Electric Cars Will Slow Down Long-Term Environmental Progress
This article is the second of two looking at the relationship between cars and urban planning. The first article focuses on the impact of the urban landscape on car dependency, and this second article looks at how the rise of electric vehicles may slow down a transition to sustainable urban planning. You can stay updated with the latest articles by subscribing to receive news and updates at the bottom of the page.
When thinking about the actions necessary to limit the disastrous effects of climate change, few things come to mind before electric cars. Increasingly, people are becoming aware that whilst the electrification of cars has a role to play in decarbonisation, it is not the messiah that the automotive industry claims it is. Whilst replacing a combustion engine vehicle with an electric one is almost always positive, it is usually only marginally beneficial due to the intense resource requirements necessary to build an electric car and the fact that the electricity used to charge a vehicle may not be from renewable sources. Whilst these issues can be marginally improved, private car ownership has significant negative impacts, which cannot be reduced through electrification.
On-street vehicle charging - an ineffective use of space which makes cities less compact.
These impacts are often related to matters of space. Cars take up huge amounts of urban space through roads and various forms of parking. Car (over)use is a result of poor urban planning decisions, lack of density and lack of more convenient alternatives but can also help to reinforce future poor planning decisions. A car-centric urban area may result in most people using cars, and thus politicians justifying further car-centric design. This only reinforced the status quo of low-density developments, which have reduced accessibility due to: physically unsafe roads for pedestrians and cyclists, financial barriers to purchasing and maintaining cars, barriers to the young, elderly and disabled operating cars, and has negatively impacted the viability of more equitable forms of active and public transportation. Electric cars demand equal, if not greater, amounts of land due to their ever-increasing size to accommodate larger batteries. Furthermore, on-street charging facilities increase inefficient land use and thus further reduce density, accessibility and the opportunity to build pleasant and productive public spaces.
Within sustainability science, the ‘three horizons framework’ explains different pathways that can result from crises. Horizon one (H1) consists of developments which maintain the status quo. Horizon 2 (H2) consists of disruptive developments which identify opportunities for what is possible, and Horizon 3 (H3) consists of transformative developments which fundamentally change the current system's structure towards something more sustainable.
Those who argue that electric vehicles are a H3 technology focus too narrowly on the tailpipe emissions as the sole objective of a transportation revolution. Ultimately, if given the option between combustion vehicles or electric vehicles, the latter is almost always the more sustainable option. However, the goal should be a system shift from car dependency towards active and public forms of transportation. This allows for much more efficient, people-friendly cities without car dependency. Electric car dependency is still car dependency…
A typical car dependent suburb - an environmental and social disaster which vehicle electrification may prolong.
Even though car dependency is primarily a result of poor urban planning, there is no denying that the electrification of vehicles allows individuals to remove the moral guilt associated with combustion engine vehicles. By focusing on tailpipe emissions and marketing electric vehicles as environmentally friendly, electric car companies have convinced individuals that car dependency is okay, so long as the vehicles are not (directly) powered by fossil fuels. This clever marketing affords individuals the luxury of avoiding confrontation with a more holistic view of the impacts of car dependency. This is a view which paints car ownership as negative. Thus, as electric vehicles are marketed as a disruptive technology (H3) but actually reinforce the status quo (H1) and hinder the environmental reforms that are needed, they should not be seen as a major force for positive change.
After all, electric cars are here to save the car industry, not the planet. Electric car dependency is better than combustion engine dependency. However, it is a false dichotomy to suggest there is no alternative. One should promote electric cars over combustion engine vehicles, but not allow electrification to hinder progress towards better cities where cars are not needed. A green transportation revolution is coming, but this will not be powered by cars - it will be powered by trains, buses and people.
If you liked this article, you might enjoy the following articles about transportation:
Flying is just one of many examples of excesses from which the wealthy benefit at the expense of the most vulnerable. Fortunately, travelling doesn’t need to be put on hold until green aviation comes along. Given the acute need to tackle the climate crisis, and the ability to increase rail capacity using existing technologies and adding to existing infrastructure, train travel requires greater investment and support. Until then, and even in geographies where there are no sustainable travel options, flying must remain a luxury we forgo if we are serious about doing our part to tackle the climate crisis.