Have you noticed how many cars there are these days? They are everywhere are they not?. Two cars for every man, woman and child. Maybe three. Small car-free streets I skipped along as a young whippersnapper are now choc-a-bloc with cars. The pavements are disappearing under a train of hastily-parked cars jammed end on end like metallic sardines. Everywhere you a go there is a car in your face. Why so? Wh'appen? Well, forgive me if I am wrong, but according to media advertising, the immediate purchase of a brand new car is almost guaranteed to bring one happiness and well-being. At least this is the implicit and explicit message I have received, or have been receiving for a long time now, from the advertising media. New cars are touted everywhere. Sleek, shiny, roomy, secure, smooth, fast, adorned with glamorous women in high heels, new cars promise we consumers a kind of instant Nirvana. On our TV screens we see new cars travelling across majestic mountainous terrains, across rugged hills and romantic green valleys, or through jungles, or even across Australian deserts with such quiet that even a quaint aborigine is seen to be hard-pressed to notice such a new smooth fast car. Pity the poor uneducated fellow. Pity him that he is in the outback ignorant of the world of new fast automobiles. Cars is well-smart, well stylish don't you know. Certainly it is the case that Nature pales in the face of a new car cruising smoothly through it... In short, cars would appear to be glorified as if they were the be-all and end-all of life itself, the great consumer dream awaiting all of us once we have a few grand to spare. Buy a new car and you too shall find happiness and contentment my sluggish friend. You men, take note that a new car is indeed a reliable extension of that eternal source of worry - namely the male member penis. Moist women will flop conveniently upon your lap as long as you are stationed at the wheel of a nice new automobile. Open-top Volkswagon Golf, shades, a booming stereo - and a shag is on the cards no problem know what I mean? And you women, if you get yourself a speedy new motor, then rest assured that equality of the sexes is upon us for you too can race around town and exercise all of your inviolable rights to be forcefully free and active. Cars emancipate the human soul. Thats the message right? Cars really are powerful. And big and fast. Vroooom! Take control of your life. Feel like a racing driver. Buy a new automobile. See how it gleans in the sunshine! See how it handles corners! See the looks of envy from torpid pedestrians! Buy a car, by God! In fact, buy God! Yes, God is Car and Car is God! Human history was always coming to this moment, a moment when enlightenment and a perfect state of peace and happiness could be had simply by buying a prestigious new car. Do it now or become a pariah. Buy into this dream or be a loser, a mere cyclist, a slothful walker, a simple train or bus passenger, a careless carless useless eunuch without airbags or electronic windows. Ignore new cars at your peril. Buy a car. You need a new car. How often must we show you? Every night? By their very nature, cars pollute. Pollution is an inherent part of their design. This is an unfortunate fact never advertised. Cars also cause irritating traffic jams within and without which hearts pound abnormally, ulcers sprout and negative emotions flourish. And, of course, cars can kill people, whether through bad driving or by way of the strange new deadly psychological disturbance known as Road Rage. Cars produce - apart from euphoria, stress, a sense of control, sexual prowess and perceived social status - the toxic gas carbon monoxide. Indeed, one method of suicide is to deliberately poison oneself through exhaust emissions pumped directly into the sealed berth of a new car. Not very nice that when you think about it, when you realise that these self-same toxic emissions are being spewed out of the ass-end of the latest new car idolised against the background of Niagra Falls on peak-time television. You cannot see carbon monoxide, rather you can only breathe it by the lungful and then be informed by your organism sometime later that something in the environment is not in harmony with your biology. Such is the sinister nature of the pollutants produced by the motor industry. They remain invisible until the declining health of the population becomes apparent. Our children and the elderly are most vulnerable to toxic exhaust emissions. The incidence and severity of asthma has increased greatly over the last few decades, due, in part, to the inexorable rise in cars and traffic pollution. It cannot be very nice to explain to your child that the reason he or she is doubled up in pain of asthmatic suffocation is because the air has been polluted by cars. Particulates, micro-sized particles of pollution produced by motor vehicles, are increasing all the time. They are so small that they are not filtered out by the lungs but enter the bloodstream where they will act in some way we nothing about as of yet. If you live in the city then you are breathing in these invisible and insidiously active toxins all the time. It is only in the last few years that pollutants like this have been researched and examined by teams of scientists, and it remains to be seen what medical problems will undoubtedly ensue. ( incidentally, the New Scientist 8.2.97 reported that even though one third of all UK cars are now fitted with catalytic onvertors, air quality is still bad, especially with regard to levels of nitrogen dioxide. Apparently, cc's only function properly when the car engine is running at full speed which, of course, is often unlikely given the prevailing traffic problems ) Lead emissions are another source of health danger associated with cars. According to an article in the New Scientist (27.7.96), 70,000 tonnes of lead are still