Electric cars have been marketed as the solution to the climate crisis. As the figurehead of the vision of a green future those with electric cars are no longer viewed as futuristic environmentalists but rather modern, practical and decent individuals. Although electric cars certainly have a role to play in the future of mobility, simply replacing combustion engines and petrol tanks with electric motors and lithium-ion batteries (or electric motors and hydrogen tanks), is not going to fix the climate crisis.

In reality, electric cars represent the idea of an environmental future where more energy can be consumed without destroying the planet so long as it comes from renewable sources. This view is far too simplistic and looks towards future solutions, which may or may not be realised, to solve issues we are facing today. This action is largely symbolic because whilst electric cars may eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in our cities (and may have significantly lower emissions over a given distance if the electricity used to charge the vehicle comes from sources such as solar, wind or hydroelectric power) when compared to combustion engine powered vehicles - even electric cars come with a huge environmental impact.

Although it depends on where you live, how your electricity is generated, what vehicle you would have bought if not an electric vehicle as well as on other variables, the lifecycle emissions of a battery electric vehicle may only be approximately a 60% reduction over combustion engines in relatively favourable markets. Whilst a 60% reduction in lifecycle emissions is a huge step in the right direction, there is still much more which needs to be done in order to mitigate the worst of climate change. As the lifecycle emissions of conventional cars are already so high, 40% of this is still incredibly damaging to the environment.

Additionally, concerns regarding the mining and processing of lithium (a key component in lithium-ion batteries which are currently the most commonly used type of battery in consumer devices and vehicles) will only be compounded as the demand for electric vehicles increases. These processes can lead to water loss, ground destabilisation, biodiversity loss, increased salinity of rivers, contaminated soil and toxic waste; often affecting underprivileged communities the most. Even if this is a cost which is believed to be better than that of the status quo, we must look towards better options which can be implemented on a larger scale.

When the urban-rural polarisation divide is analysed through an environmental lens there is only one clear winner. High density, urban housing uses less land per capital, is more energy efficient, requires less infrastructure maintenance per person and makes access to public goods such as green and recreational spaces, shops, parks, schools, restaurants and public transportation significantly easier. This results in a more environmentally friendly way of living and a cheaper cost of living. The white-picket fences, large gardens of ecologically barren grass and large, poorly insulated houses, wide roads and low density living encapsulated within the American dream is destroying our shared home.

The scale of urban change required demands the concept of a city to be rethought. The idea of the 15 minute city, a city in which all public needs as well as leisure spaces are provided for within 15 minutes of walking, biking, public transportation or other forms of low-carbon mobility. This is completely unachievable with the car-centric suburbia present in almost all of the USA as well as in far too many cities and towns across the world.

Cars spend most of their time parked in a garage, driveway or on the side of the road. This increases their lifecycle emissions per distance travelled and increases the already wasteful space which car-centric cities contain far too much of. Furthermore, the wear and tear caused by cars requires constant maintenance and thus results in an unnecessary, higher tax burden. Cities are much more sustainable and enjoyable places to live in when roads are pedestrianised and greenery is added. In these cases there is less greenhouse gas emissions, less NOx pollutants in the air, less noise pollution and more pedestrian spaces which are good for businesses. Furthermore, cars demand the vast majority of street space despite being an incredibly inefficient method of moving people from point A to point B. After all, almost all of a car’s energy is spent moving the heavy vehicle itself rather than relatively light passenger(s) and cargo.

Cities must be redesigned and new developments must be build to serve the needs of the local population in a sustainable, human and car-free way. This seems impossible but many pedestrianisation and bike-lane projects in car-centric cities have been incredibly successful. Of course, it is vital that the car does not disappear without an alternative and zoning laws which prohibit mixed use areas must be changed to achieve this goal. Further investment in public transportation options such as busses, trains and trams must be improved to the point where they are clean, safe, accessible and regular. However, the cost of implementing this is drastically higher in low-density areas built for cars and is therefore another reason that cities themselves, and not just transportation systems, must be redesigned.

Public transportation serving more densely populated, mixed use areas is vital to meet sustainability targets; or at the very least it is vital to mitigate the amount we exceed our sustainability targets. For shorter trips where public transportation may not be cost effective, bike lanes, bike garages and pedestrian spaces should be build to replace roads built for cars. Areas where public transportation and bike lanes fails to serve due to timetable limitations or distance to the nearest stop must be seen as a social failure. This is because the only practical alternative is to own a car - and cars should never be the only transport option.

If public transportation and cycling or pedestrian spaces serves most needs, most of the time in a fairly accessible location this may be enough to serve as a tipping point to convince an individual that the upfront costs, price of insurance, cost of maintenance, cost of petrol as well as the environmental impacts are simply not worth owning a car which they rarely need to use. For the few cases where a car is needed, ride hailing and car sharing is much more appropriate. This decreases the overall space needed for cars whilst allowing for the flexibility which cars provide when needed, at a lower personal, social and environmental cost as these are spread out across more users and results in a higher rate of utilisation.

It is clear that electric-cars are not as environmentally friendly as they may seem at first. Furthermore, they are part of a system of fundamentally poorly designed urban spaces which are wasteful in their resource use and are hostile to a more convenient way of living within 15 minute cities. Urban spaces must be redesigned around dense, mixed-use zoning with pedestrian and cycling spaces as well as public transportation. Although fixing cities will not fix the environmental catastrophe which we currently face, and further regulation and individual action must be taken to mitigate the impacts across all areas of consumption, the redesigning of urban spaces can have a significant impact on the physical environment and simply the desire to live with more freedom within nicer neighbourhoods.