An occasional update on items from Motordom – the world of auto dominance.
______________________________________________________________
JEVONS PARADOX IN ACTION: Swedish file
Yuri Artibise found another example of the how increased efficiency can lead to increased consumption:
Sweden, that sustainability superstar, really prides itself on being “green.” It is one of the few countries to decouple CO2 emissions from economic growth. …. But Sweden also has a dirty little transportation secret.
For the last three years, Sweden has led the world in its per capita sales of so-called green automobiles. Ethanol cars have been a big winner, as have cleaner diesel vehicles.
Swedes love to keep statistics on green car sales, but there’s a new statistic that doesn’t reflect so well on squeaky-green Sweden. People rushed to buy green cars (there was a generous subsidy) and they are now driving them more.
Emissions from the transport segment rose by 100,000 tons last year in Sweden. Trafikverket, the Swedish Tranport Agency (STA), reported that while purchases of efficient and greener cars decreased carbon dioxide emissions on a per car basis (from 164 to 151 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilometer driven), people’s increased driving caused emissions to rise.
______________________________________________________________
MISTRESSES AND MOTORDOM
The story of how North American cities sacrificed their streetcar systems has been told many times – but that occurred from the late 1920s to the 1950s. And then cities in the Third World followed. Here’s an insight from the History of Trams in Bangkok
Trams started puttering about the capital late in the reign of King Rama V and kept on going until 1968. …
Trams stil received widespread popularity until 1957, when Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat unveiled his grand plan to reform Thailand … and develop it as a country of high standing in the eyes of the world. Among his many schemes, Sarit suggested that the tram was unsuited to modern Bangkok & encouraged the city’s residents to use cars, taxi cabs and buses instead.
And then there is this:
After Sarit’s death, his reputation took a heavy blow when a bitter inheritance battle… revealed the massive extent of Sarit’s wealth (US$ 140 million). Sarit was discovered to have owned a trust company, a brewery, 51 cars, and some 30 plots of land, most of which Sarit gave to the dozens of mistresses he was found to have had.
Forget the mistresses. It’s the 51 cars that explains so much.
______________________________________________________________
HYPER-MOTORIZATION
Can China Avoid Getting Stuck in Traffic?
In Shanghai, a city of more than 20 million where new car registrations are restricted to 6,000 monthly, commuter traffic has slowed to 6 to 10 miles per hour, well under the speed of a bicycle. The traffic’s a mess, even though only 20 percent of all daily trips in Shanghai are by car, compared to 80 percent in U.S. cities. For the majority of Shanghaians, who are walking or biking or waiting at the bus stops, it means breathing in a lot of bad air.
“It’s what I call hyper-motorization,” Schipper said. “China’s cities have expanded to make room for cars, but congestion levels have spiraled upward and average speeds downward. Things freeze up regularly.”
Building more roads and adding lanes, as China is doing, will not solve the problem, Schipper said. The amount of urbanized land in Beijing has tripled since 1990, but now commutes are longer. China could build more cities, but the new roads would fill up quickly, too.
Schipper and co-authors Wei-Shiuen Ng and Yang Chen, Ph.D. students at UC Berkeley and MIT, respectively, suggest that China has a window of opportunity to solve its traffic woes before car ownership jumps much higher. If China were to hike its fuel tax on gasoline, levy tolls at rush hour, raise parking fees, encourage compact development along bus lines, and give up more road space to cyclists and fast bus routes, it could get the traffic moving and avoid potentially much worse gridlock, the researchers found.
______________________________________________________________
I guess for some of us, if you understand China’s recent (totaliarian) political history, the excesses we see now for a variety of reasons: ramped up economic development, nearly unfettered growth and flouting safety/health requirements (China’s legal system is still evolving to even minimally, mirror North America’s system); nearly brutal urbanization (and ex-propriation of land), love of consumer goods and anything that is modern….. I don’t see China easily scaling back fast enough to rethink recently built, congested highways and roads to accommodate their nearly obsessive use of cars. I don’t even see the majorityof Chinese in China wanting to switch back to a non-car based lifestyle until their own personal health is significantly and negatively affected.
It is only within living memory (and for some of us with families intimately affected by its political history) that the Chinese have been deprived of individual choice, of large consumer goods (before they were seen as bourgeoise and punished), and so on. Right up to the mid-1980’s.
Therefore it’s not surprising there is an opposite, near extreme reaction, near stampede to acquire and drive the status car, ditch the bike or transit pass. Even if it means getting stuck in traffic for too long.
I am certain my relatives who immigrated from rural China in 1980’s -late 1990’s to Canada, have not given up their cars which they bought within 3 years of landing into Canada, even on restaurant workers’ wages.
It’s pretty stunning to personally witness this in terms of cultural shock and adjustment. And they still have not learned how to read and write much English but happily trundle around in their cars. These are folks who used to work in the rice paddies and construction sites in rural areas.
We have to look to lives of ordinary folks in China on what their personal history has been over the last few decadaes and it will give a clue to their present choice of transportation (and their hopes) and future (not totally promising fast enough).