Public transit advocates and road warriors have always competed for funding and attention, but now electric vehicles have introduced a sort of third choice, one that industry, government, and (most) environmentalists support. The 2009 federal stimulus package set aside $2.4 billion for electric vehicle investments—that’s in addition to $30 billion for roads and bridges, while mass transit got about $13 billion. Electric vehicles generate less greenhouse emissions and reduce our reliance on oil. But they’re also typically plugged into a coal-fired grid and, well, they’re still cars. So is the promotion of EVs just a supposedly “green” path that will keep us stuck in traffic? Next American Cityeditor-in-chief Diana Lind says yes. Plug-In America co-founder Marc Geller says there’s room for electric buses, trains, and automobiles.

Electric Cars Are Still Cars

by Diana Lind

As Editor in Chief and Publisher of Next American City, Diana Lind is constantly looking at ways to make cities sustainable. She also produces NAC’s signature events, Next American Vanguard and Open Cities.

Who wants to argue against the positive impacts of small steps toward sustainability? I don’t—but I have to.

There’s no doubt that small efforts are meaningful. Using compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent ones lower’s humanity’s carbon footprint. Recycling instead of throwing away plastic and paper saves acres of trash from landfills, and using plant-based detergents instead of harsh chemicals keeps harmful toxics out of our ecosystems. But taking a long view, these are minor ways to counter monumental climate change and the degradation of our natural environment.

What if, instead of promoting slight modifications to our behavior, we created new systems that led us on a radical path toward sustainability? What if, instead of promoting recycling, we taxed disposable items that could not be reused, making a plastic bottle of water cost $5 instead of $1? Think about how many bottles of water would never be purchased and instead how much more urgently the public would fight for clean tap water.

There are countless ways we could rethink our consumption and our carbon-fueled behavior, but instead we rally around “smarter” choices—compact fluorescent bulbs and recycling plastic, for example—that merely delay, rather than prevent, inevitable environmental catastrophe. Case in point: the move toward electric cars and the investment in new car infrastructure to accommodate these new vehicles.

Sure, electric cars may offer an improvement upon gas-?fueled cars, but this innovation is insufficient to create the kind of social, economic, and environmental sustainability our planet needs. You’ll hear electric car advocates praise the fact that hybrids can be fueled by solar and wind energy, rather than coal-sourced electricity. But recent estimates show that solar, wind, and geothermal energy account for only about 7 percent of the world’s total energy. While I am hopeful that one day our country will run on renewable energy, it is naive to assume that the country’s 250 million vehicles would, if plugged in anytime soon, be fueled by anything other than coal. That’s the very same coal whose high carbon emissions are guaranteed to push us past the ecological tipping point.

In any case, changing the source of a car’s fuel does not change the fact that the car still contributes to a number of other major environmental and socio-economic problems. To name just a few: Cars fuel sprawl, create hideous hours-long commutes, contribute to the obesity epidemic, and are accomplices to our ever-worsening social isolation. Consider the fact that car-oriented communities are much less sustainable than walkable communities. For example, our auto-dependent suburbs and exurbs typically are zoned for larger houses and bigger commercial spaces, all of which consume much more energy than compact, dense cities.

If you then agree that cities are the key to sustainability, then mayors and transportation directors shouldn’t be encouraging car usage. As Dean Kamen, the creator of the Segway, will tell you, cars move at a speed of about eight miles per hour in cities—they actually aren’t suited to the fast pace of urban places. Bikes, buses, and subways move much quicker and provide the public with a variety of other benefits—from the health benefits of biking to the economic benefits of inexpensive public transportation. Will cars ever really be “plug-in-and-play?” I don’t think so. And I fear cash-strapped cities are going to end up with a new kind of electric bill—the kind that pays for new infrastructure to service electric cars, at a time when economic strains should be encouraging greater public transit.

