The US has in the past shown great moral strength, courage and sacrifice to respond to global crises but no so with the imminent threat of global climate change.

Yet, in order to accelerate global efforts to protect the environment, the US must not only be held to a higher environmental standard than the rest of the world, it must also show greater commitment to a coordinated worldly response.

The statistics speak for themselves - the US produces a total of 5,410 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, almost a quarter of the global emissions, according to researchers. This makes the US the world’s leading polluter, making it imperative to hold the country to a higher environmental standard.

The impact of US emissions go far beyond its borders, changing climatic patterns in many parts of the world, and disrupting people’s lives.

The apparent lack of US enthusiasm to make the world greener is in a word detrimental to the agenda of protecting the global environment.

Since the Kyoto treaty was established in 1997 to collaborate a global response to environmental destruction, in particular global warming, the US government has dilly-dallied and exhibited a consistent reluctance to ratify the agreement thereby dealing a body blow to the global campaign to protect the environment.

Incumbent US President George W. Bush has insisted that making global commitments to climate change would harm his country’s economic prospects. Since President Bush entered the White House, his administration has muzzled the country’s responsibility to significantly contribute to environmental solutions, including pulling the US out of the Kyoto climate change agreement.

“The United States performance indicates that the next administration must not ignore the ecosystem impacts of environmental as well as agricultural, energy and water management policies,” said Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at the launch of the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).

“The EPI’s climate change metrics ranking the United States alongside India and China near the bottom of the world’s table are a national disgrace.”

The fact of the matter is that, in order to produce a real global outcome on climate change, the US must step out of its shell of self-interest and show leadership as the world’s greatest power through ratifying and implementing international global climate agreements.

Though the US cites protecting its economy as the reason for its reluctance to make a global commitment, the long term impact of little action against climate change will undoubtedly unravel current, short-term concerns.

If the US can commit to higher environmental standards - mainly because it is the main polluter anyway, it will significantly make it easier for the world to engage other major polluters such as China and India in the global climate response.

China and India, like many developing nations accuse the US and other developed nations of having done damage to the environment for longer periods to time. Unlike the US however, many of the developing nations have approved international climate agreements, a critical first step in addressing the problem.

However, developing nations lack the werewithal to produce the requisite greneer techonlogies as well as the political and economic might to influence a global response.

On the contrary, the US has all this in abundance but seriously lacks the moral aptitude because of its stance on the global climate agreement.

With its financial and technological might, the US is well-positioned to build a low-emissions environment, and therefore set an example to the rest of the world.

It is a paradoxic sham that the US assumes a claim to higher moral standards in protecting democracy worldwide yet refuses due to self-interest to commit to global agreements against what scientists have described as the “greatest threat facing humanity” in our time.

The proposition that the US can go it alone is hurtful to global efforts because it makes other countries, chiefly China, to engage in finger pointing without addressing the problem.

As the world’s leading power, the US needs to show farsighted leadership in efforts to respond to threats posed by climate change.

“By committing to higher environmental standards, the US can make it a priority to develop and prove the effectiveness of alternative forms of energy, and use this as a basis to lobby and mobilize less-developed nations,” states US in the World, an initiative to get Americans involved in worldly matters.

“By acting first, the U.S. and other rich countries that are most responsible for global warming - because they burn the most oil, gas, and coal - can set a powerful example for others to follow. By committing themselves to developing alternative energy sources, technologically advanced countries like the United States can create new jobs and industries at home while jump-starting the international effort to slow global warming and influencing the energy choices of less advanced countries that are on the brink of making big new energy investments,” adds US in the World.

Given that the US is world’s super-power, it needs to lead by example, and rally the world toward a better management of the environment.

The US Climate Change Science Program is a US governmental body set up to coordinate, not surprisingly, climate change research. The program has subsequently brought together 38 scientists from government, academia and conservation groups, and has spent the past 2 years reviewing available data in an attempt to pinpoint the effects of climate change on the US.

