Climate Changes and the Car Enthusiast

I have never been one to give much credence to conspiracy theories or doomsday proclamations. Quite frankly, things are rarely as bad as they may seem. Furthermore, the mass media is perhaps the worst medium from which to glean any information about the actual state of things. That said--and perhaps having undermined myself--this article from the Economist has been a bit of an eye-opener for me. Without being overly flippant, this is the greatest threat to the planet since the Enterprise had to fly back in time to get a couple of humpback whales.

They Went Back in Time... and Saved the World
(Image Credits: healthcare.zdnet.com)

More than that, it has been rolling around in my head for days now. As an engineer, as a person, and, most crucially, as a car guy, what does this mean for me, to me, and for my children? At the risk of digressing from the mandate of this blog, I address the first two personalities in a purely philosophical sense.

As an engineer, I remain cautious. In order for any statements about a trend in observed data to be made, there must be objectivity. Science has lately forsook the objective view for one of seeking a desired result. This is perilous, particularly when addressing something so globally important as climate change. While I would not be so crass as to suggest that the conclusion reached by the scientists in the Economist that melting polar ice is accelerating rising sea levels is merely because they have believed this to be the case prior to their findings, it is a bit worrying that the Economist says that 'The reason for the rapid change in the predicted rise in sea levels is a rapid increase in the information available.' Nevertheless, anyone who has ever poured water over a glass of ice knows that when there is liquid water present, the ice melts faster.

As a person, I feel a small amount of dread. The G20 leaders will be meeting in London this week and it seems that imminent economic woes will diminish any possibility of traction on international action to mitigate climate change. These leaders, no matter how much we may lambast them, are not stupid. They know that, relatively speaking, their citizens are infinitely more concerned with the bottom line of their checking account than they are with the mercury in the thermometer. A person of any sensibility must feel a measure of hopelessness at the whole situation; without a planet, there can be no economy. Yet, until the day that environmental measures move from the fringe to the fore, sustainability and economy will remain different shades of green.

That said, I consider it my duty, both as an engineer and a man but foremost as a car enthusiast, to project what climate change will mean for our beloved four-wheeled friends.

No single man, country, or inanimate object has born the wrath of environmentalist ire for climate change, global warming, and dead pandas as has the automobile. Why? In one engineering ethics discussion I attended at university, the majority of the room said that they did in fact believe that the car was the worst invention in the history of mankind. I mean, by comparison with the atomic bomb, the machine gun, chemical weaponry, facism, American Idol, and Russell Brand, how could the car not be singled out as the enemy of the species.

The Panda Has One Natural Predator: the Car
(Image Credits: www.engadget.com)

As will later be demonstrated, in the year 2007 cars, vans, and even the maligned SUV accounted for a relatively piddling amount of fuel consumption relative to those elephantine users of the roadways: trucks. Most people do not give much thought to where their food or clothes come from, how they got to them, and how they were made. These three things vastly outstrip the individual energy usage of any one person on a day-to-day basis when they are subtracted (see the full report here).

Returning to the question I posed: why, then, the car? Simple: people want to believe that they can make a difference. Cars have been maligned because a great number of the trips that people make in a car, like the conversations they have on their cell phones, are superfluous. A neighbor may live no more than a half-mile away in a suburban neighborhood, but we're still inclined to drive to dinner. We're also constantly inundated with examples of how much higher fuel prices are in Europe and also how the Europeans have embraced public transportation in a manner that is entirely foreign to us. Living in Europe, I can say that public transport is a very good thing. It would also require a radical shift in thought in the American psyche to garner any support.

This is Public Transport to Many Americans
(Image Credits: www.freefoto.com)

Thus, many people feel that if they buy a more fuel efficient car, or if they reduce their trips, they will be doing something themselves to alleviate global warming, or at least the suffering of pandas. By targeting the car, people have both a tangible enemy and avenue. If people were told to lobby against fuel subsidies for truck freight it would just seem like partisan hogwash. Another reason that the car is so under attack is the media. When it comes to the energy use statistics presented above, it is clear that 'transportation' makes up a large amount of the pie (see pie below). However, as presented in the plot below, the vast majority of this 'transportation' is freight and not, to use government parlance, personal vehicle miles.

