Driving a car is the dirtiest, most polluting act your average guy on the street can commit. So why is it that when my friends talk about cars, instead of looking guilty, their voices go shrill and their eyes glaze over? As someone who has never owned a car and doesn’t even have a driving license, it’s easy for me to look at their behaviour objectively. And the conclusion I’ve come to is simple. They’re loved up.
Beneath all that talk of revs per minute and horsepower, how many men see their cars as a sexy lady to be cherished and loved?
Treat it like a lady
We’ve all heard the Freudian analogies, but rather than an extension of their manhood, most blokes seem to treat their car like a girlfriend. Recently in Finland, an Audi salesman, interviewed for a women’s magazine, admitted as much. “The looks of a car are finished with the suspension and the wheel trims. When it comes to a woman, it’s her ankles and shoes that are important,” he said. His comparison was lambasted by the national media. Yet who’s to say he doesn’t represent the silent male majority?
Beneath all that talk of revs per minute and horsepower, might men see their cars as sexy ladies? This would at least explain why so many of them find it so difficult to give their autos up. But like any love affair that’s bad for you, there are places you can go for a cure. And a cure is needed.
Planet gridlock
There are already around 800 million cars on the planet and another 50 million being produced every year. If this trend continues, by 2020 the planet will be gridlocked with an estimated 1.2 billion cars. Each year, in the US alone, cars emit more than 300 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere. That’s enough to fill a coal train 55,000 miles long—long enough to circle the earth twice.
Escape from temptation
For autoholics to get away from temptation they should escape the object of their affection. And that’s actually easier than you might think. There are dozens of places around the world that have banned cars. To make it more difficult for autoholics to stray into the leather embrace of a four wheeled lover, I suggest an island. Here are three that will keep you far from your car.
Get far from the car
Suomenlinna is an inhabited sea fortress built on six islands just a short ferry ride from the Finnish capital Helsinki. A UNESCO World Heritage site, it’s a fantastic place to while away your time, and the only things you’ll find with four wheels are cannons.
For a very different, more tranquil vibe, try Ile de Batz near Roscoff in Brittany. Its warm weather and bucolic landscapes will help you forget the world of engines and spoilers. For transport you can walk, take a ride on a one-horsepower horse or jump aboard a fishing boat.
Vlieland off the coast of the Netherlands is great for those badly afflicted. It’s known as the Sahara of the north because it consists almost entirely of dunes. So even if you could smuggle a car over, you’d soon find yourself bogged down in sand. There is, however, a network of cycle paths which cover the island and even a bus service if you miss the scent of petrol fumes.
Destinations: Finland, France, Netherlands
I very much enjoyed your article, I only one comment though… I don’t really agree with this statement
“Driving a car is the dirtiest, most polluting act your average guy on the street can commit.”
I would have to say consuming meat is the dirtiest, most polluting act your average person on the street can commit. According to the IPCC ruminant meat consumption is heavily resource dependant and the livestock industry produces 18% of worlds GHG emissions, from gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N20) which all contribute to climate change. In fact the ruminant meat industry accounts for more climate change than all forms of transport.
Thanks for dropping by Christina. Glad you enjoyed the article.
Regarding your point, according to an Environmental Defence report cars account for approximately 10% of global emissions, although that goes up to 20% in places like the States. So purely in terms of carbon emissions you are right, but I was also taking into the environmental pollutions caused by exhaust fumes. Cars account for 72% of nitrogen oxides and 52% of reactive hydrocarbons, the prime ingredients of smog.
That said, I totally agree about the detrimental effects of meat eating. In fact, I blogged about it the other day.
http://greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/north-america/usa/go-veggie-in-the-worlds-5-most-carnivorous-capitals/
Imagine the effect it would have if we all became vegetarian cyclists!
I’m delighted to see someone who ‘talks the talk’, actually ‘walks the walk’. So many preachers (not calling you one by the way) these days hoon around in V8’s undercover whilst smoking their fat cigars.
Sadly though, I doubt whether the love affair with the automobile will fade into oblivion until petrol does. The sooner the better, as far as I’m concerned.
