THREE: THE FAILURES OF THE OOMANIST CRITIQUES OF THE CAR.

Despite the undoubted validity of some of the long standing criticisms of the car they have not convinced governments to curb private transport nor have they persuaded motorists to give up their cars. On the contrary, governments have been more willing to sacrifice the interests, and quality of life, of the carless than to take action to limit car numbers whilst motorists seem to be oblivious of the carnage they leave in their wake. The question explored in this essay is whether oomanistic criticisms of the car are doomed to failure.

i) Criticisms of the Traditional, Oomanistic Critiques of the Car.

There have been innumerable critiques of various aspects of the damage which cars inflict on oomans ever since the first motorists were compelled to use flag-wavers to clear a path through the streets.[1]

I: The Mobility Costs of the Car.

The four main advantages of the car are firstly, that it enables individuals to get directly to their destination whereas, in comparison, even the most comprehensive public transport systems cannot transport individuals from door to door; secondly, it enables motorists to go where they want rather than having to follow a pre-ordained route; thirdly, it enables people to travel when they want (limited only by congestion) rather than having to travel at the times laid down in a timetable; and, finally, on the whole, it enables people to reach their destinaton more quickly than other forms of transport.

The last of these advantages has been criticized as illusory. In the early 1970s ivan illich pointed out that motorists weren't travelling any faster than stone age humans using their own two feet. He reached this conclusion by pointing out the huge amounts of time which motorists spend on their cars rather than driving in them. When the time taken to earn the money to pay for cars, repair them, maintain them, etc., is compared with the distance travelled by the average motorist, the overall speed of the car drops dramatically to almost walking pace. For motorists who travel more than the average mileage the car’s average speed will be correspondingly greater, whilst for those motorists who travel less than the average mileage they might achieve a faster pace of life if they stopped maintaining their car and putting in petrol and just pushed it wherever they wanted to go. Illich’s all too sensible and rational view hasn't had the slightest impact on the stampede for mass car ownership. This is because motorists are not bothered about overall speed but actual speed on the road, especially on motorways.

Over short distances, especially in urban areas, cycling and even walking might outperform the car in all four of the categories highlighted above. However, the longer the distances travelled, and the more complex the routes taken, the greater is the car’s superiority over cycling, walking and even public transport. The question, however, is the price which has to be paid for these advantages.

Mobility also consumes land, and the greater the mobility, the greater is the suffocation of land under vehicle related construction projects. In wealthy, overpopulated countries mass car ownership becomes futile. As more and more cars appear on the road, congestion gets worse and worse, and new roads have to be built which provide some temporary relief but soon become congested so that more roads need to be built. The question then becomes how much space is there for more roads? In england there isn’t enough space to accommodate huge numbers of cars, “Before growth stops, we are told (in the tory government’s 1989 white paper, ‘roads to prosperity’) there will be another 27.5 million motor vehicles in Britain. If all motor vehicular traffic increased at the upper limit, this would swell to an additional 32 million vehicles. Adams' calculation of the space required merely to park these extra vehicles arrives at either a new 257 lane motorway from London to Edinburgh with stationary vehicles parked on it, or an area the size of Berkshire. If parking space is required at destinations, as well as at home, this area needs to be doubled.”[2] Given the number of destinations to which motorists wish to travel - shopping centres, leisure facilities - the area required for car parking would be even greater.

The mobility of the car consumes vastly more space than other forms of transport, “Cars can take up to thirty times more space to move each person than public transport. The car also requires greater amounts of space for storage. A car consumes 20 times the space needed to park a bike. Because cars must have numerous car spaces that lie idle for long periods of time .. the family car consumes 3 times more space than the average family home.”[3]

As a consequence in great brutland, “there are no solutions to congestion which can pander to the desire of commuters to drive to work.”[4]; “Car use cannot be universal ..”[5] Car ownership can be universal in continental sized countries but, eventually, as the population of humans and cars increases, even they will come up against the same limitations.

Cars also cause another land consuming phenomena - urban sprawl (or as some prefer to call it the 'spreading-city syndrome'). Although all forms of transport, including public transport, cause urban sprawl the most extreme manifestation is caused by the car.