Their conclusion is that the US is not adequately prepared to measure the changes as they are occurring, and subsequently land managers are having a harder time mounting a reasonable and effective response.

“The fact is, we’re seeing lots of effects and impacts right now. These effects appear to be happening faster than expected, and the magnitude is bigger than expected. That’s a surprise,” says Anthony Janetos, an ecologist who directs the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, and one of the lead authors on the report.

Much has been made over the past six to twelve months about the early arrival of the spring growing season, timing of bird migrations, and the warmer conditions resulting in many plants and animals moving northward. In addition, with climate change altering precipitation patterns, much of the eastern US has become wetter, while the west has had the opposite effect.

According to Janetos, the main problem is that scientists gather ecological information from left right and center. For example, data on forest growth, weather patterns, and changing land use all come from different sources. This makes it increasingly difficult for biologists and land managers to identify the most critical of problems, and whether any of their efforts towards change are even working.

According to Janetos, “we need [integrated ecological monitoring systems] as soon as possible.”

Source

credit: woodleywonderworks at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

In Europe, not so much…

Brazil, which has to a large degree lead the ethanol charge because of its ability to use sugar cane for ethanol production rather than corn, now relies on the biofuel for 16% of its energy needs. This puts ethanol at #2 in Brazil for largest energy sources, right ahead of hydroelectric, which accounts for 14.7% of electricity production. Both of these sources, however, are behind petroleum, which is the largest energy producer in Brazil.

In the US, on the other hand, ethanol still does not play such a prominent role, even though 23.7% of the annual corn crop is going to create biofuels. The market share that ethanol commands in the US will likely only increase, especially as new technologies allow for the production of cellulosic ethanol and sources other than corn come into vogue.

Even though ethanol seems to be one of the waves of the future, this year production was actually down in Europe, even though that loss in production was made up for by imports from ethanol-rich Brazil. Globally, ethanol only contributed 1.3% to oil consumption in 2007, but that share does appear to be rising rapidly, especially as US politicians push ethanol subsidies and Brazil continues to ramp up production in order to satisfy world demand.

Posts Related to Ethanol and the Food vs. Fuel Debate:

• USDA Says Ethanol Accounts for Only 3% of Increased Cost of Food
• “Perfect Storm” Inflating Food Prices Worldwide
• Biodiesel Myth (Or Fact?) #23: Biodiesel is Raising Food Prices
• Europe’s EPA Advises Suspending Biofuel Targets
• 2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline

Source: agra

Image credit: Jeffrey Beall under Creative Commons

This morning on NPR, President Bush tried to blame congress for the nation’s high gas, food, and electricity prices. Apparently, Congress has been thwarting the President’s attempts to fix the economy:

“I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,” the president said. “Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them.”

The President proposed dealing with high gas prices by “environmentally safe” drilling the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR.

“It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery, yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries,” Bush said.

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Of course, we wouldn’t reach 876,000 barrels of oil per day until production peaked in 2025, assuming the oil started flowing by 2013. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration back in 2004 (that’s where these numbers come from), peak oil production in ANWR “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel.”

Even if the analysis was spot-on about the price of oil (only $100 dollars off), would 30 to 50 cents make a difference? The analysis went on to say that OPEC (being OPEC) would probably “countermand” any change in price by reducing an equivalent amount of oil exports.

So how is it going to help the average American to drill in ANWR? It probably wouldn’t. With oil at $120 a barrel and rising steadily, the only thing that’s clear is how lucrative the proposal would be for oil companies.

Bush also mentioned lifting federal gas and diesel taxes (18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively) over the summer, another move that would make a huge difference in long term energy security. I think Barack Obama is right about this one: it’s a “gimmick that won’t provide any significant relief to motorists.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

How about raising petroleum taxes and investing in renewable energy infrastructure? How about setting up a tax on carbon emissions like British Columbia just did? Anything but continuing to invest so heavily in a resource that’s on its way out.

It’s time to start looking for real solutions, and gracefully acquiescing that it’s the end of an era.