Even though I drive (hanging head in shame) I agree totally with your views. The planet has had enough. Our lungs have had enough. Enough is enough….
Good post.
Thanks Wendy. Although I must admit it was originally more through chance rather than design that I never got into cars. Now though it is a conscious decision. Although I understand they are a necessary evil in the countryside, if it was up to me I’d ban them completely within cities.
Imagine London, New York or Auckland without cars. I bet these great cities would become even greater.
Hey Joel,
I read your article about meat consumption the other day, I enjoyed this also. I actually like your little website, very much.
Thanks for your point: “Cars account for 72% of nitrogen oxides and 52% of reactive hydrocarbons, the prime ingredients of smog.” Although I was aware that nitrogen oxide has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2, I did not know that cars account for 72% of nitrogen oxide.
I agree with your notion of cycling and vegetarianism.
Thanks Christina. Glad to hear you’re enjoying reading Green Explorer.
“if it was up to me I’d ban (cars) completely within cities” WHAT? So easy to say on your ‘green blog Mr. Willans, but surely not! Aren’t cities such wonderfully diverse and dynamic places partly because of the dramatic mix of people and traffic in urban spaces? New York without traffic? Huge empty boulevards; dull! London’s unique network of small high-streets without the passing trade and hubbub of high-street traffic? Dull! Banning cars? No no no! When i think of the most boring desolate faceless area of my local city, Helsinki, i think of Mikonkatu; the car-less brick-paved desolate pedestrian zone. Dull. But a vibrant buzzing urban environment?: the Esplanade! Mixing urban park, trees, people-crammed cafe-bar terraces with cobbled streets used by slow-moving cars; what an exciting urban landscape! But FEWER cars in cities? Yes! Using private transport sensibly; yes! High-density mixed-use developments that allow people to live within walking distance of their workplace, amenities and transport hubs? Yes! Sensible car-sharing schemes and pool car systems to make road transport more efficient and reduce congestion? Yes! Developing more efficient engines and greener fuels? Yes! Smarter city planning policies to reduce the spread of cities and car reliance? Yes! Well designed public transport systems that compliment considered car use? Yes! Less cars in cities and less congestion? Yes! But banning cars? Please nooo! And as for “Driving a car is the dirtiest, most polluting act your average guy on the street can commit.” surely not… it must be when the cycling-vegetarians jump on planes to jet half-way around the world to find themselves and give themselves something to travel-blog about, right?
From a walking, cycling, motorist, who knows the difference between wheels and ankles.
Thanks for your comment Robin.
In answer to your question.”Aren’t cities such wonderfully diverse and dynamic places partly because of the dramatic mix of people and traffic in urban spaces?”
I’d say absolutely not.
The only way cars make a city more exciting is by increasing the danger when you cross the road. They are by their very nature anti social. The smell, they pollute, they make noise. They add nothing to the aesthetic of a city. Dynamic isn’t the word I’d choose for constant stream of cars belching fumes in Esplanade. And I’d be willing to bet if you asked a 100 people whether they’d rather that part of Helsinki were car free or not, my proposal would win.
Banning cars would not mean creating pedestrian “wastelands”. It would just leave more room for bikes, trams and buses.
Has Robin been to Sark?
Have you noticed how addicted Robin sounds!
I own Landrover110, it was built in 1983, so by now it’s just GOT to be carbon negative, given the cradle to grave measurement. In the process of rolling restoration, so it’ll be good for another 25years!
I also use it as intended, for dogs, logs and chainsaws, oh! IT maybe does 2000 miles a year on 70% veg oil.
So eating meat is bad eh?
Has anyone bothered to find out how much CH4 is pumped out by all the beautiful ruminants in The Serengetti that folk jet off to see, by the gnus and wildebeest?
Or in the arctic by the caribou?
Talk sense, ban all engine sizes over 3 litres is the place to start!
Follow the example of Jean Pain, and compost to produce CH4 to run cars and produce power!
You’re right, the Ville, Robin does sound like he’s got something of a craving.
Thanks for your thoughts Cadfael. I think your use of your Landrover is a shining example to us all. To be honest I’m surprised that more people don’t follow Jean Pain’s example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Pain) Maybe in the future, we’ll have no choice.