We are fortunate to live at a time when all major municipalities are serious about sustainability. But shouldn’t the advent of the electric car provide a perfect moment to rethink how cities incorporate cars in their urban fabric? Instead of creating new electric car plug-in infrastructure, which will undoubtedly become outdated within a decade or two, is it not time to rethink personal mobility altogether? What if cities outlawed private cars for leisure purposes? What if money otherwise spent on plug-in infrastructure went toward feasibility studies for car-free downtown centers?

Anyone who thinks that this kind of transformation in cities is beyond our capability for change should remember this: We once ripped up public transportation infrastructure and built highways through our downtowns. It is no more outlandish to think that we could reverse these changes today if we created comprehensive plans to wean cities off cars. Wouldn’t that be smarter?

People Want Cars, Give Them Better Ones

by Marc Geller

A veteran advocate for electric vehicles, Marc Geller is on the board of directors of the Electric Auto Association and co-founded the association’s San Francisco chapter and the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association, as well as DontCrush.com and Plug In America.

Greater support for mass transit and appropriate land use policies that make mass transit accessible are essential. They are essential for more livable communities and more efficient use of resources, including energy. However, we have created a nation that is dependent, for the foreseeable future, upon the automobile. And many of the rest of the world’s inhabitants aspire to automobile ownership. China has opened up high-speed rail lines while the United States fiddles. Yet simultaneously, China has overtaken the United States in the number of automobiles sold annually.

Despite billions of dollars of investment, in most of the United States only a tiny percentage of people use mass transit regularly. The latest report by the American Public Transportation Association documents a 3.8 percent decline in ridership overall in the first nine months of 2009. Designing our cities and regions around mass transit is something we must do, but it is a multi-generational project.

In other developed countries—in Europe and Asia, for example—clean, electric public transit is the principal means of transportation. In most of the developing world, public transit remains the only viable means of getting around. But the commuters in poorer nations usually travel in a haze of pollution created by petroleum-powered trains and buses. The basic problem that faces transportation today isn’t whether people travel on mass transit or in automobiles, but rather the technology and fuel employed.

The question that faces us is how to ensure that our mass transit and private cars minimize the negative environmental impacts of travel. To do that we must set our nation, and the world, on a path to eliminate petroleum as the predominant fuel for transportation. To continue to rely on petroleum is to accept as inevitable the immense political power of the world’s wealthiest corporations and the resultant pollution, climate change, and war. There is no catalytic converter that can fully scrub the toxics that result from burning oil. And there is no way to democratize the production and distribution of petroleum.

There is, however, an alternative path: Electricity. It’s been around a long time and powers just about everything we use except transportation. It’s ubiquitous, relatively price stable due to government regulation, and is created in many ways, increasingly including renewable—such as solar, wind and geothermal—sources.

Of course we need energy to create electricity, and just as we’ve been burning petroleum for a century to move us and our stuff around, we’ve been burning oil and coal and natural gas to create electricity. While burning all those fuels has caused pollution just as surely as gasoline cars and trucks, we have options. As aging, filthy coal power stations are retired, they are often replaced with cleaner-burning natural gas generators. And now we are making a commitment to renewable electricity generation. Multiple sources of electricity generation make the grid reliable. In contrast, there is no effort to protect our transportation “grid” from vulnerabilities to petroleum’s monopoly.

While our electricity generation is becoming cleaner and more renewable due to state and federal mandates, switching to electricity for transportation immediately lowers emissions. On the existing U.S. electric grid, half of which is powered by dirty coal, an electric car already is less polluting and emits fewer greenhouse gasses than the average gasoline car. In the worst cases, like some nearly 100 percent-coal-powered states, the emissions profiles may be a wash. In others, like California and Texas, which use a preponderance of natural gas, it’s truly a slam dunk for electric transportation. Given our commitment to ever more solar, wind, and other renewables, electric transportation will only get cleaner.

Only with an electric car could you aspire not only to zero-emission driving, but to making your own zero-emission electricity to feed it. Putting solar photovoltaic panels on one’s roof is not rocket science, nor out of reach for millions of homeowners. With renewable power and plug-in cars, we can begin to get control over our energy destiny.

A central goal of the twenty-first century must be to bring the revolution of electrification to transportation—and that will include both mass transit and personal vehicles.

