What do we do if cars become environmentally friendly?

[downfader]

A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.

So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits.

So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

For as long as we are on the planet, and pending any major fuel cell technology breakthroughs, and putting aside woeful range and the absence of speed of said vehicles, I suspect any 'eco-cars' available will simply outsource their pollution via the national grid to a fossil fuel burning power station. so not very eco at all really. so not really a problem the current generation of cycle campaigners/promoters will have to face.

would be a great problem to have though.

 

[Dan B]

What the PP said about outsourcing, but the major and immediate problem in our cities (at least, in London Zone 1&2 - I shouldn't really generalise outside my own experience) is congestion not pollution. I think most drivers would recognise that - although many apparently don't recognise their own part in it.

 

[JonnyBlade]

A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.

So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits.

So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?

Overtake them

 

[al78]

For as long as we are on the planet, and pending any major fuel cell technology breakthroughs, and putting aside woeful range and the absence of speed of said vehicles, I suspect any 'eco-cars' available will simply outsource their pollution via the national grid to a fossil fuel burning power station. so not very eco at all really. so not really a problem the current generation of cycle campaigners/promoters will have to face.

would be a great problem to have though.

It is much easier to control pollution when it is concentrated at a handful of power stations, instead of spread out over millions of individual vehicles.

It is also easier to phase out the dirty power stations and replace them with clean technologies than it is to find a clean replacement for petrol for an ICE.

 

[GrasB]

As al78 said. At this point even if power production is outsourced to fossil fuelled power plants your CO2 per kWh at the wheels is much lower from my understanding. My problem for electric cars is mainly range, my Alfa I can do 650 miles (I'd guess over 750 if you're willing to play fuel gauge bingo) on a tank at a 130km/h cruise. I'm also kinda worried about the load hauling ability of electric vehicles, something that again my Alfa can cope with really well.

 

[downfader]

As al78 said. At this point even if power production is outsourced to fossil fuelled power plants your CO2 per kWh at the wheels is much lower from my understanding. My problem for electric cars is mainly range, my Alfa I can do 650 miles (I'd guess over 750 if you're willing to play fuel gauge bingo) on a tank at a 130km/h cruise. I'm also kinda worried about the load hauling ability of electric vehicles, something that again my Alfa can cope with really well.

It looks like they might be using carbon nanotubes in some way for battery experiments. If it works out it could be many times more powerful and efficient than standard battery technologies. If they combine that with hydrogen fuel cell at the powerstation end it could lead to very effective eco-cars that rival petrochemical.

Its probably some way off, but will things like this prevent the "click" in the minds of people to see the benefit of a healthy activity?

Will employers take over and ration the available parking to their staff, I wonder? (Something my employer tried to do but it "spilt out" on to the streets around the premises.)

 

[byegad]

If cars were eco friendly then I for one would welcome them with open arms.

I'd still ride my bikes.

Why? For health, fun and the fact that you see so much more from a bike than in a car. In towns, as has been mentioned above, the problem is not just pollution, but congestion, and you can fit a lot of bikes into the space taken up by a few cars.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism.

If this is true (I don't know whether it is or not), then isn't that perhaps a problem with cycling campaigning? I don't think environmental sustainability impinges much on most people's decision-making regarding their own use of energy. As far as general energy use is concerned, perceived cost is a lot more important than environmental considerations.

For those people who do cycle, I suspect the primary motivations are around enjoyment of the activity itself, and personal health benefits. I know the main thing that keeps me cycling to work is the fact that I am now rather slim and fit compared to most blokes of my age, even though I can eat for England. I do like the fact that I'm saving on CO2 emissions, but that alone wouldn't be enough to keep me doing it.

I also think that the majority of current cycle commuters are the kind of people who feel good about not being part of the general herd. (I think the "club" cyclists may be different in that respect - more about being part of an identifiable group.) I also think this relates to environmental motives - we are probably, by our very nature, more likely to act on environmental concerns, even though our efforts are only a drop in the ocean, because that makes us different from most people. The rest of the community really don't think about that at all.

So, I really would question the wisdom of basing any cycling campaign on environmental sustainability. It would be much better to base it on personal benefits, and on creating an impression that cycling is somehow fashionable (which it isn't at the moment).

 

[BSRU]

Can a car designed for five adults but occupied by just one person ever be classed as environmentally friendly?

 

[Davidc]

The car, whatever its power source, is unsustainable as city and urban transport. There simply isn't enough space.

Similarly the car will go on killing our citizens at a rate of thousands a year, whatever the power source.

Cars will go on supporting a lack of fitness, an excess of body weight, and a loss of social interaction between people, no matter how eco friendly their propulsion.

When I see a picture of a city or town taken before the mass appearance of cars (in most cases that means pre 1920 ish in England) I wonder how we allowed these metal boxes and their infrastructure to destroy our urban environment. That's independent of the power source.

My view has been the same since I started to understand these things, before I was a teenager. I know I'm in a minority in not finding cars interesting, not finding them an object of desire, and only having one because someone did away with the railways I'd rather have used if they were still there.

Carbon emissions and particulates are only a part of the reason the motor car is second only to the nuclear bomb in the list of things I'd like to un-invent.

 

[BSRU]

We should always remember the car was originally seen as an god send in order to deal with the environmental disaster being caused by the tonnes of horse sh!t and dead horses clogging up the streets.

 

[Davidc]

We should always remember the car was originally seen as an god send in order to deal with the environmental disaster being caused by the tonnes of horse sh!t and dead horses clogging up the streets.

From what I've read the horses in big cities were required to have bags attached to catch their poo. There was then a trade in the stuff for use as manure. Dead horses had too high a cash value to be left lying around though.

I'm not against using motor vehicles for local load carrying, or for public transport. What clogs up the cities and has caused the severely damaging changes to the way we use them is the private car and the Car Is King philosophy that has come with it

I'm in favour of towns and cities having car parking priced to deter use, no on-street parking, massive taxes on private parking spaces, and a tow away and crush policy for illegally parked cars. Don't think it'll be a vote winner though, neither would a road toll scheme designed to deter car use. It's motorised private passenger transport that needs to go.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.

So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits.

So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?

If cars become eco-friendly then it simply means that cycling campaigners will have one less string to their bow.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It is much easier to control pollution when it is concentrated at a handful of power stations, instead of spread out over millions of individual vehicles.

It is also easier to phase out the dirty power stations and replace them with clean technologies than it is to find a clean replacement for petrol for an ICE.

How so, in both cases?