To hear Bush’s speech, listen to the NPR show from this morning. Have a comment on this topic? Share it below.

The speech was widely covered here on Green Options and in the general media, with many feeling that this was a case of too little, too late.

Of course, this was not particularly surprising, and few people were gearing themselves up for the potential announcement of a dramatic change in policy. But what has been interesting is the unprecedented criticism from world leaders disappointed with the lack of US commitment:

Germany were particularly critical, German Environment Minister being quoted saying: “[Bush is] lagging hopelessly behind the problems with his proposals … [his speech] does not do justice to the global challenge. His speech follows the motto: ‘losership instead of leadership,’ … We are glad that there are other voices in the U.S.A.”

U.N. Secretary Yvo De Boer was a little more measured: “It’s not clear how the Bush plan would fit in with the goals set out by scientists … But for now, it’s good there is a proposal on the table from the U.S. Let’s see where this goes.”

European Union president Stavros Dimas warned that the proposals “will not contribute to the fight against climate change. Time is running out and we have the duty to reach an agreement in Copenhagen in 2009″. Meanwhile, a spokesperson from the EU environment commission added: “This does not match with the level of ambition needed on the part of developed countries, considering their responsibilities in the challenge we face “

From further afield, South African Environment and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk flatly refused to accept the US proposals: “There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the US is proposing”, describing the Bush Administration as “isolated” on this issue.

Finally, Se Wei, Chinese delegate at the Paris Climate talks described the proposal as simply “not enough”.

Meanwhile, emissions continue to rise..

Photo courtesy of Flickr. With thanks to ClimateIntel.

However, thankfully for those coastal cities on the Atlantic, the number of storms making landfall will stick close to the average.

Dr. Lian Xie is professor of marine, earth and atmospheric science at NC State, and along with graduate student Elinor Keith, the pair have predicted how the 2008 storm season will fall. Their results show that there is a possibility of 13 to 15 named storms forming in the Atlantic Basin (which includes the entire Atlantic Ocean, along with the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea).

Of those storms though, only 6 or 8 may grow strong enough to be called hurricanes.

Geographically, the southeastern US coast could see 1 or 2 named storms make landfall, with a better than 50% chance that one of these storms will be a hurricane. The Gulf of Mexico – affecting those areas west of Miami, along the Mexican coast and south in to the Caribbean – is anticipated to see the most activity this year, with an indicated 2 – 4 storms, including one hurricane, likely to make landfall along the Gulf Coast.

Xie predictions come from an evaluation of data from the last 100 years of Atlantic Ocean hurricane positions and intensity. In addition, other variables including weather patterns and sea surface temperatures are used to predict how many storms will form and where they will make landfall.

Running between the first of June through to the end of November the Atlantic hurricane season has oft been the center of global warming proponents, pointing to a supposed increase in hurricanes as a result of warming sea temperatures. The debate is still out.

Photo Courtesy of Luke Plunkett @ Kotaku.com

There isn’t a body count for wildlife, native plants, or eco-systems that have been killed in the struggle.

War takes a priceless toll on everything natural. Yet, nature may be the last thing that nations go to war over.

How long before we decide to protect the environment through force?

Can we go to war over the environment and still save it?

This may seem far fetched, but the possibility of an environmental war is already being discussed in the U.N.

“Ecological security must no longer be considered a luxury but rather an inextricable element of a durable peace policy,” states Klaus Topfer. He calls for international guarantees for protecting the environment similar to the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of prisoners and civilian populations in war. For ecological damage poses a threat greater than bombs to populations distressed by hunger, thirst, and disease.

If ecological damage is classified as such a great threat, could wars be declared to save the Amazon rain forest or Mediterranean fish populations?

Dr. Klaus Topfer, head of the U.N. environment program thinks that war is very likely. Perhaps not for the Spotted Owl. But as populations grow, natural resources are going to become more and more scarce. As nation’s need, war will likely occur.