Mobility also destroys communities, “Perhaps the modern value most relevant for a discussion of environmental conservation is that of mobility. While it can be seen to be the consequence of individualism and the instrumental attitude to nature, mobility has acquired the status of one of the highest human values in its own right; it has almost become a fetish. The modern elevation of mobility to the highest value is evidenced in the massive and continuing migrations within and across countries that are a universal feature of capitalist society today. These migrations occur not only for the desire for economic progress, or the need to escape from political oppression, but also because life in the village, life at home, has become meaningless. The commitment to one’s environment necesary to prevent or restrict such a move has eroded and, in many modern societies, does not exist at all. In turn, the move itself erodes the commitment to the environment as a unique and irreplaceable place.”[6]; “A preservationist attitude towards nature is invariably associated with a non-rational or a trans-economic commitment to a particular piece of land, be it a house, a homestead, a tree or a forest. The modern virtue of mobility weakens this comitment and therefore weakens the effort needed to preserve it against the depredations of humans themselves. For this reason it is necessary to challenge not only the instrumental values of modernity, but also the virtue of an ancillary value such as geographical mobility.”[7]

II: The Liberation Costs of the Car.

Another much proclaimed benefit of the car is the liberation it creates, "In 1977, Nicholas Ridley .. presented an image of absolute freedom, "The private motorist .. wants the chance to live a life that gives him a new dimension of freedom - freedom to go where he wants, when he wants, and for as long as he wants."[8] Some politicians have used the prospect of the car liberating oppressed groups as a means of justifying road building, "Peter Bottomley, UK transport minister in 1989 thought that "more roads must be built for cars yet to be acquired by women, ethnic minorities, and council tenants who do not enjoy the benefit of personal transport at present.""[9]

Many feminists look upon the car with the same delight that they look upon the pill. They support the car because it liberates women. Women no longer need to depend on men to take them out and regard cars as armoured personnel carriers protecting them against a hostile male dominated world. There has been a huge increase in the number of women drivers over the last decade, "The number of women on the road has soared over the past ten years from 25 per cent to 40 per cent of all drivers. Women will soon account for half the nation's motorists says an AA survey."[10]

The liberation created by the car has been obtained, however, by the increased oppression of the carless and no-one has described this more eloquently than wolfgang zuckerman, "The very cars which have liberated some women by making them mobile and independent have stranded others in faceless suburbs or made them into full time chauffers. The very cars which have been a boon to some of the handicapped have handicapped others for life through accidents. The very cars which allow some of the elderly to get around in ways they couldn’t before, trap others who fear even to step outside into a busy street. The same cars which take some children to Disneyland prevent many others from playing in their own street. The same cars which make it so convenient for some of us to get to work, make it more difficult for others to do so. The same cars which take us to the hospital so quickly are often responsible for such a trip in the first place."[11]

III: The Social Costs of the Car.

In the 1970s a number of critiques were published concerning the corrupt practices of multi-national road/car/oil corporations.[12] These works described how the road/car/oil corporations set up cartels to exploit consumers; lobbied politicians for government subsidies/contracts; used their political clout to block the interests of business rivals (in the case of the road construction industry, the railways; in the case of the car industry, public transport; and in the case of oil, alternative forms of energy); the hoarding of new technologies in order to maximize profits from current investments; the revolving door policies by which politicians became directors of multi-national road/car/oil corporations and directors became politicians; the creation of built-in-obsolescence to increase car turnover; the production of inherently unsafe cars; etc..

Once again, however, none of these criticisms ever became a popular political issue nor did they deter people from acquiring cars. There is little prospect that any critique of the social costs of the car will limit car numbers. The most that social critiques of the car will ever achieve is to ensure that cars are manufactured more cheaply, efficiently and safely.

IV: The Communal Costs of the Car.

