Car-free concept thwarted by "political interpretations"

A large scale Car-Free Day campaign has basically turned into a forum to debunk backward public transportation and an attack on the use of cars by bureaucrats. People who wanted to advocate an advanced, environmentally-friendly, and ideal concept of a new life probably didn't expect this. How did this happen? Isn't it good to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Isn't it good to reduce harmful impact on the natural environment? How did this universally-accepted concept of environmental-protection go sour in China?

Backward public transport is a fact. Although Chinese cities have been advocating the priority of public transport for years, the reality is: public buses are limited. At the same time, it is also a fact that there are too many cars used by bureaucrats. The excessive growth in the number of cars used by bureaucrats in fact has been one major source of support for the Chinese auto industry. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with the concept of not driving for one day, because we really need to and should reduce the use of cars. We have ample theoretical and factual support for this.

However, we discover to our chagrin that the current discussion has turned into a dispute over who should own cars and a debate about car rights. Thus, a simple conceptual issue has entered the realm of politics. The poor man's dream now is, by working hard, to eventually drive a car that he owns. Advocates of the car-free day, for this group of people (mainly their spokesmen), sounds like the greatest of ironies.

Maybe the poor man has nothing against a "car-free day." He too wishes to live in a clean environment. The only problem is, the difference in one's position makes the issue tricky. Compared with a clean environment, the poor man or his spokesmen are more eager to have a decent life that is recognized by mainstream values, for instance, having a car to drive. Compared with this credible convenience, global warming, poor air quality, and crowded cities, seem less important.

If our understanding is not clouded by prejudice, we should be able to comprehend this conceptual difference based on different stages of development. Because of this difference, different social groups often have different or even quite conflicting needs, hence things become complicated in this world. Behind every advocate naturally lies the marks of a group of people, sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.

I believe that what we should do now is try to prevent this gap from growing. Naturally we cannot completely reach a full consensus, but we should and can avoid this difference turning into a political conflict. Actually, signs of a conflict have already been demonstrated through many angry words. Advocates of a "car-free day" have already turned to thrashing civil servants' unlimited use of government-use cars. A nasty mood has already dominated rational discussion.

With the current rich-poor gap in China, anything can turn into a fuse that sets off the venting of public anger. One single fuse may be nothing, but the accumulation of a bad mood over a long period of time will not only ruin the promotion of the concept of environmental protection, but may become a political risk factor and evolve into a social risk that is impossible to control.

It was basically in this way that cars led to politics. That's the way in China. This complexity demands that people face facts when they advocate something. They must aim at moderate targets that the majority of people can accept. If they are too far ahead of the times or move into areas where social conflicts are concentrated, they will fail. Outside this case "car-free day" example, when people show off their riches the effect will be the same.

by reporter Hu Yinbin