Society now sits on the other side of the so-called "Bridge to the New Millennium." So after hearing all of that crap about bridges and new millennia for a year or two, we find that society is indeed crossing a bridge. Society has been characterized by a set of transportation innovations that have changed our lives. The first of these breakthroughs came many millennia ago when humans invented the wheel, an invention that remains unrivaled in its importance to the human race.

The next major advancement was the domestication of animals for human benefit. Many advancements came and went, like steamships and trains, but one of the most incredible inventions happened when Mercedes invented the first automobile. For the first time in history, humans could easily acquire a machine that could transport them individually, not amongst the outdoors with noisy, urinating horses. The automobile signaled a new age in transportation and a new American dream.

Now, society stands on the brink of a new transportation revolution. The revolution is not a technological advancement; rather, it is a societal revolution in which humans are ready to change their habits and mold technology to help protect the environment.

Like most environmental or social consciousness movements, the well left-of-center Pomona College community is on-board the uninformed bandwagon. This is reasonable; protecting the environment is a noble cause in which all of us should participate. Emissions from automobiles account for up to a quarter of the smog in Southern California. The carbon monoxide in those emissions is the primary contributor to greenhouse gasses that are probably causing the temperature to rise. Other emissions from automobiles cause acid rain. Their emissions make mountains disappear, obscure formerly pristine views from national parks, and make places like Texas, the San Joaquin valley, and Los Angeles less pleasant to live in.

In the last decade, major automakers have produced viable electric, solar, and natural gas vehicles. These vehicles pollute less, so most Pomona College kids and liberals alike have been rallying behind this new technology. Several states have tax breaks for people who own electric vehicles. Alternative Fuel Vehicles often get unrestricted access to carpool lanes and even have certain tolls waived to encourage their use.

Promoting social responsibility, Pomona College and even campus security uses only electric powered carts, while other schools use larger internal combustion vehicles for the same purposes. On the moral high ground are a large group students who contend that society needs more alternative fuel vehicles and we need them now. They wonder why society hasn’t already switched to cleaner automobiles, especially electric cars.

Electric vehicles are not the answer. The environmental consequences of electric cars are nearly equal to those of conventional automobiles. Each year ten of thousands of automobiles are discarded in America. If we drove electric cars exclusively, thousands of tons of used batteries would have to be discarded. Dealing with this waste would be terribly difficult in a country that can’t stomach the responsibility of its own nuclear waste because we need to protect a mountain in beautiful, desolate central Nevada. Electric motor technology can not yet produce the same amount of horsepower as internal combustion. Therefore, electric cars have to be lighter, and are thus constructed out of more plastics and composites. Plastics are petroleum based; therefore, while we may not be using the oil in combustion, a considerable amount of plastic would be necessary for the construction of these vehicles. This would not reduce America’s dependence on oil companies.

Another terrible fault in the electric car solution is that these cars run on electricity. The most populous regions of the United States have faced energy crises over the last two years. This summer, when new power plants were proposed, there was an uproar over what kind should be built. Coal is too dirty, nuclear energy too dangerous and polluting. Hydroelectric power is dependent on location, easily affected by drought, and bad for natural hydrology. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but is more dangerous to transport, and is expensive to produce and distribute. A huge majority of our power is already produced by coal. Power plant emissions are ruining vistas in the Smoky Mountains, in Yosemite, and all across America.

Though intended to help the environment, all of the electricity needed for these cars would in fact destroy it. More of this environment would also have to be ruined to make way for new transmission lines to transport all of the electricity. America would also have to learn to make enough time to charge up its electric cars (typically requiring several hours for a charge that will last roughly half the distance of a full tank of gasoline).

There are a few other options available right now. Honda and Toyota both offer hybrid vehicles. These vehicles use a small combustion engine and a small electric engine to power the car more efficiently. The technology is expensive though, and few American are willing to pay the same amount for a compact car that is "less than stylish" (i.e. ugly as sin) as they might pay for a mid- to full-size gasoline automobile.

Honda, General Motors, and Ford all make vehicles that either run can or exclusively run on natural gas. These cars produce only about ten percent of the emissions that a normal one does, but their range very limited. Their range is also limited by the lack of infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles. These cars can also be dangerous in the event of an accident since the explosive fuel is kept at pressure.

What America needs now is patience. Developing technology that is both reliable and cheap takes time. The big three American car companies are developing hybrid engine systems for current models. They assume Americans are more likely to buy a modified version of a successful model. While they could have released these cars, they are going further by insisting that their cars perform. The whining of an electric engine doesn’t exactly incite the same adrenaline rush as a throaty big block. The hybrid and natural gas vehicles on the market today are too slow and unexciting to drive. By ensuring that nothing about the car’s performance or price will change, except, of course, their gas mileage, the American car companies are taking a real step towards helping the environment. Their prototypes are already being tested and should be in showrooms within the next few years.

Fuel cells are another exciting prospect– they combine raw hydrogen and oxygen to power the automobile. Their only exhaust is pure distilled water. These cars are coming soon as well, but the fuel cell technology is currently very expensive. Anyone who opposes evil capitalist regimes and even more evil oil companies are perfectly welcome to pay the price of a Ferrari for a car the size of a Civic. Personally, I’m going to wait.

The fate of oil companies must also factor into this revolution. While many of us consider oil companies socially irresponsible and driven by profit, they still employ millions of Americans, from engineers to executives. Their business would be hurt severely, which would have a detrimental effect on many regional economies, such as those of Alaska, Central Asia, and the Gulf Coast of America. Tax revenue from these economies fund numerous government projects, almost all these are related to transportation. Many oil companies have heavily invested in these technologies, and are even trying to strike compromises that would ensure their survival. For example, it was recently announced that fuel cells could be powered by elements extracted from diesel fuel with only a miniscule increase in emissions. This would protect jobs and tax revenue, and it would keep America from having to radically reinvest in infrastructure.

A final thought about automobiles in general: whether or not this technology is should be built is not the question. However, the research for most of the technology receives heavy subsidies from the government. Maybe, instead of perpetuating the use of the automobile, the money could instead go into creating better public transportation. This would cut down on pollution and traffic while at the same time helping the underclass.

The moral of this car story: look before you leap. While the technology may seem fantastic and saving the environment is crucial, we shouldn’t switch completely yet. Technology is coming; we must anticipate its arrival, not berate people about its current shortcomings. Some complain about oil companies investing in new technology, but, as with most things, a capitalist motive is the only force that can push these new technologies into reality. Environmentally friendly cars must be reliable and cheap before they become a real solution. Let’s remember that flying cars are also feasible right now with technology, but are just too unreasonably expensive to consider.

But, until the technology is practical — unless you’re willing to trade in your Land Rover with its Sierra Club sticker in for a bike — quit your bitchin’.