The car destroys communal life in many ways,

* the disruption of community contacts caused by the construction of main roads through inner city communities;

* the demoralization of community life caused by property blight as a result of plans for new roads;

* the destruction of children’s playspace and,

* the disintegration of community life caused by out of town shopping centres which undermine communities’ ability to provide local services.[13]

Few communities have been strong enough to resist the car. Communities are weakened not merely by outside interests e.g. those commuters who want a road constructed through an inner city area, but by the people living in communities who buy cars and do all their shopping and leisure activities outside the community. Most communities are now so weakened by the car they can no longer provide any resistance to further encroachments by the car.

V: The Rise of Autocracies.

The car has not merely transformed the physical structure of cities and the countryside it has transformed political relationships. Societies are run by motorists for the benefit of motorists.[14] Every political and civil institution in all of the over-industrialized nations has been taken over by motorists who manipulate these institutions to protect and promote the interests of motorists against the carless:-

* politicians spend huge amounts of money providing facilities for motorists but spend far less money on public transport and facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians;

* the medical profession campaigns vociferously and vigorously against cigarette smoking but is virtually silent about the damage caused to human health by car exhaust fumes;

* the judiciary hands out lenient sentences to motorists guilty of grossly irresponsible behaviour often involving the murder of innocent people;

* the media, which is heavily dependent upon advertising from the road/car/oil industries, refuses to criticize the car;

* the police who tend to overlook the mass criminality being committed on the country’s roads and the fact that motorists are the country’s biggest and worst criminals.

It was noted above that although the car liberates some people it oppresses others. In autocratic societies car owning women, car owning disabled people, and car owning pensioners, etc., have more in common with each other, as car owners, than they do with their non-car owning counterparts. All the major political parties, including the green party, are united in promoting autocracies. One of the main reasons why protests by non-car owners against cars are rarely heard is because motorists control all of the institutions of power.

A number of commentators regard the car as a major cause of political and social oppression. This oppression can be solved only by political reforms. A number of suggestions have been put forward as to the nature of these reforms.

A: The Infringement of Human Rights and the Need for a Bill of Rights.

David engwicht argues that cars destroy the possibilities of human social relationships.[15] He sees this as an infringement of human rights[16] which can be combatted only through a bill of rights, a 'Bill of Access-to-Exchange Rights', "people are entitled to the protection of their right to a just and equitable share of the exchange opportunities which a city can provide. No group or person should be allowed to improve its share of these exchange opportunities at the expense of another group or person unless this action is necessary to right an existing unjust distribution."[17] He demands preferential treatment for pedestrians and cyclists; a right of access; rights for public transport users; a right not to have to pay others people's costs; a right to a nurturing social environment; a right to street space.

B: The Infringement of Workplace Rights and the Need for an Environmental Health and Safety Bill.

Robert davis believes the non-motoring public currently has few legal rights on roads and characterizes the situation as, “a kind of lawlessness. Indeed, as an argument for anarchy - for the ability of human beings to live without externally imposed restrictions - the present situation could serve as a good example.”[18]

He suggests that legislation is needed along the lines of the health and safety at work act, “A more appropriate way of considering legal control would be to use the example of health and safety legislation in Britain and elsewhere. The most recent example of this is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which extended the obligations of employers to responsibility for other members of society outside the place of work, as well as employees. This legislation places the onus of safety on the employer in the first instance; while employees have responsibilities, they must be provided with an adequately safe environment and a good enough chance to engage in safe work practices. Despite whatever limitations the legislation may have, at least it provides a more stringent framework than that which exists on the road.”[19]However, the bill would be effective only if it was implemented with the particiaption of non-motorists, “The aim of attempting to reduce road danger is to reduce it at source .. Assessment of safety should be made in terms of the experience of the road user. .. "decision making should move more into the hands of those most immediately affected, rather than professionals.”[20]

C: The Need for an Equal Opportunities Act to Oppose Car Supremacism.