added to petrol each year worldwide so as to enable more efficient fuel combustion. Lead emissions have been shown to decrease IQ levels, damage emotional stability, cause hyperactivity and even to damage physical growth. This danger is particularly apparent in African and Middle Eastern countries who use large amounts of lead in their petrol. Even in the UK and in other European countries, a significant amount of lead is still added to petrol. Once again, we see that profit and the drive to drive efficiently comes at the expense of the nation's health. And once again, it is children who are most at risk from the effects of lead poisoning. What is slowly becoming common knowledge then is that the car is not really as divine as we are taught to believe. Indeed, the rise in car manufacture and car ownership may well represent one huge problem snowballing out of control under its own monstrous momentum, a momentum set in motion by culturally-sanctioned market forces. Thus, the drive to satisfy the consumer with evermore perfected automobiles might well be a kind of short-sighted error, not befitting our species nor the rest of the biosphere which, if Lovelock and his Gaia theory are to be believed, does not respond well to relentless sources of unhealthy pollution. These are sad facts about cars which many of us may not wish to acknowledge. Yet they must be debated if we are to have a healthy society. I mean, simple clean air is surely a very, very basic human right. The human organism has evolved to live in a certain environment, an environment with certain percentages of ambient gases. To alter the type and quality of the ambient air which we constantly breathe is to put pressure on our biology, to a point where our organism can and does suffer. Yet even if we acknowledge that pollution in general is wrong and should be dealt with sharpish, there seems to be a problem when it comes to dealing with the polluting effects of cars, as if the benefits of car ownership easily outweighed the health costs associated with traffic pollution. At least car advertising shows no signs of immanent arrest. In fact, it seems to be on the increase, with some car adverts taking up budgets big enough to fund small independent movies. Evidently, car ownership represents a huge and lucrative market. Perhaps then, a certain number of people must die or become very ill before efficient, long-term measures are taken to stem the tide of car pollution. Clearly this has not come to pass as of yet with god the car. The recent Newbury bypass is a case in point since it demonstrates the British government's traffic policy. The adamant construction of the Newbury bypass sends a clear message to citizens that cars are still fine. Its just that we need more roads to ease all the congestion building up in our lungs and on our roads. Hmmmm.... Let us take a prime example of the pro-car attitude. Let us see if it is an attitude worthy of Homo sapiens, literally 'wise man'. Below is part of a letter published in the Independent 12.4.96 which comments on the Newbury bypass troubles. The writer is not sympathetic to the biosphere-driven homeostasis embodied by the brave protesters at Newbury. The letter reads: "The case for the [Newbury] bypass is overwhelming: the congestion on the A34 at Newbury is the one obstacle to a clear run from Scotland to the south of Spain. It is not just the people of Newbury who want the bypass, in order to reduce pollution in the area and ease local traffic problems, but all those who use this major route. "What is most alarming about the whole sorry affair is that by employing a full-time organiser with the ability to use all the modern methods of communication, a small group can so rapidly promote a campaign against a project supported by all parties local and national, which resulted from 14 years of consultation, inquiry and investigation according to true democratic process..... "While regretful of the extra cost caused by the protesters, we should all be thankful that under the cheerful, firm and courteous direction of the Under-Sheriff of Berkshire, the first stage of the bypass has been successfully completed." Mrs Mary E.C. Rich Thatcham, Berkshire Well, that is rich from Mrs Rich. I think Mrs Rich's attitude encapsulates a number of fundamental problems currently lodged within the collective psyche of we Westerners. Perhaps, if we can get to the roots of Mrs Rich's arguably misguided attitude, we will be in a position to form a new view, some new outlook on life and how best to comport ourselves whilst we live on this sensitive interconnected planet. Those of Mrs Rich's ilk argue that we need more roads. More roads so that more people can enjoy more of their cars more of the time. More roads, less traffic jams, less Road Rage, less stress, and, lest we forget, more cars. And, of course less pollution.... Hang on, how can there be less pollution? No, what will happen will be a more dispersed form of pollution. More roads means that pollution will be spread about a bit, be diluted as it were. Then, maybe, there might be twice as many people suffering breathing problems but they will only be suffering half as much... Clearly, this is a crass approach to the problem of too-many-cars and too-much-traffic. If cars pollute and the pollution is substantial, then it must be dealt with efficiently, and in the long-term at that. Building more roads is but a flimsy cosmetic approach to solving what is, at heart, a much deeper problem. So why oh why is it so important to have so many cars? Well, apart from simple ownership, one point hinted at by Mrs Rich is that of economical advantage. Quicker traffic means more efficient trade. This connects up to that well-worn tenet that unending economic growth is a good thing to be strived for. More trade means we can make, sell and buy more new things. More efficient trade