by Kenneth J. Van Dellen

When the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) and Creation Care magazine launched a publicity campaign in 2002 that pursued this intriguing question, many people missed the point. The intent of the campaign was to make people think about the ethics involved in choosing our mode of transportation.

Susan Ager “got it” in her column in the Detroit Free Press last November: “At first, the answer seems obvious: something small, humble, quiet and clean. But wait. A simple question can have a complex answer—or no answer— but still force us to review our values and choices.” Ager asked some people for their observations, and one member of the clergy said, “I can’t see our Lord purchasing a $100,000 Mercedes. He didn’t have money. He lived off the beneficence of others. So yes, he’d hitchhike. But He might well buy a decent SUV: rugged and dependable, and he could fit a half-dozen disciples into it. He’d never pick luxury. But he’d be comfortable with utility.”

Dan Edgerly, current youth pastor at Calvary Reformed Church in Holland, Mich., where the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets originated, made this comment: “I can’t see Jesus in a big Ford Excursion, unless he carpooled. That’s it! He would carpool to build relationships with lots of people, as many as the seat belts would hold.”

When I kidded my friend Banner Editor John Suk about whether taking a 12,000-mile trip in an RV that averaged only 8 miles per gallon endangered his credentials as someone who cares for the environment, he explained that it wasn’t really bad at all. “We did the math and figured out that living in this thing for a year, even with the gas we spend driving it from one place to another, we are spending less on energy than we do heating a home in Grand Rapids and driving two cars.” Then, like a teacher putting a cocky student in his place, he suggested that maybe I’d like to write an article on the subject. Now I have to try to do this without getting a lot of people upset.

So what’s the fuss about? Does it really matter what kind of vehicle we drive? According to the EEN website, whatwouldjesusdrive.org, “Jesus cares about what we drive. Obeying Jesus in our transportation choices is one of the great Christian obligations and opportunities of the twenty-first century. Pollution from vehicles has a major impact on human health and the rest of God’s creation. It contributes significantly to the threat of global warming. Our reliance on imported oil from unstable regions threatens peace and security.”

Let’s take a look at some of the facts and do our own thinking. (Data are from the EPA and other U.S. sources. Canada’s statistics may differ, but I suspect they aren’t much different from these.)

Recent Trends
Vehicles used for personal transportation are mostly “light vehicles.” These are cars and light-duty trucks (SUVs, vans, and pickups with less than 8,500 lb. gross-vehicle-weight ratings). Light-duty trucks more than 3,750 pounds have been allowed higher levels of emissions and lower fuel economy than cars because when the laws were passed regulating these things most light-duty trucks were used for business purposes (farms, ranches, delivery, construction, and so on). However, between 1975 and 2001 the SUV market share increased from 2 percent to nearly 22 percent, with vans increasing from 4.5 percent to 9.3 percent, and pickup trucks from 13 percent to about 17 percent. Light-duty trucks have more and more become the family car. The U.S. government, having set standards to conserve petroleum and reduce emissions in cars, stood idly by while automakers eagerly exploited the loophole to give the people what advertisers were creating a demand for.

Petroleum consumption and emissions are of concern for several reasons. Approximately 40 percent of U.S. oil consumption goes to fuel light vehicles, and crude oil is a finite resource. Experts predict that, at present rates of consumption, world oil production will peak in the next few years, the potentially large reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the price of a commodity is related to supply and demand, and a rise in gasoline prices can sharply increase the cost of driving vehicles with low fuel economy. And, finally, aside from higher levels of pollution emitted by light-duty trucks because of lower emission standards, the amount of carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas many scientists associate with global warming—vehicles release is directly related to fuel consumption, and light vehicles contribute about 20 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

Fuel economy in light vehicles increased from about 13 miles per gallon in 1975 to 22 mpg in1987, but it has declined since then to about 20.5 mpg. The main reason for the overall decline is that although mileage for cars has remained fairly constant at about 24 mpg, for light trucks it has decreased from 18.4 to17.3, while the proportion of light trucks on the road has been increasing.

Although more efficient technologies have been developed for light vehicles, they have been used to provide added power and performance and to compensate for added weight, rather than to improve fuel economy. Since 1981 average vehicle weight has increased 22 percent; average horsepower, 84 percent; and 0-to-60 miles per hour acceleration, 27 percent. And the fleet average fuel economy for 2001 was at about the 1981 level. If we had held to the average weight and performance averages of 1981, fuel economy would have been 25 percent higher today. So what?

Love Your Neighbor
Many times we fail to recognize that decisions we make affect not only ourselves but also our neighbors, both those next door and those on the other side of the world—and we all know what Jesus said about neighbors.

What are some benefits of downsizing our vehicles? Look at what you spend on fuel in a year. If you got 25 miles instead of 20 per gallon, it would be like a 20-percent discount on fuel. You could split the savings with the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, it wouldn’t cost you a cent, and you could get a tax deduction for a contribution.