Davis realizes that the problems caused by the car go far beyond the dangers created by dangerous drivers. In autocratic societies, motorists discriminate against non-motorists in order to protect and enhance their interests. He has coined the somewhat cumbersome phrase ‘car supremacism’ to describe the oppression, "The word "supremacism" is deliberately borrowed from its use in attempts to understand discrimination and oppression by race and sex. Admittedly, the problems of danger from car use should really be seen as Health and Safety problems, and we are dealing with problems that are - in some ways - more limited and less brutal than those of racism and sexism. Nevertheless the concept is needed if we are to escape from the idea that road danger is due to individual deviants."[21]; “I would argue that we should see the problem, apart from the wider environmental problems, as one of discrimination against non-car users - whether it be in terms of inadequate local public transport, danger, or amenities inaccessible to non-car transport. In one sense that discrimination will exist with any significant amount of car use: nonetheless, it is possible to consider quite high levels of car use as tolerable and acceptable if the general idea of anti-discrimination is remembered.”[22]

What is needed to counter this oppression is an equal opportunities act between motorists and non-motorists, "The concept of car supremacism implies a need for social policies that borrow from Equal Opportunities (or even positive discrimination) ideas and practices in the approach to transport and other policies involving car use."[23]

VI: The Resource Costs of the Car.

A: The Depletion of non-renewable Resources.

In the early 1970s there was widespread concern over the depletion of non-renewable resources. The road/car/oil industries use a significant proportion of the world's total output of energy, plastics, metals, chemical solvents, paints, etc. Although cars are the single biggest consumer of these resource, the criticism that cars are consuming the Planet's finite resources has failed to penetrate the stereo sound systems with which increasing numbers of motorists tend to surround themselves.

B: The Car's Resource Self Destruction.

It was predicted many decades ago that the expenditure of energy, and thus the level of pollution, needed to mine raw materials would increase as the mining industry was forced to exploit more and more inaccessible deposits, "The preparation of almost every primary material from its ore turns out to be an energy consuming process. As we exploit the world's resources, the grade of ore deposits is tending to fall, so that we are using more energy in the preparation and mining steps."[24]

Barry commoner’s critique of the world’s current reliance on fossil fuels is a variant on slesser’s argument, “As a result, as long as we continue to rely on non-renewable fuels, especially oil and natural gas, a progressively larger fraction of the economic system's output must be invested in producing energy. .. because the present energy system is almost entirely based on nonrenewable fuels, it cannibalizes the very economic system that it is supposed to support.”[25]; “In the next decade, new US oil will require more energy for extraction than will be obtained from the oil itself.”[26] This argument has been supported by the meadows, “The world economy uses about 2 billion tonnes of non fuel minerals per year. That high rate of material flow reduces ore grades, increases energy use and waste production, fills up dumps, and emits pollution all along the way. Metal ore depletion hastens the rate of fossil fuel depletion.”[27] According to one commentator, "After killing the city, the car is killing the car."[28]

This is not an effective critique of the car. Even if the world's governments continue to maintain that they have no responsibility for protecting the Earth’s life support system, and allow multi-national corporations to ravage the Planet as much as they want, the car industry will be threatened more by global warming than by the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are still abundant. It is likely that there will be an ecological collapse long before the Earth’s fossil fuels are consumed.

VII: The Economic Costs of the Car.

Motorists, including the car-owning members of the brutish government, often argue that more money is raised from motorists than is spent on them.[29] There are, however, an increasing number of commentators who refute this view. But, there are a number of criticisms which can be made about the economic critique of the car.

A: A Critique of the Cost-Benefit Critique of the Car.

A number of critics have argued that the dot’s cost-benefit analysis of the car is grossly inadequate and that there is a need to take into consideration a range of hidden subsidies to motorists. It has been suggested that when indirect subsidies are included government expenditure on cars is far in excess of the revenue raised from motorists ... “the full costs to the taxpayer of congestion, pollution and traffic accidents add up to £24 billion - far exceeding the £16 billion motorists pay in fuel and road tax.”[30]; "John Whitelegg of Lancaster University said road transport in Britain enjoyed enormous subsidies at the public expense. Cars paid only 27% of the cost they imposed on society, in road building, accidents and pollution, and lorries paid only 23%. The annual subsidy almost certainly exceeds £20 billion dwarfing funds spent on environmentally friendly transport."[31]; "The cost of car and associated vehicle use are far greater than the taxation paid by motorists. Cyclists and pedestrians in effect subsidize motorists, not the other way around."[32]

