Five Hundred Million Cars, One Planet - Who's Going to Give?

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Michael Renner: Senior Researcher

August 8, 2003 - 2:00pm EDT

In 2002, the world's passenger car fleet hit 531 million. A quarter of these cars were in the United States, a country with just five percent of the world's population, and a long known love affair for the automobile. The average car in the US travels 10 percent more each year than a car in the United Kingdom, about 50 percent more than one in Germany, and almost 200 percent more than a car in Japan.†

And while Americans drive less fuel-efficient cars—the carbon emissions of U.S. automobiles are roughly equivalent to those of the entire Japanese economy - the fourth largest carbon emitter—efforts to raise mandated fuel efficiency standards in the U.S. are hitting constant road blocks.†

Join Vital Signs project director and Worldwatch Senior Researcher, Michael Renner to discuss the future of global vehicle production and consumption.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to this week's Worldwatch Live Online Discussion. Worldwatch Senior Researcher Michael Renner joins us today to discuss automobiles, and how they impact our planet. Welcome, Michael!

Michael Renner: Thanks, Steve! I see we have a good number of questions lined up already, so I'm eager to get going.

ACT AUSTRALIA: What is the future of the new small car for cities that is powered by compressed air. Is this a way forward although it does not deal with the congestion proble.

Michael Renner: A number of alternatives -- including smaller cars, "zero-emission" or low emission cars, more fuel efficient cars -- can help to make a difference. However, even clean and highly efficient vehicles will still clog the world's cities. We need to use land-use planning in order to reduce our systemic dependence on the automobile. If we can manage to reduce travel distances, then alternatives like public transit, biking, and walking become possible, and cities will become safer and more livable.

London, UK: More a comment really... I was surprised to see that US cars travel only 10% more distance than cars in the UK. One of the explanations for high US car use is spatial geography - a larger country with more sprawling development. I checked the UK figures: 23 million cars travelled 235 billion miles, making just over 10,000 miles per car. Your (excellent) bulletin puts the equivalent US figures for 2000 at 128 million cars travelling 2.3 trillion miles - almost 18,000 miles per car. A difference of 77% rather than 10% using the exact numbers. This would be more in line with instinctive expectation... I think it's important to isolate the various factors that lead the US to be a gas-guzzling monster: size, sprawl, modal preferences, vehicle efficiency, occupancy etc. {Incidentally, the difference is 10% if you neglect to convert the UK figures - given in billion kilometres - to miles, as used in your paper... is this another US imperial units bungle!?) None of this reason for any complacency in the UK - our prime minister has committed to a 60% CO2 reduction by 2050, yet traffic rose by 2.5% last year. Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_transstats_page.hcsp

Michael Renner: Thanks for your comment. The statistics are from the U.S. Highway Administration. I, too, was surprised that the US-UK differential was rather small, given the factors you rightly mention. But I have to disappoint you: I did convert to comparable units.
You are also right to say that there's no reason for complacency, really anywhere, as traffic volumes and associated impacts keep rising. Seems that London's mayor took an interesting step in imposing a congestion charge for drivers coming into inner-London.

exeter, uk: I train primary school teachers, and am writing a book for teachers about eco-literacy. What advice can one give to teachers of the young, about helping their children to actively resist the car culture?

Michael Renner: Let me comment from the only perspective I can offer, and that's my own personal experience: growing up (in Germany), my parents took me on frequent walks, both in town and in nearby woods, and instilled in me a sense that walking is one of the greatest things we humans can do. Helping children realize the many exciting things they can discover at their own proper speed (rather than racing past at motorized speeds)is key, I would think.

Sherbrooke (QuÈbec): Hi Michael, When I read: In 2000, Americans drove 128 million cars, traveling 2.3 trillion miles. They consumed 8.2 million barrels of fuel per day and emitted 302 million tons of carbon. People outside the United States use their cars less than Americans, I wonder how many total exhaust gas (in cubic feet at normal temperature and pressure conditions) 8.2 million barrels of fuel inject in the air we breathe. If this figure doesn't exist as such, can you suggest a way to get an estimate? Thanks

Michael Renner: I'm not sure there's an easy answer. The pollutants coming out of car tailpipes depend very much on what, if any, filters and other emissions control equipment is installed, how the engines are tuned, at what speed people drive, how fuel-(in)efficient cars are, and even engine temperature. Perhaps the best way to get at this kind of statistic is too look up national (or regional/local, to the extent available) air pollution data and to see what portion transportation accounts for.

Washington, DC: Under a typical property tax, owners who hoard boarded-up buildings and vacant lots pay relatively little tax. This encourages them to hold these sites out of use in expectation of future increases in value. Some cities are using a split-rate property tax, whereby the tax rate on building values is reduced while a compensating increase is made in the tax rate on land values. These cities have been successful in providing an economic incentive for the development of vacant lots and boarded up buildings. Does this technique for promoting infill and more compact development make sense to you as a way to promote walking, cycling, transit and other alternatives to auto use?