Energy Use by Sector and Transportation Fuel Usage (AER 2007)
(Image Credits: www.eia.gov)

However, in order to relate to their viewers, the media presents it as if their viewers are single-handedly responsible for the end of the world. Cars are a form of transport, people use cars, therefore, it must be so. Except that it isn't. Furthermore, as the reaction to the automakers 'financial woes' demonstrated (even in this very blog), the auto companies are large, impersonal, and unpopular.

An Artist's Rendering of General Motors Global HQ
(Image Credits: larvalsubjects.wordpress.com)

It doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative; chances are you have a bone to pick with the automotive industry. If you're liberal, you can't stand the coddled, controlling, conniving managers at the top. If you're conservative, you can't stand the way that unions have an American institution by the cojones. Furthermore, it's all related to something that you have in your own driveway. To sum up--and cool down--the car is familiar, relatable, and understandable. Because of these things, it is the natural scapegoat.

Now, car enthusiasts have often balked at the idea of global warming. I do not want to get lumped in with this group; my own reasons for doubting global warming in the past had nothing to do with my position on the automobile. An attack on the car is like an attack on ourselves. All the solutions that get bandied about popularly are either boring or remove the car entirely. How can this possibly be a solution for the gearhead? You might as well tell the football player that contact sports have been made illegal by federal law. Car enthusiasts love for the car often blinds them to wider issues much the same as the G20 leaders are blind, themselves. No planet, no cars, end of story. What is the future, then, for the car enthusiast?

Firstly, car guys have to appreciate the fact that the landscape will and must change. While todays cars are more efficient, powerful, and better engineered than their predecessors, the horsepower days have jumped the shark. In the near future, a step forward is going to mean a step backward, in a relative sense. But this is not all bad. It opens up new and exciting possibilities. The idea of a 'hot rod' may be redefined. Rather than having 'shade tree mechanics' maybe we'll have 'shade tree software engineers' or 'shade tree electrical engineers.' Yes, we may be witnessing the end of an era. But we're also poised to see the birth of a broader number of possibilities than we have witnessed in our lifetime.

Like the Fonz, So Passeth the Days of Horsepower
(Image Credits: www.pcworld.com)

Secondly, we will see a wealth of new powerplants. Fuel cells, biofuels, diesels. As exciting and familiar as the gasoline-powered car is, even this engineer admits that the formula might be getting a little stale. This all ties in with what I just said; the ol' boys will adjust. In order to be commercially viable, these new and 'complicated' technologies will have to be simple enough to be maintained by Joe Mechanic. Amateur chemistry, anyone? It is also my duty to inform you that these engines will not be as powerful or refined as your familiar friend in the driveway. But, again deferring to your sensibility, you cannot expect anything conceived in the last five or ten years to be as sorted as a device that has endured more than 100 years of concentrated development. Daniel LaRusso had to wax the floor before he could beat the Cobra Kai. I'm just saying.

The Obligatory Karate Kid Reference
(Image Credits: threebrothersandasister.blogspot.com)

Thirdly, the enthusiasts pool will narrow. In our world of cheap cars and even cheaper gasoline, inspired by the god-man Vin Diesel, every yob on the block wants to be a street racer. It's a pubescent hormonal reaction with gasoline. Classic cars will continue to be with us, as they should be. They are as much works of art in engineering as any bridge or building that has ever been listed for preservation. However, I envision that the gasoline powered car enthusiast will become like the model steam train engineer. Okay, maybe the field will be a bit broader, but make no mistake, it's going to become more of a niche than it already is.

"I live my life a quarter-scale, coal-powered train model at a time."- Vin Diesel
(Image Credits: filmgordon.wordpress.com)

It segues nicely, into my last point. In fact, it is not even my own idea. It comes from the most unlikely of chins: Jay Leno. As many of you may know, Jay owns a car or two. Without being disrespectful, I know that I'm waiting for the day when Jay goes up to meet Johnny C and Ed in the comedy club in the sky and the Jay Leno Museum opens. In an episode of James May's Big Ideas, Jay broke with auto enthusiast ranks and said that he is absolutely, 100% in favor of alternatively fueled vehicles. His reason? Because with more people driving them it frees up car guys to keep doing what they do. If we have the fuel cell car for the week, we can have the Hemi on the weekend. Now that's not a joke, that's just good ol' fashioned common sense. It's something that you, me, and the pandas can live with.