An increasingly wide range of factors are being included in cost-benefit critiques of the car. The more factors which are included the greater the disparity between the government’s income and expenditure on motorists, “The real cost of motorization is at least £30 billion more than motorists pay. CBA costing includes congestion, accidents, road building and maintenance; it excludes the loss of revenue to public transport, stress, air pollution, noise, children’s escort time, and space (taken up on roads, in garages etc).”[33] For one commentator, the costs of motoring are between £35.1 and £87.6 billion per year, "It should be repeated that this does not include costs such as the loss of agricultural land, greenhouse gas emissions, defence costs for protecting oil supplies, and various adverse social effects. One of the biggest costs could be loss of working hours and health care for people suffering bad health (from cancers and other problems caused by pollution) which have not been costed here."[34]

Yet again, however, the public doesn't seem in the slightest bit peturbed by the large scale subsidies given to company car directors or the economic costs of the car. And why should they? In great brutland car-owners are nearly a majority of the adult population. Far from objecting that taxpayers are having to subsidize three-quarters of motorists’ expenditures, what the public finds reprehensible is any proposal to subsidize public transport. It is only in recent years that the public opinion has begun to shift away from its antagonism towards public transport.

There are a number of criticisms to be made about the radical cost-benefit analyses which highlight the government’s excessive expenditure on motorists.

a) The Economic Benefits of the ‘Costs’ of Cars.

Although a radical cost-benefit analysis reveals that the costs of motoring vastly outweigh the benefits, many of these so-called costs contribute to economic growth.

1. The Economic Benefits of Car Accidents.

Gross domestic product (gdp) is a measure of a country’s production of goods and services. Although gdp is a measure of society’s wealth, it is often regarded as a measure of the health and happiness of the individuals in that society. However, this is a mistake. Gdp measures the provision of health services not the state of people’s health. etc.. When medical treatment is given to people who are injured this is counted as a boost to gdp. This creates a paradoxical situation; as far as gdp is concerned it seems as if injuries are recorded as a ‘benefit’ i.e. a boost to economic growth. Up to a point, it is true that the more people who are injured, the greater the boost to economic growth. Thus, for example, the carnage on brutish roads, which kills thousands of people and injures hundreds of thousands, is a significant boost to economic growth. Radical commentators regard this as absurd and argue that the costs of road accidents should be subtracted from, rather than added to, gdp in order to give a more accurate reflection of the health and well-being of society.

This issue is not just a question of semantics. Injuries and fatalities cause a real boost to economic growth. The provision of services to road accident victims really does boost economic growth .."road crashes generate forms of economic activity (such as in the important insurance sector) and can therefore appear on both sides of the cost-benefit balance."[35] Insurance companies ... “derive a great deal of their revenue .. from road crashes.”[36] For example, if two motorists pass each other on the road without an accident there is no change in the economy. If they collide there would be a flurry of economic activities around that accident - e.g. the emergency services would have to be called out; repairs would have to be made to damaged vehicles; insurance claims would have to be paid; police and court officials have to be paid for their services, etc. A country without car accidents would be poorer than one which has many car accidents. An accident free country would mean that fewer people would be able to afford to buy cars in which they, in turn, might have accidents and, thereby, further boost economic growth. Even if the financial consequences of a road accident are defined as a cost and subtracted from gdp, the fact is that road accidents boost economic growth so it would be more accurate to leave gdp as it is. No matter how repulsive this situation might seem, it is a fact that a country gets richer through slaughtering some of its people - this is the modern industrialized form of cannibalism. The only way in which a society would not profit from road accidents is if the cars collided and were then shunted off the road (with the dead or dying motorists inside) so that the traffic could resume as normal. It would be difficult to argue that this solution is morally superior to the one in which cannibalism boosts economic growth. It is better to leave gdp as it is not merely because it gives a real boost to economic growth but because it gives a good indication of that country’s potential for providing medical facilities for those involved in car accidents. If radical cost-benefit analysts want an accurate measure of people’s health they should get out their thermometers and leave gdp alone.