Michael Renner: This is not an area I have any particular expertise in. But, to the extent that this helps (re-)create more dense patterns of urban development, I'd say sure. Part of the story, of course, has to be that cities become not only more compact but also more attractive for people.

Lisboa: Michael, can you please send me some data about numbers of cars in the world, including data from europe and, of course, my country, Portugal.

Michael Renner: The total number of passenger cars worldwide is estimated at 531 million in 2002. Portugal has about 3 million. In terms of cars relative to population, that's actually a little less than the European average.

Morelia, Michoac·n, Mexico: Yes, production and consumption of automobiles is an important issue, but I think that the most important issue is the usage of these automobiles. Certainly it is nice to own a car, and it is not realistic to try to stop car consumption worldwide. Curitiba has this good mass transit system, yet it has also one of the highest rates on car ownership in Brazil. People have cars but they use the bus oo the bicycle to get to their jobs or schools. Therefore I think that the main issue in terms of policy is the restriction in car usage and the promotion of transit and non-motorised transportation

Michael Renner: You raise a good point here. Yes, Curitiba provides an interesting contrast. The same, in a sense, is true in Europe or Japan: there are very high rates of car ownership, but these cars are driven over considerably shorter distances than cars in North America or Australia. A big difference is whether people actually do have an alternative to car usage, and the answer is that they do in Curitiba, and in European and Japanese cities.

Car usage can be curtailed in a number of ways. London now has a congestion fee for anyone driving into central London. Other cities had pioneered this concept earlier. Another approach is to levy higher taxes on fuel, which is of course what European governments have done for many decades. If the revenues from such taxes are then applied to providing reliable public transport (as well as building bike paths, etc.), then a better mix of transport modes can be accomplished, and car reliance is at least somewhat diminished.

Hilo, Hawaii: At their present state of sprawled development, most American communities would not be able to abandon their automobile dependence. Even under the best case scenario, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, taxi service, and buses will be needed. What do you estimate is the minimum number of such vehicles needed per 10,000 people? Assuming all vehicles operated on plant-based fuels, how much land would a community of 10,000 need to power those vehicles? How should communities plan their development to minimize automobile dependence? What are common features of such communities?

Michael Renner: Good question, but I don't know the answer, to be honest with you. Let me add, however, that the point is not to completely abandon car use, but rather to bring it to a level that is more in tune with environmental needs and the goal of livable cities. I think that the main problem is individualized mass motorization. Buses, as a form of public transportation, or emergency vehicles, as a public service to the community, are a wholly different story, in my view.

What it comes down to is that communities are able to lessen their car dependency if distances (between home, work, schools, shopping, etc.) are limited. If distances are limited, communities will also be more vibrant, because spending less time in cars, people can (and must) interact more with one another. To accomplish these goals requires that we combat the kind of sprawling settlement patterns that have sprung up in too many places. None of this can be accomplished overnight, of course; it takes time, commitment, and patience.

sofia, bulgaria: was there any change in the driving habits of the US population after 9/11? e.g. there were calls to reduce SUV use in order to diminish US dependence on oil imports?

Michael Renner: Actually, the opposite happened. George Bush exhorted Americans to show their patriotism by going ahead and consuming even more. His administration has made moves to make it cheaper for people to buy the largest, more inefficient SUVs. He and his Congressional allies have prevented legislation to make U.S. cars more fuel-efficient.
It seems also that some people were spurred by 9/11 to buy one of the most grossly-inefficient vehicles, a “Hummer,” in an ostentatious display of in-your-face patriotism (interesting because the Hummer is a variant of the “Humvee” vehicle in use in the U.S. Army).

Sydney, NSW, Australia: What in your view are some of the key changes (institutional or other) needed to redirect transport in the future away from cars?

Michael Renner: There are a number of changes that will be needed. Making fuel prices more reflective of the enormous costs (environmental and other)is one (this will also help public transit compete on more of an even playing field). Stopping the endless expansion of highways and roads is another. (Particularly since such construction and maintenance is a huge subsidy tothe automobile system). I had mentioned better land-use planning in responding to earlier questions. But I also think that we need to de-glamorize the automobile. A look at any car advertisement shows that the industry is working hard to suggest -- sublimely or directly -- that if you buy their vehicles, you will gain identity, be a rugged individualist that stands out from the masses, acquire allure (sexual and otherwise, be able to conquer nature, etc. Countering the messages in ads is obviously not easy, and I assume it's a task that would fall more to community and activist groups than to government. In capitalist societies, "commercial speech" is all too often accorded the same status as political free speech.