Currently one quarter of the world’s population does not have access to clean water. If trends continue, Pakistan and China, both will be struggling to hydrate their populations. And a scary thing is they possess nuclear weapons. If push comes to shove for H2O, what would their options be?

To prevent this, we have to move away from our unsustainable systems. We need to use agencies like the U.N. to moderate, educate, and propagate nations towards an environmentally sustainable future. Not just for the birds and trees, but for our own survival.

We need to make our peace with green now.

A theoretical US policy to cut carbon emissions by up to 40% over a 20 year period could still result in increased economic growth; this, according to an interactive website created by the Yale School of Foresty and Environmental Studies.

The website reviews 25 of the leading economic models used to predict economic impacts of reducing emissions, and identifies the seven key assumptions account for most of the major differences in the model predictions.

“As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong — and you can find out for yourself,” said Robert Repetto, professor in the practice of economics and sustainable development at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

The interactive website allows visitors to define the truth of one of the seven statements, and then view the prediction of the models.

“The website shows that even under the most unfavorable assumptions regarding costs, the U.S. economy is predicted to continue growing robustly as carbon emissions are reduced,” said Repetto. “Under favorable assumptions, the economy would grow more rapidly if emissions are reduced through national policy measures than if they are allowed to increase as in the past.”

To check out the website click here, and proceed to the calculator via the link at the bottom.

George W. Bush has definitely been a polarizing personality in his two terms as leader of the United States of America. From the beginning and his War on Iraq he has seemingly attempted to paint himself as nothing more than a moronic menace. Of late, Bush has turned his sights on becoming the world’s greatest environmental foe.

Some may call my words harsh. Others will praise them. They are however, nothing more than my personal opinion about him.

However his actions against the environment are both unquestionable and unconscionable.

A recent Reuters article stated that ‘In cases this week dealing with polar bears, ozone smog and environmental research, groups that monitor these decisions faulted the Bush administration for slighting science in favor of politics.’ I feel that, in looking at the past few months, this statement fails to explain just how Bush has thrown his weight around.

On Wednesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards of 75 parts per million. This was down from the previous limit which set it at 80 parts per million, but was still well above limits proposed not only by environmental and advocacy groups, but the members of the EPA itself.

Senator Hillary Clinton said in a statement on her website that “President Bush opened a new front in his administration’s war on science this week. His personal intervention to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s new limits on ozone proves that he has abandoned even a pretense of scientific integrity in decision-making. His efforts are directly at odds not only with accepted science, but with his government’s own arguments before the United States Supreme Court.”

“This is only the latest in a long series of examples where the Bush administration’s perversion of science helps special interests at the expense of public health — though it is certainly one of the more brazen. I will work with Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer to investigate the President’s decision and to hold him accountable,” she added.

In response to criticism and by way of explanation, White House spokesman Tony Fratto explained that “What we were trying to do on the smog decision was try to have a decision that was consistent with our interpretation of the statute. This was not a weakening of regulations or standards governing ozone, but it was an effort to make those standards consistent.”

However many groups believe that these new regulations are built around coal-fired power plants and other industries that emit ground-level ozone.

“This is a pattern unfortunately that extends across the Environmental Protection Agency, across pretty much every science based agency in the federal government,” said Tim Donaghy of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I’ll hold it there for the moment, and come to the polar bears soon. Needless to say, if we continue to see behavior like this from Bush, or even from other world leaders, we’re screwed.

Photo Courtesy of rkimpeljr via Flickr

Country and Price per US gallon:

Norway $ 8.67
Netherlands $ 8.52
Belgium $ 8.36
Germany $ 8.06
United Kingdom $ 7.91
Italy $ 7.68
France $ 7.46
Spain $ 7.34
Poland $ 6.55
Japan $ 5.19
Brazil** $ 4.14
United States $ 3.10
Russia $ 3.03
Kazakhstan $ 2.73
Mexico* $ 2.46
China $ 2.27
Nigeria $ 2.23
Saudi Arabia $ 0.45
Iran $ 0.42
Venezuela* $ 0.11