2. The Economic Benefits of Urban Sprawl.

Engwicht has gone further than other car critic by insisting that urban sprawl should be counted as one of the car’s costs in a cost-benefit analysis, "Spreading cities not only end up with worse traffic problems; they are also terribly inefficient, costing increasing amounts to service with water, electricity, sewerage, drainage and roads. Residents are forced to pay an increasing share of their income to maintain the city."[37] But, whilst urban sprawl could be counted as a cost,the provision of these services, just as is the case with the medical services provided for car accident victims, boosts gdp.

The necessity of having to pay for urban sprawl through higher gas/electricity/water/sewage bills[38] raises an important issue. If it is assumed that most people in society aim to achieve a limited lifestyle then, correspondingly, they will work only for a limited amount of time.[39] People won't work harder or buy more than they can afford unless acted upon in one way or another.[40] In the case discussed above, increased bills for basic services are a form of social coercion forcing people to work longer and harder simply to maintain their chosen lifestyle. This is not wage slavery but a new form of social slavery. The result is, however, an enormous benefit for the economy.

3. The Economic Benefits of Congestion.

Business leaders claim that traffic congestion causes the loss of billions of pounds worth of business every year. Whilst businesses might lose money because of traffic jams it should be appreciated that traffic jams also boost economic growth. Motorists have transformed transport not merely into a self-indulgent display of luxury, power and status but a vast economic activity in its own right. Just as Keynes argued it was beneficial to the economic well-being of a society to employ people to dig holes and then to fill them up again, so commuters might just as well turn around once they’ve got to work and go home because they’ve already carried out a substantial economic activity.

4. The Economic Benefits of Transporting Children to School.

More and more children are being ferryied to school in cars instead of walking or using public transport/school bus. Once a number of parents start ferrying their children to school this forces other parents to do the same. Thus, “School traffic presents one of those vicious cycles which feeds upon itself. Parents drive their children to school because it is dangerous for them to walk. This increases traffic, forcing other parents to drive because it is now too dangerous for their children to walk.”[41] As a consequence, “In 1971, more than 80% seven year olds were able to walk to school. By 1990, the proportion was down to 9%. “In less than 20 years”, says Dr Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies institute, “we have, as it were, transformed our children from the free range birds they need to be into a species of battery chickens.””[42] It has been estimated that the cost of ferrying children to school is now in the region of £26 billion per year.

In terms of cost-benefit analysis ferrying children to school is a cost, “parents may record four extra trips a week driving their children to sporting activities. But is this a benefit when ten years ago these same children played in their own street or at a neighbourhood park?” But whilst this may be defined as a cost in terms of cost-benefit analysis, it is also a very real boost to economic growth.

5. The Economic Benefits of the Destruction of Property Values.

The car is responsible for destroying property values e.g. when houses have to be demolished to make way for a road; when houses fall empty because roads are built too close to houses, or houses are built too close to roads; and when a proposed road causes planning blight. These are clearly significant costs which need to be taken into consideration by a cost-benefit analysis.

Overall, however, road construction has generated a colossal increase in property values. New roads increase the value of all the land along their entire route. Whilst many might object to its negative aspects, urban sprawl causes a considerable boost in property prices. Cars and roads generate a huge increase in both land and property values. Historically, “The suburbanization of the American countryside was made possible, in large part, by the invention of the automobile and the creation of a highway culture. The new high-speed form of individual transportation helped spawn a massive shift in population out of the cities and into the surrounding countryside. Today, 60% of all metropolitan residents live in suburbs.”[43] Whilst cars and roads cause some costs e.g. decreasing some houses prices, on the whole they create a massive increase in property values which results in an overall increase in economic growth.[44]

6. The Economic Benefits of Environmental Destruction.

The destruction of any greenfield site is a cost in terms of the loss of recreational and educational opportunities. But, economically, it always boosts economic growth. For example, if an urban park is redesignated as ‘building’ land, the construction of a building (whether office block or factory) will generate economic growth and the use of that building will generate further economic growth. In addition, if the people who once used the park find that an alternative park can be reached only by a car journey then this would lead to a further boost to economic growth.[45]