Sydney, NSW, Australia: I like the comment about walking being a great pace to explore. It might also be a better pace to live! Walking buses are a great initiative to overcome the fear issues preventing some parents from having children walk to school. Active transport as habit from an early age is important for healthy living and I wonder Michael how important you think it is that we begin to better document the health benefits of active transport (including walking to the bus stop or train station)? Maybe these benefits (and avoided costs of health care) are the next convincing argument we should present to decision makers?

Michael Renner: Documenting and publicizing the health benefits is absolutely crucial. Not only from an overall environmental perspective, but also given the fact that ever-growing numbers of people--adults and children--are overweight or obese. Apart from poor nutritional choices, the lack of exercise, walking & other, is the clear culprit behind these alarming trends.

Hilo, Hawaii: What is the maximum number of automobiles that the world can sustain? In what forms (buses, delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.) would you allocate that number? Does the private ownership of automobiles, other than agricltural vehicles fit anywhere in your scenario?

Michael Renner: Given that carbon emission levels are far too high and that (car) transportation is responsible for a very large and rising share of these emissions, clearly there are already way too many automobiles on this planet. Consider also that in "developing" countries like China, there is intense interest in copying the Western model. I can't give you a maximum number (as that depends on a large number of factors), but the numbers now in existence, with the prevalent engine technology, is undoubtedly a multiple of what can possibly be sustained.

We also need to get past the dominant model ofprivate ownership. There are alternatives: not only is car rental a long -established business, but there are also growing numbers of ventures for car-sharing, particularly in Europe. This kind of approach makes it possible to still have car travel, but with a reduced level of impact. Perhaps more than anything else, we need to let our imaginative juices flow in order to come up with exciting and workable alternatives.

Sydney, NSW, Australia: Michael people love their cars, in fact they seem to aspire to bigger and better cars as part of increasing status, including as part of lucrative salary packages. How do we break this link and stop the car being a status symbol? Is higher quality public transport part of the solution?

Michael Renner: High quality transport is part of the solution. This and other alternatives need to be presented in every bit as excited a way as cars are advertised. City governments and others allow all too often that buses, trolleys, etc. are presented as dull, yesterday's form of transportation. Let creative minds come up with a good ad strategy for public transit for a change! But more important, let's make sure that what's on offer is reliable, affordable, and provides a convenient alternative to cars.

La Canada, CA: My long love affair with private automobiles has ended. I am intensely aware of lung cancer, not in people breathing fumes, but in the lungs of the planet, our rain forests. Man is obviously the agent of this cancer. Besides cutting back on auto emissions, do you see any hope for ending the vicious eating away of our planet's lung tissue?

Michael Renner: Automobiles are one of the largest sources of carbon emissions, and a growing one to boot. So I'd say that this is probably the most important challenge. (Not to imply we should work on alternatives in the utility industry, for example, replacing oil and coal-fired power plants with wind and solar).

Baltimore, MD: I'm unusual in my circle of friends in that I try not to drive my car on a daily basis. I purposely purchased a home within walking distance of many services and within a block of bus service to my work. However, in the Baltimore area, medium range homes in safe areas within walking distance of good services are still rare. But I still need to drive a bit on the weekends to get to my friends and events in Baltimore because they are not accessible. In your opinion, what will it take to wean us car dependency? My friends and colleagues say they probably wouldn't use public transportation even if it was more available here. It's just not "convenient" and has a bad rap.

Michael Renner: I think the last part of your question/comment is key. Too often, it's quite true that public transportation is not terribly convenient. Systems have not been maintained well, different lines do not have synchronized schedules, etc. In part this is a result of priority investments in the car system, and a self-fulfilling prophecy: the less convenient, the fewer people will ride buses and trains, the more service will have to be curtailed (because of insufficient demand and revenue, and so on. It's potentially a death spiral. We need to get toward creating a different cycle, but it will take investment, political commitment, and also some patience.

San Francisco, CA: Hi Michael, I've been reading about the great progress in some European cities such as Copenhagen and Freiburg toward being truly pedestrian-oriented cities. Copenhagen has actually reduced the amount of land for car parking and travel gradually over the last 30 years, and increased the pedestrian space. This shows that these changes can happen. Do you think there's any hope for something similar happening in the United States?

Michael Renner: Yes, there are a good number of encouraging real-life examples. In principle, what these cities have done can be replicated in the US as well, but: we need to combat urban sprawl, and we need to make car usage more expensive (actually, more reflective of the real costs incurred by heavy car reliance). Accomplishing that requires political will, and that, in turn, takes greater public awareness and pressure from the bottom up.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thank you for joning us today Michael, and thank you to all of our participant for submitting such thought provoking questions.

Michael Renner: Thank you, Steve, for moderating the chat, and a hearty thank you to all participants, for your great question and comments. It's very encouraging to see many people participating in the chat, particularly from all over the planet.