Inthe modern world, we cherish our freedom and individuality. As automobile advertisers have long understood, few experiences make us feel more liberated than a fast ride with the top down.
To be modern is to be mobile. Our economy depends on the free and rapid circulation of people and goods, and we have invented transportation technologies to suit our needs. First, the railroads moved people and goods at previously unimaginable speeds, while steamships circled the globe. Then, in the 20th century, airplanes moved us even faster.
For most people, though, mobility means automobiles. Cars freed rural people from their isolation and they gave city dwellers access to the countryside. The middle classes take their cars for granted, while the world’s poor aspire to car ownership as a token and a tool of advancement.
However, is our modern mobility sustainable? We are facing an energy crisis, a climate crisis and an economic crisis — and perhaps a mobility crisis as well.
Sometime during the past two years, according to UN estimates, the world’s population became mostly urban. For the first time, a majority of us now live in cities, and that majority will grow rapidly. However, urban life poses a challenge to our automotive mobility. In cities, cars offer easy mobility — but only when traffic isn’t too bad. They also free drivers from the delays and tribulations of buses, trains and sidewalks. In other words, a car furnishes a steel cocoon that shields motorists from their fellow citizens.
That protection comes at a price: if not a loss of civility, then certainly of urban mobility, as cars clog the roads. Individuals still find it worthwhile to drive through the city, but for the community as a whole, making enough room for all the cars means devoting a large part of the city to a costly network of highways and parking lots — which still can’t keep up with the growing fleet of cars.
Amid road construction and honking horns, the vaunted freedom of the open road has long since vanished in the rear-view mirror. If we continue to fill our cities — not just London and Los Angeles, but also Mumbai and Shanghai — with cars, we will be left with little mobility and barely functional cities.
Which brings us to the state of the auto industry. Although the crisis faced by the US automobile manufacturers has many causes, its resolution may founder on the crisis of mobility.
The US has always been the model of a mobile society, where people are willing to pull up stakes and go someplace new — if not to a new territory out west, then at least to a distant suburb, a long drive away from their old home. The US became the envy of the world not least because it was the first country where ordinary people owned cars, and because it is still the land where people drive really big cars. It led the way in rebuilding its cities around cars and highways.
Even as the automobile business went global, the US car companies remained a breed apart. Although Ford and General Motors build small cars in Europe, they made their money at home by persuading urban dwellers to buy gas-guzzling behemoths that promised mastery of the open road. Detroit owes its century of remarkable success to the carmakers’ skill in packaging practical mobility with improbable fantasy.
Those days may be over. The global economic crash came on the heels of the 2008 oil-price explosion, which proved to be short-lived, but is likely to return as global oil supplies are stretched to the limit. New technologies like lithium batteries and hydrogen cars promise to free us from dependence on fossil fuels without separating us from our cars, but even the most remarkable breakthroughs cannot replace our automotive fleet anytime soon. By the time something comes along to supplant the cars that we know — and something will, eventually — we may have had the chance to rethink our dependence on them.
Few of us will voluntarily renounce our modern mobility. Yet the end of cheap oil — along with the recession — invites us to escape the burden of car loans, sell the second car, drive less, car-share, choose smaller vehicles, mass transit, bicycles, or our feet, or move to walkable, transit-linked neighborhoods.
Economists who blithely assume that pre-2008 automobile sales are “normal,” because Americans “need” their cars, misunderstand the nature of the automobile market. Enormous cars, long commutes and vast parking lots do have their advantages, but we could manage to live without them.
Other countries’ growing middle classes want to emulate the American dream — to be able to drive to the country and seal themselves off from city streets, just like Westerners. Most governments, too, are eagerly building highways and promoting domestic car industries.
Still, if trendsetting Westerners are increasingly bicycling, walking and riding trains, perhaps wealthy Asians will follow suit, and perhaps their governments will begin to doubt that cars are the way of the future.
It is difficult to imagine a world in which cars and driving are out of fashion, but it is bound to happen someday, and perhaps that day is not far off.
Brian Ladd, author of Autophobia: Love and Hate in the Automotive Age, was a visiting professor of urban studies at the University of Oregon last year.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under