Concern for the use of our environment has evolved substantially from the founding of the Sierra Club and many claim to place those concerns at the forefront of their lifestyle priorities.  Finding examples of poor planning and wasteful use of natural resources is not difficult, but the popular buzzword approach of many that purports to focus on the problem are much more cliché than commitment in my opinion.  Some serious introspection is needed if remedies are to be meaningful.

 

 

As we are well aware the hot button issue that purports to illustrate environmental concern is the automobile and the nature of its construction and operation.  The-oh-so-easy solution to air quality and a clean environment would be the 40 plus mile per gallon or hybrid car, if you listen to the knee-jerk uninformed enviro-reactionaries that cannot see the forest for the trees (pun intended).

 

The automobile has become the poster example for the environmental crusaders, but it is a symptom, rather than a cause, and you don’t have to look too far to find the hypocrisy and shortsightedness that accompanies their “instant pudding” type solution.  The relationship between lifestyles and the automobile is a much more complex issue.

 

Having worked in the automobile industry since 1958, I have personally witnessed the transformation of our society from one where ownership of a family car was not yet universal, particularly in urban areas, to one that literally assumes each citizen should have personal motorized transportation as early as the state permits.  That, however, is only part of the story.  It is the nature and frequency of that use and its “necessary” placement in our lifestyles that has made the huge difference in our consumption of energy and resources that extend way beyond the auto itself.  Changing the engineering of the car without changing the planning around its use is to avoid the real concerns.  This thinking creates easy scapegoats, and promotes feel good environmentalism of little import.  A few facts should replace superficial doubletalk.

 

There have been virtually no revolutionary automobiles since the late 1940s, only evolutionary modifications to suit demand and our changing living patterns.  What has changed significantly is the way we use our personal cars.  The oft-criticized SUV is nothing more than a replacement for the first vehicle with family utility built into is concept, the upgraded station wagons of the 1950s and onward, that would carry a family of nine, a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood, and anything in between.  In earlier years, however, this was probably the only family car in most cases, and not necessarily a daily commuter vehicle for anyone.

 

The national interstate highway system made personal transportation over long distances much more attractive than ever before and within 20 years virtually eliminated the passenger train and even impacted the frequency of interstate bus service.  However, daily lifestyle decisions so revolve around the auto today that we have lost sight of just how it influences major choices in living, commuting and traveling.

 

Let’s consider those decisions in light of the use of energy and resources in a more sensible perspective than how many miles each car gets per gallon.  The typical sub urban family of 2005 makes decisions on where to live, where to work, and what schools the children will attend with virtually no transportation considerations beyond “how many cars do we need?”  Theoretically the husband drives 25 plus miles one way to center city, the wife sells real estate and drives 500 miles per week in a sedan or van large enough to carry four prospects comfortably, the oldest daughter drives 150 miles away to college in her own car that she uses another 250 miles a week, the son drives another vehicle to high school 10 miles down the road and uses it on weekends for another 50-100 miles.  Soon the youngest son will want his own car and he will get it.  Couple this to long distance vacation driving at least once a year and what we have is a total lifestyle dependent on four automobiles and all the expenses related to that ownership.  Ironically, in my theoretical family, all four cars have Sierra Club or Green Party bumper stickers sending the message that “they care”.

 

Of course we have the right to develop suburbs, but when it comes to reckless expansion some of these have an immeasurable impact on the environment.  With no practical transportation other than expansion of roads and highways, shopping areas distant from residences, workplace many miles away and only accessible by auto, and even the newest structures heated and cooled by only traditional means, and the “cure” is a 40 mile per gallon car!  This is the kind of nonsense that proceeds from “environmental myopia” so rampant in our society.  Radical environmental groups burn SUVs on dealer’s lots to make a point with little outrage from the “moderate” environmentalists.  Why not burn the homes the owners and developers live in?

 

The average automobile is scrapped after about 10-15 years, virtually unchanged since the 1930s.  What has changed however is how many miles it is driven before energy is used to crush it and build its replacement using more energy and resources.  A 100,000 mile car was considered “high mileage” in 1950 (remember those odometers stopped at 5 digits).  Today 300,000 miles is not impossible, something only taxicabs would have seen years ago.  Cheap high-mileage autos only encourage more and more individuals to leave public or private transportation choices out of their decision making process and actually exacerbate the problem. 

 

Crushing and remaking every car after 10 or so years consumes huge amounts of energy.  If you want to make an “environmentally friendly” auto it should cost two or three times as much, last 25-30 years, have easily replaced minor “wear items”, and routinely run 500,000 miles.  Remaking the entire car at the same rate we were 70 years ago is not progress.  Simply focusing on fuel mileage and making more and more vehicles is counterproductive and very shortsighted.  Before we blame the manufacturers, blame ourselves, for this is what we demand.

 

Of course, efficiency in operation is desirable, but not new.  We had 35 mile per gallon economy cars in the late 1930s and fuel efficiency was an important selling point up until the late 50s.  Some of the most expensive American cars actually led the way in this area with Cadillac and Lincoln getting the best fuel mileage during that era. From the 1960s onward the entire culture changed its perspective and although we now claim we want to conserve, we are consuming more and consuming it a faster and faster rates, despite greater efficiency in individual units.  We use many more cars for daily transport and run them many more miles per week.

 

Auto registration is this country has reached 101% of driving age individuals.  For comparison that figure is 68% in Canada .  In California , the land of reckless expansion and laughable environmental regulations, the figure is presently somewhere between 300% and 400% to licensed drivers.  Of course these California figures are partially skewed by a large number of illegal immigrants who drive cars without licenses, but multiple car ownership in California leads the nation by a long margin.  This is the state that forbade the use of fossil fuels in any state power plant, but then built six lane highways to every community. 

 

The decisions we make about how we use energy and resource consuming entities are our choices, not the fault of the producers of products.  Legislating or demanding that Detroit give us high mileage autos as if it was a panacea for our lifestyles is sophomoric foolishness in the larger picture.  Making the primary decisions about where and how we will live in relation to needs and obligations, and how we will travel within those circumstances makes much more sense than blaming the manufacturers for our own folly.

 

Jim Foster

215-438-4330