* All prices from November 2007, except Mexico and Venezuela in August 2007
** Brazil is 25% ethanol, so price adjusted downward to be comparable

What I would like to see next is a comparison of public transportation, renewable energy policy, and vehicle efficiency pasted alongside this chart. Think there would be any obvious correlations?

via DieselGeek

Photo Credit

An economic analysis released February 25th shows major gains for the U.S. job market and GDP from 2007’s ethanol industry boom (emphasis added):

The analysis, conducted by John Urbanchuk of LECG, LLC, determined that the increase in economic activity resulting from ongoing production and construction of new capacity supported the creation of 238,541 jobs in all sectors of the economy during 2007. These include more than 46,000 jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The goods and services required to produce the estimated 6.5 billion gallons in 2007 added $47.6 billion to the Gross Domestic Product and raised household incomes by $12.3 billion.

While the gains themselves aren’t all that surprising, they may turn the conventional wisdom that “ethanol subsidies are bad” on its head since increased tax revenue actually paid them off:

The resulting economic activity from the domestic production of ethanol also paid dividends in the form of lower government expenditures and higher tax revenues. In 2007, the tax incentives provided for the production and use of ethanol totaled $3.4 billion. However, the increased tax revenue collected by the Federal Treasury totaled $4.6 billion. Moreover, state and local governments saw tax revenues increase by $3.6 billion.

Here’s to an industry that can’t be outsourced, and it points to a bright future for the renewable fuels industry in the United States. Subsidies arent always just hand-outs — they can be good investments, too. And as we’ve seen lately, new non-food based ethanol and biodiesel technologies may be ready for prime-time soon.

Related Posts:
Europe Faces Biodiesel Feedstock Crunch; Subsidies Play A Role
Popular Mechanics: Ethanol Subsidy Bill Bad News

World-Grain.com (Feb. 25, 2008): Analysis: Ethanol industry was economic bright spot in 2007
See the full report here.

Photo Credit

Today though, the British Times Online is reporting that the American government is to add the polar bear to its list of endangered species.

The US Interior Department has made an announcement saying that the decision to put polar bears on the list will come “sooner rather than later.”

As mentioned above, conservationists have linked the delay in protecting the bears to oil and gas exploration hopes in the Alaskan region. Chris Tollefson, speaking for the US government, said that the timing between the two events – protecting the bears and plans to sell off exploration rights – were simply coincidental. “They have moved on parallel tracks, but both driven by the complexity of the science involved,” he said.

Andrew Wetzler, of the US National Resources Defense Council, said that it would be a rare acknowledgement of damage caused by global warming from the White House.

However, there are still “reservations,” according to Tollefson, referring to Alaska’s Republican governor, Sarah Palin, who says polar bears could still be protected while still expanding the oil business. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

Photo Courtesy of mape_s via Flickr

In the U.S., every state in the Union — from California’s legal hassles with the feds over its greenhouse gas emissions standards to Georgia’s water struggles — faces its own unique environmental challenges and opportunities. The challenges, in particular, seem to be growing daily.

And that’s where EcoLocalizer comes in. Our goal is to provide you — both readers in the U.S. and readers elsewhere who are interested in state-side concerns — with highly local news and commentary about environmental issues from Hawaii to Maine. It’s not even necessarily stuff that attracts traditional media attention, but it’s serious for the people who live there, which is why we cover it.

As these facts show, affordable options are available. And America cannot afford to fall behind any more in the race to invent clean, renewable energy sources.

45%

Increase in world’s solar generating capacity in 2005.

2

Rank of China as global producer of solar cells, behind Japan (U.S. ranks 4th).

$1.5 billion

Amount U.S. government spends a year on renewable energy research.

$1 billion

ExxonMobil’s daily revenue.

$2 billion

Amount GE Energy Financial Services invested in wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy in 2007.

$200 billion

Amount China has committed to invest in renewable energy sources over the next 15 years.

0.74%

Projected cost of smart cap-and-trade climate policy on U.S. economic output in 2030.

