by consumers. In fact, a lot of people would like to drive a lot less, and might even tell you that cars are an inherently inferior mode of transportation. (Just ask me sometime. You’ll see.)
Cars became the dominant form of American transportation because we made them so. There is no “natural” preference for the automobile independent of the built environment and the social environment we have constructed. And it’s clear that we could make other forms of transportation more prevalent if we invested our collective efforts in promoting their popularity and making them more convenient, inviting and fun. Not only could we do that, in fact, but we absolutely have to in order to take on the environmental and social crises facing us today.