7. The Economic Benefits of Environmental Pollution.

Pollution causes many costs - health costs, damage to buildings, damage to natural resources, damage to crops, etc.. However, these costs often boost in economic growth. Ill health needs medical attention. The damage to buildings has to be repaired. It is only the destruction of crops which does not promote economic growth - unless the crops are insured. The storms which battered north western europe at the begining of the 1990s caused a great deal of damage but they also boosted economic growth, "The Association of British Insurers puts the total cost of the 1987 hurricane at £1.2 billion. Estimates for this year's storms are £2.5 billion."[46]

Over the last few years a dispute has arisen between those who argue that a cost-benefit analysis suggests that nothing should be done to avert global warming and, on the other side, those who argue that significant measures are required, “The American economist William Nordhaus was the first to attempt to apply cost-benefit analysis to the greenhouse effect .. Frankhauser and Pearce compared Nordhaus’s estimate with those of two subsequent studies and reported a reassuring convergence on Nordhaus’s view that a doubling of CO2 is not very important. They said, “Despite differences in individual categories of damage, the three studies roughly agree on the overall result, with a doubling of CO2 damage of the order of 1-2% of GNP. Even when picking the most pessimistic figures for each damage category the total only modestly exceeds 2% of GNP.” Overzealous attempts to slow the greenhouse effect would, they argue, retard the growth of Gross World Product by diverting resources from projects with higher rates of return.”[47] Nordhaus et al makes a number of erroneous assumptions. Firstly, the damage caused by global warming will, up to a point, boost economic growth. Secondly, that measures taken to avert global warming e.g. through the manufacture of energy savings devices, etc., will also boost economic growth. Thirdly, nordhaus might be correct in arguing that the money spent on averting global warming could be invested more profitably elsewhere but this doesn’t mean to say that technological means of averting global warming wouldn’t also boost economic growth. The pollution abatement industry is a massive billion dollar industry in its own right adding to economic growth. He is wrong to imply that spending money trying to avert a global warming disaster will be wasted because, in terms of gdp, it will boost economic growth. This criticism of nordhaus is not meant to justify expenditure on technological solutions to global warming. On the contrary, investments in new technologies intended to curb pollution will boost pollution and exacerbate global warming. Pro-growth economists of a less bigoted nature than nordhaus would insist on drastic action being taken against global warming precisely in order to boost economic growth and pollution. This will thereby cause more climatic damage resulting in a further boost to economic growth, leading to further investments in global warming technologies which will cause even more climatic disasters, etc. etc.

8. Conclusion: Destruction is Construction.

The car is responsible for a huge amount of destruction. This destruction may be categorized as a cost in cost-benefit analyzes but, nevertheless, it still boosts economic growth. In terms of cost-benefit analysis the costs of motoring are colossal and may even exceed the benefits. Such an analysis might even prove that the car should be banned because the costs exceed benefits. But, without cars societies would be far poorer than they are now. What this shows is that destruction is good for the economy - it may be bad for human health and the Earth’s life support processes but it is a boost to economic growth. Health damage causes costs but makes a positive contribution to the economy; pollution causes costs but boosts the economy; police and court costs boost the economy.[48]

b) Government Revenue from the Car.

Many cost-benefit assessments of the car not merely over-emphasize the costs but underestimate the revenue from cars. If revenues from the entire road/car/oil industries are taken into account the net government expenditure on cars might become a net government income. The fact is that the road/car/oil industries are a colossus in the world economy without which the over-industrialized nations would be entirely different - and far poorer - even if people were healthier, a lot happier, and had a higher quality of life. Even if it is argued that despite the colossal economic benefits of the car, the road/car/oil industries are an obstacle to economic growth because public transport would create even more economic growth, any reduction in car numbers would have a significant deleterious impact on gdp.

c) Open Ended.

One of the major drawbacks of cost-benefit analyses is that they have the potential to include an endless number of factors. When attempts are made to include comparative costs, the costs are once again virtually limitless. The consequence is that cost-benefit analyses can be used to reach virtually any conclusion desired depending on the factors chosen to be measured. A methodology which can be used to prove any argument is worthless.

d) The Difficulties of Measuring Costs and Benefits.