100%

Projected growth of the U.S. economy by 2030.

53

Number of senators supporting cap-and-trade legislation.

0

Number of bills passed by Congress to cap and reduce America’s global warming pollution.

Sources: World Watch Institute, Earth Policy Institute, Department of Energy, CNN, GE Energy Financial Services, Reuters, and upcoming Environmental Defense report: Climate Policy and the U.S. Economy, 2008

Learn more at Environmental Defense.

Does someone really need to point out that, if we continue down the road we are on, their views will be spoilt regardless?

A report by the Minerals Management Service in the US gave preliminary environmental approval to a proposed wind-farm off Cape Cod. Plans by developer Cape Wind Associates describe a wind-farm encompassing 25 miles of federal waters in Nantucket Sound, with 130 windmills generating power for thousands of households.

The findings showed that the plans would pose no significant threat to the environment, despite claims to the contrary by locals and politicians.

Public comment is now requested by the agency that will make the final decision for the project, probably later this year. Public hearings will be held in March in West Yarmouth, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard and Boston.

A successful acceptance of this proposal would allow for America’s first offshore wind-farm to be constructed. With turbines rising up to 440 feet above sea level (when the tallest blades are at their peak), this project is nothing but controversial though.

“The draft environmental impact statement is a crucial step forward in completing our review of the Cape Wind Energy Project,” said Minerals Management Service director Randall Luthi in a statement.

And there is a lot of support behind this project, with calls from the Conservation Law Foundation pointing out the benefits of such a renewable source of energy. “Cape Wind is one of the nation’s most promising clean energy projects,” said foundation president Philip Warburg in a statement. “When built, its 130 turbines will deliver clean energy to thousands of households, making an immediate impact in the region’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and end our dependency on dirty fossil fuels.”

According to the AP article, “Opponents fear possible environmental and economic effects on Cape Cod’s tourist and fishing industries.” It goes on to say that the project has drawn criticism from other avenues, including “…commercial fishermen, cruise lines, wildlife advocates and Cape Cod representatives.”

However, one cannot really expect a community of people, in this day and age, to actually know what it is that they are talking about when they make such claims. A society that is slowly sliding further and further in to environmental degradation cannot all of a sudden become experts in what the environmental effects of a wind-farm would be.

Regardless, according to Cape Cod congressman and opponent of the plans, Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., no matter what the decision made later this year, the project will likely get tied up in litigation.

Ladies and Gentlemen; our society in spotlight.

AP via MSNBC - Controversial offshore wind farm clears hurdle

Photo Courtesy of Morten Mitchell Larød via Flickr

Most of us never question our decision to buy and drive cars because we identify cars with our culture. “Driving is what people do.” That’s been the unspoken motto of the last handful of generations and it’s the lesson we’re teaching our children. Handing over the keys to the car is our society’s rite of passage. We send our youth out onto roadways with thousands of other vehicles, each thundering around at up to 80 mile/hr (130 km/hr) and weighing as much as 40 tons (36,000 kg). Unlike most other dangerous rights of passage around the world, ours is visited upon children of both sexes. Those who make it home at the end of each day face the challenge of paying to own their vehicle — a life-long financial burden that averages between $250,000 and $360,000 per person, according to Motor Trend magazine.

Last night, I got behind the wheel of a car for the first time in a long time. I’ve never owned a car, and being in one usually makes me feel about as secure and comfortable as a vegan in a steak house — but not last night. There was the rush of independence in the autumn evening and a flood of old driving memories: going over the Golden Gate bridge, sneaking out at night from my parent’s house to court an old girlfriend, rolling through the countryside in a Mustang convertible, and making late night drives to the city with friends. I felt connected to a culture that I’ve tried so hard to eschew: the gas-guzzling, oil-pumping culture that stretches far and wide across freeway-laced landscapes.