means we consumers can purchase more and more goods. And the more things we can buy, the happier we shall all become praise be. If we amass things, the latest new things with their strongly projected desirability, then all shall be well. Consume, consume, consume. Bar-code heaven. Just get that traffic flowing.... Thus, the incredible rise in car ownership not only symbolises our culturally-conditioned need to buy masses of things, it even helps to fuel such a process. And I would argue that the root of this problem is, quite simply, greed. I propose, outrageous though it may be, that the problem with cars has arisen, at heart, from greed, a form of greed we are unfortunately taught or encouraged to nourish through the constant bombardment of the media. However, the allure of new cars on the screen does not extend itself onto the busy roads of the real world. In the real world, cars express greed. Indeed, in a typical dense traffic jam, what is the sight of countless static 3-seats-empty cars belching out toxic emissions but a fuzzy, smoggy picture of all-consuming greed? Everyone wants their own car, their own motorised piece of personal space, a safely sealed cushy environment within an aerodynamically engineered shell. But there is simply not enough space for everyone to share in this particular dream. And, of course, the dream is at the expense of everyone's health. The car dream is rapidly becoming a nightmare. Of course, one cannot rid the planet of cars. And pollution of some sort seems to be an inherent property of human society (as does greed of some sort). We would not be here now with all this amazing electronic technology had we not burned fossil fuels so as to get the power necessary to fuel technological advance. However, having said that, pollution is something that can and should be minimised, especially if its detrimental effects loom over us daily. If we pin-point cars and heavy traffic as a significant source of pollution or cultural disharmony, a kind of unnecessary environmental mess, then we can see that the problem can be minimised in a number of fairly straightforward ways. Firstly, we should be encouraged to use our cars less, taking public transport where possible. Perhaps if our government were to invest heavily in public transport thereby ensuring cheap and comfortably efficient travel, then more people could be encouraged to use it. Secondly, new road-building could cease since it does not get to the root of the problem. Everyone buys cars because that is the message we get from our culture. If the messages change then we and our behaviour changes. If we see the new car not as something immensely valuable as advertised but as a symbol of Gaia-unfriendly greed, a symbol embodying spurious social status and a lot of other nonsense, then perhaps we may learn to drive and value clean minds over and above toxic cars. Thirdly, more investment could be placed in the development of pollution-free engines, whether by solar technology or through engines that run cleanly on electricity (itself derived in a clean way) or on (m)ethanol derived from plant biomass - which is less polluting when burned. Indeed, the exploitation of biomass to provide fuel is perhaps a highly feasible solution. Although the oil industry would argue that the costs involved are too high, if one weighs up the true costs of the oil industry - like, say, cleaning up pollution and reversing the Greenhouse Effect - then clearly the costs escalate to astronomical proportions, making the use of biomass relatively cheap, especially in the long-run. It is really quite astonishing that we can lay waste to vast tracts of greenery in order to build yet more roads. I wonder if our Mrs Rich would be so content with the Newbury bypass had she had to go and cut down the trees and the rest of the 'interfering' biomass herself. Would she happily destroy the indigenous birds, mammals and the rest of the myriad species of organism which constitute an ecosystem lying annoyingly in the way of a proposed new road? Would she merrily stamp on birds eggs, casually crush rare snails, and mow down ancient trees without the slightest sign of compunction? Whatever the case, it is clear that our greed, our incessant drive to drive, seems to move our ambient environment, the good Earth, into the background as though it's well-being were not of importance to our well-being. Arguably, each time we support some form of deforestation, each time we condone some form of reduction in biodiversity, then we move further and further away from Nature and Natural Intelligence, losing ourselves in our own greed and our own ideas about what is of most value in life. I do not really want to be the one to spoil the car party, and I know people like their cars. But if the party is not in harmony with Great Nature who supported our evolution, and if the party is also detrimental to our own health, then the party must change in some way. The least a car-owner can do is to drive less. Buy a bike. Walk. Share journeys. Whatever. But one thing is certain, the new car advertised in the media is no innocent property to be bought, driven and enjoyed in the carefree manner suggested by the motor industry. Scrape off the flash exterior and you are left with a source of noxious pollution everytime the ignition key is turned. A car is thus not something to be prized and valued beyond all other things. Nature, our living Earth, is doubtless far, far more valuable. The problem with cars simply has to be stemmed sooner or later. After all, it makes good sense. And Nature really is an expert at making good sense. So next time you see some ridiculous car advert with some magnificent piece of Gaia serving as background context, ponder on what is more reflective of intelligent design. The car with the suave smiling primate strapped securely inside or Nature's own evolved surround?