658 words<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thanks to the internet, teens don\u2019t have to drive to a mall to buy sneakers, let alone anachronisms like CDs or video-game cartridges. In many places, it\u2019s also more difficult and takes longer to get a license than it used to. But research clearly shows that the rise of alternative means of transport and concerns about climate change are encouraging young people to go car-free. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As always, there are costs. A widespread shift away from private-car ownership will cost jobs in the automotive industries and their allied businesses, like gas stations. Technological and social changes of this magnitude always entail big economic dislocations. Think of all the blacksmiths and stablehands who lost their jobs when the car replaced the horse. Ideally, displaced autoworkers will find new jobs created by the Electro-Digital Age, such as installing and maintaining renewable-energy systems or repairing and recycling electronics. \u201cThese are jobs that can\u2019t be offshored to China or Mexico or even done by robots,\u201d writes Saul Griffith in Electrify. \u201cThese are jobs in every zip code in America. These are skilled blue- and white-collar jobs, the great majority in the trades\u2014electrical, plumbing, and construction\u2014that will pay well.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In any case, if such a shift really happens on a major scale, the auto industry will most likely shrink, not disappear. We will still need cars. And some people will just want cars, needed or not. That\u2019s fine, especially if those cars are electric. If you want to live in a low-density exurb and get around in an SUV, that\u2019s your right. That said, it\u2019s well past time for car owners to start paying the real price for their vehicles. As it is today, every American taxpayer, regardless of how they get from place to place, helps foot the bill to keep motor vehicles moving. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The rise of automobiles was supported at every step by lavish public subsidies. The industry would never have taken off were it not for the countless billions of dollars of government money that were poured into building America\u2019s network of public roadways, including the vast interstate highway system. \u201cTaxpayers subsidize motor vehicles with free parking spaces, roadwork, bridges, traffic enforcement, [and] environmental cleanup,\u201d writes Peter Dauvergne in The Shadows of Consumption. He also estimates that the total cost of traffic accidents, \u201cfrom medical treatment to insurance to disability to police and legal services,\u201d exceeds $230 billion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Add to all that the stupendous costs of subsidizing the fuels that power internal combustion engines. The International Monetary Fund estimates the United States spent $649 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels in 2017 alone. Worldwide, the figure was $5.2 trillion. Americans can also add the staggering expense of military bases in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, not to mention the occasional Middle Eastern war, as government spending intended to keep oil flowing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In principle, this kind of public financial support (excluding the military aspects) isn\u2019t a bad thing. Pouring public money into a particular endeavor is not only sensible but crucial when the public\u2019s safety, even survival, is at stake. We spent huge sums building electrical infrastructure in the 1920s. We spent countless billions developing a COVID-19 vaccine. Big subsidies to particular industries often make a lot of sense. Continuing to subsidize fossil fuels in a world imperiled by climate change, however, does not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To the contrary, we should impose additional taxes or charges on motor vehicles of all types, including electric ones, and use the revenue to support public transit and bicycle infrastructure. That\u2019s a very tough sell to American voters, of course, particularly people living in rural areas who depend on their vehicles. Nonetheless, it\u2019s common practice in many industrialized countries, which subject both fuel and cars themselves to higher taxes than in the United States. It\u2019s certainly more fair. As it is, cars impose costs on all of us. Why not shift more of the burden of those costs onto those who choose to use the product? <\/p>\n\n\n\n