After a long absence, I was again in touch with this culture — the auto-loving tribe of the developed world. I felt an affinity for all of these people in cars. They were people just like me: riding in their metal boxes, clogging freeways and roadways with red tail lights, like blood in the veins of some gigantic algal life form strapped to the land.

I feel good in the driver’s seat, and then I take a wrong turn. That damn truck won’t let me back into the lane. Somewhere inside me, the red arrow on my stress gauge crawls up a notch. I pull into a parking lot so that I could turn around, still thinking more or less benevolent thoughts. But now who does this guy in front of me think he is? Could he walk any slower? I’m in a stick shift, so to go any slower I’d have to come to a complete stop and switch into first gear. Finally, I have enough room to drive by, but I no longer feel goodwill toward all men and women.

I pull out into the road again, my left blinker flitting nervously across four lanes of traffic in the night. In the time it takes to cross the lanes, a bicyclist has pedaled his way up the hill and is waiting at the stop light in the right lane. He looks like a nice man: middle-aged with reflective gear galore, bicycle bags or “panniers,” and a helmet with a small blinking red light. I feel a sense of camaraderie with him. This is my culture; these are my people. Why is that car behind him crowding him like that? Doesn’t that driver know that bicyclists have all the rights of the road that drivers do and that they operate like any other vehicle on the road? My blood pressure skips another small step higher.

When the panoptic red light changes moods and casts an authoritative green glow, I part ways with the bicyclist and make another left turn past an audience of cars and headlights. Quick, better get in the right hand lane. I crane my head over my shoulder, gazing backwards as my vehicle charges forward. Now I have to slow down right away; it’s a sharp turn into the parking lot. I hope no one gets irritated with me that they have to slow down and wait for me to turn. Oh well, screw them if they do, I decide. I arrive at the supermarket, which is air-conditioned even at night, and grab my groceries.

Late night shoppers trickle through check-out lines, and back out into the comfort of their personal pieces of steel. I do, too. I pull out of the parking spot and turn my tires toward home. But now I’m in a right turn only lane and I want to turn left. Damn. If I were on foot, I wouldn’t have to obey these strictures that limit the directions we can travel.

In order to turn left, I pull out to the right and then take a left into a gas station to get turned around. A brief glance down at my gas gauge tells me the car needs fuel. Better buy some gas while I’m here. I pull up to aisle 5. The sweet, noxious smell of gas stations fills my nostrils. And now I’m that guy at the pump, directing the thick rubber hose to the open gas tank, filling my vehicle with foreign, environmentally destructive oil. Did I feel like a bad person, knowing that the slick, expensive liquid that flowed unseen into the car’s bowels was about to be released as air pollution into the atmosphere when I turned the key? No, not really. I was just another guy at the gas station pump. But I also wished there was another way.

Back when autos were nothing more than extravagant play toys for the super rich, Henry Ford developed a way to mass-produce them with cheap, streamlined labor. Cars caught on big, and in less than fifty years, they had become entwined in our popular ideologies. In just a scant few generations, marketers and auto companies have made us believe that we need cars by confusing them with our notions of happiness, success, attractiveness, family, prosperity, and even our sense self-identification. People everywhere feel connected to their cars, thanks to successful advertising. More importantly, they feel that driving a car is what they should do in their culture. That’s the really interesting thing. That’s why it’s so hard to get people to change their habits when it comes to transportation.

Great. Thanks, automakers. Thanks for the tax burden of building and maintaining millions of square miles of roadways, bridges, and parking lots. Thanks for increased exposure to air pollution, which causes asthma and other lung and heart conditions. Thanks for making it impossible to walk from point A to point B if there’s a freeway cutting through the middle. Thanks for the sedentary, high-stress lifestyle. Thanks for the climate-changing gases, the fact that oil is an incentive for war, and for the 45,000 Americans and the 955,000 other people worldwide killed yearly in car crashes. Thanks a lot for creating roadways through nature’s gems, such as Seattle’s Washington Park, which would rival Monet’s gardens if it weren’t for I-520. Yeah, thanks a lot. Mission accomplished.