  • Australia produces so much solar power that they’re giving three hours of it away each day for free
    Photo credit: CanvaSolar energy surpluses during the day offers Aussies free energy.

    In a time when energy costs are rising, Australia is taking a different approach. The country has acquired so much solar power that they’re giving it away. In fact, those who sign up for the program will get three free hours of energy each day.

    This comes from a government-run offer dubbed Solar Sharer. It offers a free three-hour period for those who sign up. This period runs from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. The period runs from noon to 3:00 p.m. in South Australia. 

    Free, but not unlimited, power

    While the power is free for those who are eligible and have a smart meter, there is a daily cap of 24 kilowatt-hours (kWh). Any amount above that will be charged. However, the energy cap is based on the Australian Energy Regulator’s assessment of what a five-person household uses each day. 

    While that free period each day provides a great window to use major appliances or charge electric cars, there are some catches. Solar Sharer isn’t yet available to residents outside those areas, but energy brokers are making similar offers. There is also no guarantee that electricity rates won’t get higher outside of those free periods either.

    Who benefits?

    The program is designed for those who are a part of a solar power grid. It also benefits people who work from home the most. If the people in the household are at their job or the office, they likely won’t be able to take advantage of the deal.  

    While Energy Consumers Australia supports this offer, they are concerned about how governments and retailers relay the information to customers. In short, they don’t want people to be surprised if their electricity rates are charged higher during the non-free periods. They’re also concerned that, by their measure, only three in 10 eligible people were aware of this offer.

    “We don’t want to have people signing up to these plans assuming it will decrease their bills, when in fact it could do the opposite,” the consumer advocacy group said to The Guardian.

    There is a chance that rates won’t get higher if more people are able to take advantage of Solar Sharer. Since most electricity use is during the evening when more people are home from work, changing up the usage towards daytime hours can benefit everyone. It would still be an uphill battle as electric light is mostly used in the evening and nighttime when it’s dark.

    Similar programs elsewhere

    While there are catches, this isn’t the first program of its type. There are similar successful free energy programs in other nations. Areas such as Germany and the Nordic countries create so much green energy through wind farms that they make similar free power offers. California has also offered government programs for low-income households and farmworkers housing cheap-to-free solar energy.

    While kinks definitely need to be sorted out, creating so much generated energy to the point that it can be given freely is a good problem to have.

  • Motorcyclist trapped under a 3,300 pound car saved by Australian car salesmen
    Photo credit: @ACurrentAffair9 on YouTubeA man was saved from being crushed under a car.

    Tyler Wiebe was on his way to work on his motorcycle in Brisbane, Australia. Then a car approached in the wrong way in traffic, colliding with another car that then hit Wiebe. The accident threw Wiebe off his bike and under a car. He was trapped under the 3,300-lb. vehicle, doomed until a group of salesmen and onlookers came to his rescue.

    “I was being dragged and when it stopped, my head and chest were under the car,” Wiebe said to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The crash and being pinned down under the vehicle gave Wiebe several injuries. He suffered broken ribs, a broken collarbone, and a collapsed lung.

    But that would be diagnosed later. At the time, the car’s weight was crushing Wiebe to the point that he couldn’t breathe. His heart was also unable to beat, the pressure causing his eyes, mouth, and nose to bleed.

    “Initially it was ‘can I get out?’ and then it was ‘man I am dying, this is it,’” recalled Wiebe. “[My] wife and two kids are not here, and this is it.”

    Hope comes in the form of a car salesman

    After being stuck for two minutes under the car, help arrived from the nearby Auto Request Kedron, a used car dealership.

    “I was in the office at the time, so I heard the bang [and] came running to the doors,” Mick, one of the employees, said to A Current Affair.

    “I realized there was someone trapped under the car,” fellow employee Rob added.

    They rushed into action, recruiting other coworkers to help.

    “[I] saw Rob running and he was just whistling out saying, ‘Hey, boys, hurry up,’ ” Corbin recalled. “I remember seeing him, just like two legs. They weren’t moving at that time.”

