Tata’s Nano by code-martial/flickrEMBARQ’s Lee Schipper talks on National Public Radio about the much-hyped Tata Nano, a 4-door car costing $2,500 that’s scheduled for release this year.
The Nano, hailed by many car manufacturers as India’s answer to Henry Ford’s Model-T, has the potential to drive millions, if not hundreds of millions, of the upwardly mobile into the ranks of the motorized middle class. As Dr. Schipper notes, if there is no alternative or regulation, the environmental impact—increased pollution, smog, and CO2 emissions—will be catastrophic.
Links
- Listen to broadcast (Windows Media Player)
- Listen to broadcast (Real Player)
- More discussion and analysis on TheCityFix
Ethan Arpi, Strategic Communications & Marketing ManagerEthan is EMBARQ’s Strategic Communications & Marketing Manager, who works on a variety of projects, including communications strategy, planning, and multimedia marketing.
3 Comments
Developing countreis had the right to good quality mobility
I come from Colombia, South America. Motorization there is still low and I do not think the way to solve the mobility problems is through individual motor vehicles (be there two wheelers or low cost four wheelers). It won't work. All will be stuck in traffic as there is no way to build roads for all. Accident rates will increase, as local and global emissions... no matter how efficient are the motor vehicles. The way out is good quality public transport, better facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, and development that fosters close connections between urban activities (home, work, shopping, services and leisure). This is better mobility, with a plus, as cities will be better places where to live and thrive.
Don't low-income Indians have the same right to mobility?
That's all well and good, but Dr. Schipper seems insufficiently empathetic in his remarks. Where is the regulation of the rich people's cars? Arguments against personal mobility such as this strike me as NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard). Sure, once the West and the upper-class Indians all have personal vehicles, THEN we can call the car a crisis and speak to its environmental effects.
Until the West and the upper class take an empathetic look at the poorer, it will be impossible to achieve the sort of regulation Dr. Schipper desires - at least politically.
Re:
The thing to remember is that the vast majority of Indians - around 80% - earn less than $2 a day and will probably never be able to afford a car, even with a price tag of just $2500. These people walk, take buses, ride bikes, and move around cities on two-wheelers and rickshaws. Adding more vehicles to the mix - whether they are cars or motorbikes - will only slow down traffic, increase the likelihood of traffic accidents, and add even more pollution - C02 which causes global warming, particulate matter, which causes cancer, asthma, and bronchitis, and NO2, which causes smog - to the air (http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/index.html). These are real problems: In 1995, Delhi had 9859 premature deaths related to air pollution (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep252004/741.pdf). While the wealthy and upwardly mobile are sealed inside their cars, it is the poor who are on the street and more exposed and vulnerable to these changes.
The point that I want to make is that the argument of elitism, imperialism, and NIMBYism is really a distraction from the real problem: rapid motorization (around the world) and its deleterious effect on the health and well-being of humanity. Dr. Schipper, EMBARQ, and WRI have been working in India to increase investment in mass transportation, an investment which will have significant returns for the poor. Faster travel time by reducing traffic and promoting mass transportation will allow people to get to work faster, improving productivity and hence living standards (Or they can use the time saved by spending it with their family and friends or however they please). Reduced air pollution is a boon for public health. Safer streets mean fewer car accidents. And the list goes on.
While it’s true that the United States and the west need to clean up their act when it comes to the question of driving and car ownership, we can’t let the petty politics of personal attack interfere with the daunting task at hand: improving the quality of life in cities. Especially in this age of urbanization when half the world’s population lives in cities, it’s increasingly clear that what’s good for cities is also good for humanity. And if the experience of the United States and the west, the first to really experience motorization, tells us anything, it’s that letting cars determine the structure of cities is a catastrophic mistake.