This blog was written by Robert Shorten, Joachim Taiber and Marc Masen.
* * *
The change in the mobility industry over the past two decades has been astonishing. Beginning with a burst of innovation arising from interest in connected vehicles and vehicle electrification, to an ever more realistic vision of autonomous mobility, this period has been one of the most disruptive in automotive history. From a philosophical perspective, vehicle design has also undergone a fundamental transformation. Not long ago, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) viewed drivers and passengers as the consumer; current vehicle design is much more nuanced, including embracing more vulnerable road users, the impacts of mobility on the planet, and societal issues such as access to responsible mobility choices. As societies reimagine mobility systems, these have all become important topics for cities as well as OEMs.
As we embrace evolution towards a sustainable and socially responsible view of mobility, a question arises: how do we measure progress on this journey? One could argue that we, up to now, have largely failed in this regard. Much work on the sustainable transition has underpinned existing business models by replacing one form of consumption with another, rather than embracing ideas, technologies, consumer behaviour, and business models that promote sustainability of the planet and society. It is therefore important that we, as an industry, should seek metrics that really matter when we think about the future evolution of mobility and its impact on the health of our planet and its ecosystems.
We are not the first to ask such questions. Muhammed Yunus, 2006 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, argued in 2017 for “a world of three zeros: zero carbon; zero unemployment; and zero emissions”, as he advocated for enterprises to consider the social impacts of their activities. As mobility embarks on a journey embracing a similar perspective, we argue that the transition of the consumer-centric mobility industry to a truly sustainable mobility industry gives rise to a world of four zeros: zero carbon; zero pollution; zero waste; and zero harm, and that evaluation of the success of our transition to sustainability should account for these elements.
So how are we doing according to these metrics? Our view is that we have a good view of carbon generation, a less good view of pollution, and a quite poor understanding of the ability of mobility to generate waste and to do harm. For example, we understand carbon generation at the point of manufacture, during the lifetime of vehicles, and at end of life. We have made huge strides when it comes to tailpipe pollution. However, awareness of non-tailpipe pollutants (tyres, brakes, road surface, road markings) is another matter, and such emissions are becoming more relevant as we embrace increasingly heavier electric vehicles. Above all, our failure to recognise the importance of aggregate emissions, as opposed to per-vehicle emissions, and the relevance of Jevon’s paradox in an environmental setting poses a huge danger to planetary health. From the perspective of resource efficiency and waste, personal mobility continues to be incredibly inefficient. Vehicles are becoming ever larger (EV obesity) due to an insatiable demand for both range and occupant safety, while spending most of their lifetime parked and unused or, when in use, transporting a single occupant. Furthermore, cars are almost always sized based on rare events (the infrequent long journey), and the industry has yet to embrace the circular and upgradable design of small vehicles. Finally, from the perspective of harm, our industry has much work to do. Mobility causes harm in multiple ways in our cities: noise, accidents, traffic and parking congestion, and the rise in non-tailpipe pollutants are all problematic issues, as is the potential of vehicle electrification to be a mechanism for the offshoring of emissions. Even some of the mitigation measures posed to resolve these issues have the potential to cause harm (for example, cordon and dynamic/surge pricing tend to be socially regressive favouring the rich over the poor). The industry safety spiral of ever increasing vehicle weight is another huge issue, not only creating actual dangers for vulnerable road users, but also increasing secondary issues such as non-tailpipe pollutants, and making it more difficult for society to embrace the needed transition to smaller vehicles. Finally, the combination of autonomy, large-capacity lithium batteries, and an insatiable demand for AI is creating new forms of risk.
There has never been a more exciting time to be involved in the mobility industry. Mobility bestows both personal freedoms and opportunities. Moving toward a sustainable and socially responsible view of mobility is also the right direction of travel for our industry. How do we get there? Honest KPIs are the first step in this journey. Our industry must strive to be an industry of four zeros: zero carbon; zero pollution; zero waste; and zero harm. By not embracing these, or similar, KPIs, we may indeed end up sustaining things other than the planet.