Another criticism of cost-benefit analyses is that even where the factors to be assessed are limited they are still difficult to measure.

e) Conclusions about the Cost-Benefit Critique of the Car.

There is no benefit in using cost-benefit analyses as the basis of policies to curb the car. It would be all too easy for those who support cars to produce cost-benefit analyses which showed that the benefits of cars were greater than the costs. Even if all cost-benefit analyses concluded that the car created net costs, all that this would do is highlight the fact that many of the cars’ supposed costs are essental to economic growth. Robert davis is dubious about the merits of trying to use such an analysis to make fundamental changes in transport policies, “Can we campaign successfully for the road safety lobby to mend its ways? Could we argue for cost-benefit analysis, for example, to fully charge their costs to motorists? I am dubious about such an attempt. .. we require a fundamental break from the ‘road safety’ tradition.”[49]

B: Motorway Construction and Job Creation/Economic Growth.

The second radical humanist critique of the car disputes the economic rationale for road building. Like most other governments around the world, the great brutish government contends that road construction creates jobs, boosts local economic development, and increases economic growth. Commentators have criticized these assumptions on various, often contradictory, grounds.

Firstly, there are those who suggest that, "the more roads the government has built, the weaker our manufacturing base has become."[50] This commentator believes that roads are of no use to industry, "Since the overwhelming majority of vehicles on the motorways are private cars, it is hard to believe that further road building will stimulate anything other than the motor car and petroleum industries."[51]

Secondly, some commentators hold the less extreme view that, "Claims for job creation stimulated by motorway building are exaggerated."[52] Along the same lines there are those who argue that, “motorways don't necessarily bring economic development to the regions they serve."[53]

Thirdly, there are those who contend that roads don’t boost economic growth as much as investment in other forms of transport, "Alarm UK has published a report ('The Rush for Roads - A Road Programme for Recovery?') to counter the pernicious road lobby myth that roads equal economic growth. It argues that road investment is pound for pound less economical than public transport investment ..."[54]

Whether commentators believe that government expenditure on road construction produces economic benefits often depends on their cherished economic theory. In the 1980s thatcherite monetarists contended that government expenditure could not boost economic growth, whereas socialists believed that it could. In fact the differences between the two were primarily ideological for what thatcherites actually believed was that government expenditure on projects that they did not like would not increase economic growth whereas expenditure on projects which they supported would create economic growth. Both reagan and thatcher denounced public spending and yet both presided over a huge increase in government expenditure primarily as a result of the huge sums of money lavished on the police and, especially, the military. No politician is against public expenditure; they are only against certain types of government expenditure.

Despite environmentalists’ criticisms, the economic case for building roads is overwhelming. And the more roads which are built the biggerthe boost to economic growth - within inflationary limits. Government expenditure on roads has helped to create jobs and boost economic growth ever since the creation of the first motorways, “The world's first motorways were built by the third reich to bring Germany out of the depths of recession.”[55] In this country alone, millions of jobs have been created over the decades by the construction and repair of roads. Most environmentalists support the construction of railways rather than roads because the former supposedly reduces pollution and boosts economic growth more than latter.[56] However, whilst it is relatively easy to prove that the construction of roads boosts economic growth, it is more difficult to prove that roads do not increase economic growth as much as railways.

C: Subsidies and Job Creation/Economic Growth.

The same sort of argument about the role of government expenditure in promoting economic growth also applies to government subsidies to company cars. Those who believe that government expenditure helps to promote economic growth may not approve of company car perks but it would be difficult for them to prove that such perks did not promote economic growth - even if they might believe that such subsidies could have been better invested in other ways which could have increased economic growth even more.

D: Conclusions.

The only economic argument against the car is the possibility that private transport does not increase economic growth as much as public transport. But environmentalists should avoid relying on economic criticisms of the car because if they use such an argument they may find themselves having to support public transport when it is far from certain that a massive expansion of public transport would lead to an overall reduction in pollution and ecological devastation.