For the sake of our vehicles, we tear through towns, forests, and plains to build super-structures of steel and cement where our autos can range. We overthrow foreign countries and topple governments in a frenetic bid to fill our engines for as little pocket money as possible. The entire Earth’s weather patterns are pushing new, less habitable extremes because of the gas belched out of the tailpipes of our personal transportation vehicles. Despite all this, as well as hundreds of thousands of road deaths a year, getting rid of our cars and trucks and shutting down the auto manufacturing industry is unthinkable.

These days, taking the bus, riding a bike, or even walking can make a person feel marginalized in small towns where every form of transportation has lost its place to single person motor vehicles. We see this message repeated in popular media as well: the socially awkward 40-Year Old Virgin on his bicycle is pitted against a sexy alpha male like James Bond, operating fast internal combustion engines on four wheels. And they’re not even driving cars with decent gas mileage. What’s so sexy about paying more for gas?

You can offer all the good evidence you want to show people that by not owning a car, they will be healthier, richer, more productive, and easier on the environment that we all share. Still, you’ll be talking to a wall as long as we have the common notion that driving is culturally what people do. Denounce driving and too often people feel as though you’re denouncing them and their entire culture. There’s a great scene in the film I Heart Huckabees where the father of an ultra-conservative family reviles one of the film’s protagonists as a socialist, a communist and anti-Christian for his stance against using oil and driving cars. The father felt — as many people do — that being against driving was analogous to being against the cultural institutions that he was a part of. It’s a sticky situation.

Our cars force us to sacrifice walkable downtown areas and weaken our sense of community. They cause us to leave our neighborhoods to commute dozens of miles each day to work. They undercut local businesses by giving people an incentive to drive for miles to shopping malls and box stores. They consume our time, our open spaces, and our good will toward others. When the auto and oil industries spend millions of dollars to vote down clean energy legislation, as it did last year in California, we have to ask: are we in control of our cars or does our car culture control us?

We might think it’s faster to drive to the store. But imagine there were no cars — only public transportation, bicycling and walking. Would people really locate food stores 10 miles or more apart? No. There would be more local food markets. I might actually know the person at the register. Instead of being herded through a check-out line and back into a parking lot, I might have the option to talk with my neighborhood grocer before taking the brisk, healthy walk back home. This has been my experience in countries like Italy, and I’ll admit that living with fewer cars and more community is pretty nice.

“Alternative transportation” isn’t going to be popular when it’s still just the alternative to the cultural norm. Still, alternatives to cars have come a long way. Commuter buses are beginning to offer free Wi-Fi; California is planning the release of a bullet train connecting the downtowns of SF and LA in under three hours; car share programs are offering easy, gentler ways to overcome our addiction to owning an auto; and bicycle and pedestrian lanes are taking back spaces they’ve been forced from in cities around the world, from Paris to New York.

A shift away from cars is possible. We could convert auto-manufacturing jobs into employment opportunities building a national public transportation infrastructure. We could support local businesses and reduce sprawl by shopping within walking or biking distance of our homes. We could commute by public transit, thereby saving ourselves the stress of bumper-to-bumper pushing and shoving and allowing us time to get a little more rest in during the ride to work. We could go for walks or bike rides together, making streets safer and communities stronger with an increased pedestrian presence. In how many other ways could our country and world be cleaner, safer, healthier, and more efficient without our dependence on cars?

It just takes enough people to stand up and change their daily habits before it becomes accepted, even commonplace to act outside of the cultural box. In the language of songwriter, Arlo Guthrie, if just one person does it, they’ll probably think he’s nuts; if three people do it, they might think it’s an organization; and if lots of people do it everyday, then they might think it’s a movement. And before long, you’re changing the way we get around.

References and Resources:

Removing Cars From People | Carectomy.com

Average American Spends over $250,000 on Automobiles | Motor Trend

National Statistics | Fatality Analysis Reporting System Encyclopedia

Air Pollution Fatalities Now Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 3 to 1 | Earth Policy Institute