    The salesmen tried to lift the vehicle up to get Wiebe to safety, but the car wouldn’t budge.

    “We tried to lift it off. We couldn’t, and then on the second attempt, we had a couple of other good Samaritans come and help us,” said Brian, another employee of Auto Request Kedron.

    Reportedly 15 people were finally able to lift the car and free Wiebe underneath. He was rushed to the hospital where he went under emergency operations. Under hospital care, Wiebe’s condition stabilized and he survived. Had he been under that car any longer, the worst would have happened.

    Wiebe was humbled and grateful to the salesmen and others who stepped up to save him.

    “I get more time with my daughters, I get more time with my family and a second lease on life, so just thank you, thank you,” Wiebe said in his hospital bed.

    Certified legends

    When he was discharged from the hospital, Wiebe set up a reunion with the employees of the used car dealership. He was able to introduce his family to his rescuers and thank them face-to-face. Wiebe presented them with matching t-shirts, each one with a logo reading “Certified Legend” on the front and an illustration of a person lifting a car over their head on the back.

    “You guys are legends, but now you’re certified legends,” Wiebe said to his heroes.

    A father and husband was saved thanks to the alertness and quick action of the nearby community.

  • Texas engineers develop a jacket that pulls fresh drinking water out of thin air
    Photo credit: @fascinatingonX/CanvaWearing this jacket could help keep people hydrated.

    For too many, access to clean drinking water is incredibly difficult. According to the World Health Organization, over two billion people live in water-stressed areas due to pollution, climate change, or population growth. However, engineering experts in Texas have developed a possible solution: just put on a jacket.

    The engineers and researchers gathered at the University of Texas at Austin developed a prototype jacket that can pull drinking water out of thin air. The jacket could help anyone frequently in areas where drinkable water is scarce. This could be used recreationally by campers, hikers, and runners—but it could also save lives. Emergency responders, soldiers, and agricultural workers could also collect water for themselves and others simply by wearing it.

    The technology behind the jacket is similar to the materials used in netting for water harvesting of air and fog. This time, however, the idea is to collect water while also being mobile.

    “Water harvesting from air is usually imagined as a stationary device such as a box, a panel or a large sorbent bed,” said Guihua Yu, chair professor of the Cockrell School of Engineering’s Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering and Texas Materials Institute. “Here, we wanted to rethink the form of the technology. If the fabric itself can collect water from air, it opens a new direction for personal and portable water access.”

    How does this jacket collect water?

    The textile used to create the jacket was derived from a device the same team created. That device was a specially engineered hydrogel fabric made from biomass-derived materials. This hydrogel fabric takes moisture from the air and then releases it as water via condensation when it’s heated by sunlight. The water can easily be collected.

    The jacket’s textile collects moisture from the air and funnels it into detachable harvesting units. The units can be placed into a foldable collector piece where they are heated to produce water. The material and system doesn’t just absorb water like other materials. Instead, it actively converts vapor into water while functioning as a piece of protective clothing.

    The jacket is able to produce between 400 to 900 milliliters of drinkable water daily. This is a vast improvement upon other similar inventions that yielded less water and were significantly bulkier to wear. The jacket’s material could collect and produce more water over time and testing, depending on the humidity of the terrain.

    Aside from creating clothing out of the material, the researchers hope to make backpacks, tents, emergency shelters, and other outdoor gear from it. The hope is that this could create more clean water access for disaster response units and everyday people living in water-stressed areas alike.

    How much hydration do you need in the heat?

    Until water-collecting jackets are commercially available, it’s important to have drinkable water nearby at all times, especially during the summer. When out in the heat, the Center for Disease Control recommends having a drink of water before working outdoors. Then drink a cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes. This can help keep your body cool and hydrated to prevent heat stroke. That said, stay alert and stay indoors if there is a heat warning in your area.

Explore More Stories

Local

Ohio local news viewers spring into action after seeing an elderly woman threatened with jail time

Culture

In America’s sandwiches, the story of a nation

Health

Every dog has its day, but it’s not the Fourth of July

Society

Who owns the beach? It depends on state law and tide lines