O’Toole: Cars Benefit the Environment

In The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future, Randal O’Toole defends the car against its environmental foes

Automobiles are blamed for “wasting” land in the form of urban sprawl. Yet autos actually have produced significant land-use benefits. Consider first the land supposedly wasted by sprawl. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, urban land increased from 15 million acres in 1945 (the earliest year for which data are available) to 60 million acres today. During this time, urban populations increased by 160 percent, so if densities had remained the same as in 1945, urban areas would occupy only 39 million acres today. Thus, some 21 million acres of urbanizations might be attributed to postwar automobile-oriented sprawl.

Of course, whether this is waste depends on your point of view. Low-density development brought the American dream of owning a home with a yard to far more people than ever before. Large yards do not destroy open space so much as they convert one form of open space—farms and forests—to another—backyards. From the point of view of watersheds and certain kinds of wildlife, backyards may even be better than intensely managed croplands.

Still, automobiles have more than made up for the 21 million acres of low-density development. Thanks to autos, trucks, and tractors, farmers across the country no longer needed to dedicate tens of millions of acres of land to pasture for horses. As a result, between 1920-1970, farmers returned 82 million acres of pastureland to forests. This is almost certainly the largest area of deforested land ever to be reforested. The number of acres reported as forestlands has declined since 1970, but nearly all that decline resulted from the transfer of federal forestlands to the National Park Service, which (by the Department of Agriculture’s reckoning) takes them out of the forestland category.

Forests provide much more biodiversity than pastures. Instead of producing fodder for horses these lands now offer habitat for wildlife, wood for housing, and cleaner water for fish and downstream users.

At the same time, farmers converted millions of other acres of pasture to croplands. When horses were the main source of farm power, virtually all farms had to dedicate a portion of their acreage to pasture. Now, farmers can dedicate their most productive lands to growing crops, while less productive lands are used for range or forests.

Read more

3 responses to “O’Toole: Cars Benefit the Environment

  1. Jek Silberstein

    Having grown-up with the urbanization of America, I think it’s wonderful,–all the great cars that have replaced horses, with, “Horsepower!” Whoever hasn’t savored the “gravity” of forward velocity pressing one into the car seat as that car accelerates vigorously, truly hasn’t, imo, lived. And with Hot, horse-less cars, have come, hotter, horse-less motorcycles, another way to obtain a “velocity-fix” that harms few but those who crash due to loss of control. Also, a horse can throw you for its own, maybe un-known, reasons. If “thrown” from a car/motorcycle, you realize that YOU are responsible, YOU lost control.

  2. There is also the emissions aspect. Enviromentalists (spelling intentional) have-no-idea what the urban environment would be like if it were packed with animal based transportation. The millions of tons/gallons of manure/urine would make many currently viable cities uninhabitable. Add in the flies, smell, vermin… get the picture? Can’t quite see (smell) it? Go find a feed lot, stand in the middle of it (or down wind) close your eyes and imagine you’re in LA with an average rainfall of <15". New York would be somewhat more tolerable with ~50", but you wouldn't want to be on the water front after a heavy rain anywhere.

  3. All technological development, beginning with flint-knapping, has as it core purpose the improvement of human lives. The basic ‘thermodynamics’ of civilization means that cost/benefit ratio has been continually improving. For example, a horse produces 10-20 pounds of carbon-based effluent daily, whether you ride it or not. My Honda Civic uses gasoline only when I drive it, and will go 20 miles (the average daily distance for a walking horse) using only about 5 pounds (.625 gal) of carbon-based fuel, which I do 10 times a week (too much work for a horse).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s