Several benefits would result from importing less oil. The United States now imports more than half of its petroleum, much of it from the Middle East. As someone said, “We’re like alcoholics, with the liquor store in a very dangerous neighborhood.” In addition to improving the balance of trade, reducing imports would reduce the cost of the military protecting our oil supplies and reduce the amount of money we send to people allied with folks who may want to harm us. And it would decrease economic effects of fluctuating prices and reduce the risk of oil tanker accidents.

Fluctuating prices can have serious consequences. As I write this in mid-February, gas prices have just broken $2 per gallon (still cheaper than bottled water) in several cities and are predicted to remain high for some time. Some people who drive gas-guzzlers are finding it increasingly difficult to fuel them. Will higher gas prices cause owners of light trucks to unload them at sacrificial prices? Will traditional buyers of used cars be stuck between buying these “bargains” that they might not be able to fuel or going without, if conventional cars are scarce? This could become a serious problem in areas with mass-transit deficiencies. Why not consider a vehicle that saves you money, helps the environment, and may provide less expensive transportation for a second or third owner, who could also save on fuel and help reduce air pollution?

If you generate less pollution that contributes to the photochemical smog and other atmospheric contaminants, you benefit. So do your elderly parents or your children or your grandchildren, and lots of other people you don’t even know—and so do other organisms.

Some view their large vehicles as their safety cocoon, although there are indications that they might be less safe in single-vehicle accidents. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety are now reportedly willing to work with the government to improve SUV safety, which tells us something. It’s clear, however, that occupants of ordinary cars are at progressively greater risk of being killed in two-vehicle accidents as the weight and size of other vehicles increases. Should we be concerned about these things, or is it “every man for himself”?

It’s a Free Country. Don’t Tell Me What to Drive!
Maybe you need a larger vehicle because of your personal dimensions or because you really need to haul people or stuff. You can still pick a vehicle at the top of its class for environmental impact. Do you really need a 4-by-4, or is it just for image? How about a Hummer, rated at 11 mpg in the city, 14 on the highway? That makes a statement! Are your “needs” determined by what’s available and what your neighbors have or by real necessity? You can always find someone whose environmental stewardship is worse than yours, but do we use some else’s bad behavior as our standard? Don’t make your vehicle choice part of the curse on God’s creation.

Practicing what I preach, I enjoy driving a Toyota Prius gas-electric hybrid car. Besides excellent fuel economy, it has an SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) rating on emissions, the highest EPA category except for electric cars, and with very nice performance, thank you.

However, if Jesus and all the disciples had light trucks, and Jesus invited the 12 to ride with him instead of driving separately, the fuel consumption and emissions would be less per person than when my wife and I ride in our car. Now if John Suk were to carry several people with him who would otherwise be driving alone . . .

Think about it.

Do Your Own Research
• What Would Jesus Drive?: www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org

• Emissions data: www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Air/air-23a.cfm

• Emissions and fuel economy: www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/

• Fuel economy trends: www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/r01008.pdf

• Fuel economy, emissions standards: www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/RS20298.pdf

• Vehicle rankings: www.greenercars.com/bestof.html

• Oil security: www.wri.org/cpi/pubs/oil-cni.html

• Vehicle safety: www.safecarguide.com/exp/weight/idx.htm or www.suv.org/safety.html

The Race to Hybrids
The January 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit featured several concept vehicles with gas-electric hybrid or fuel-cell power systems, in addition to the Honda and Toyota hybrids already on the market. In conjunction with that event, GM announced development of an entire line of hybrids in several vehicle categories, and Ford and Daimler-Chrysler reported plans to produce a hybrid SUV and pickup, respectively. These will be released over the next several years. In the meantime, however, Honda and Toyota are applying the experience they’ve gained and expanding their offerings. Having long resisted relatively weak government efforts to raise fuel-economy standards, the Big Three again find themselves behind the foreign competition. (Ford has been developing a variety of other technologies to improve the fuel economy of nonhybrid vehicles.)

Any hybrid vehicle would be an improvement on existing ones for fuel economy and emissions, but there will still be room to choose wisely when more models are available. A “strong” hybrid, which shuts off the gas engine at traffic lights or in drive-thru lines and may use only electric power (fondly called “stealth mode”) at lower speeds, is better than a “weak” hybrid, which uses electric power only as a booster. A continuously variable transmission (CVT) keeps the engine running at optimum speed at all times, improving fuel economy and reducing emissions, and the absence of shifting makes the vehicle accelerate smoothly and run quietly.

In his recent State of the Union Address, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed limited funding for a hydrogen-fuel economy. Using hydrogen fuel for vehicles would have many benefits, but first we must develop the infrastructure for producing hydrogen from water, perhaps using solar energy, and for distributing the fuel. It will be interesting to see how (or if) it works out. I hope it does.