<doc.id=0310.b2>
<title> Can increased car traffic have a positive effect on the environment? </title>
In the article I have chosen, "Ökad biltrafik bra för miljön" (Dagens Nyheter Oct. 2, 1999:A4), Tom Corneliusson and Björn Gillberg argue that an increasing amount of car traffic on the bridge of Öresund actually will be of benefit for the environment. Further the bridge is considered to benefit for example cultural and educational interchange between regions. As high a fare as has been proposed for the crossing would however disturb the positive effects and curb the trips via bridge, a trend which they, through this article, want to obstruct.
On several points I do not find their arguments convincing though. In the first paragraphs of the article, Corneliusson and Gillberg assert that there are no reasons for limiting traffic on the bridge as regards environmental matters. Furthermore they suggest that car traffic, although increased to the highest possible level, still will cause less pollution than the ferry service, why an increased rate of crossings rather should be encouraged by lower fares than the opposite. How this can be explained, is with the fact that almost all cars by the year 2010 will have catalytic converters. Something they do not take into account however, is that ferries also will have improved technique to limit pollution to a minimum. Car-production technique of tomorrow is compared to ferry-one of today, which is not a fair means of comparison.
	Corneliusson and Gillberg's next statement is that exhaustion in the whole region of Öresund will not increase, to strain the question it will in fact decrease compared to today. A statement like this is based on calculations on a "worst conceivable case", when the increase of traffic in Skåne would be 70% over a period of 20 years (from 1990-2010), but the decrease of harmful emissions as large as 80%. Why this can be the case, concerning elements such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon oxide, and carbon hydrogen, can also be explained with catalytic converters. A fact not mentioned by the two authors of the article, is that we already today let out too much carbon dioxide - an element that contributes to the greenhouse effect. Thus an increased amount of traffic of course means more discharge of carbon dioxide. Corneliusson and Gillberg even mention a 30% increase of carbon dioxide outlet, compared to today, because of the presumably higher traffic rate. Looking at it this way, this is something that do not seem to correspond that well with the title of their article. Yet another aspect that would shed new light over this issue, not taken into account by the authors, is the proposed increase of travelling from outside the Öresund region, by people heading for the bridge. When the psychological obstacle of, perhaps, paying extra on the ferry for bringing a car than not, the inconvenience of having to match time-tables, cancelled trips because of weather etc. disappear, it is very likely that more people than today spontaneously cross the sound. This, by all means, is the aim of the bridge, to increase the accessibility to both regions, but scarcely of benefit for the environment. An increased amount of emissions is thus also to be expected outside the area of Skåne.
	A conclusion that is drawn in the article, is that the fare for crossing the bridge should be lowered substantially compared to plans, to make an increase of traffic possible. Taking into consideration what have been mentioned above, this would not be of benefit for the environment neither in the region of Öresund, nor in the regions further away from the actual crossing point. Something which however would cause a positive effect on the environment, not even mentioned in the article, is lowered fares on trains crossing the bridge, generous, well-planned timetables, good connections with other public transport etc. This would in fact mean, easy accessibility from all parts of the countries surrounding Öresund, a minimum of pollution both to the regions further away from and in the Öresund area, and an elimination of emissions both from the ferry service and car traffic on the actual bridge and in its surroundings.
	Conclusively one could argue that this article is narrow-minded by means of considering increased car traffic as the only way of improving exchange between regions. However with this starting-point, the authors of course in several ways try to argue in favour of the positive effects of an increased amount of traffic by car. What makes their argumentation insufficient, and untrustworthy in spite of the statistics pointing in a positive direction, is however that they amongst other things 1. compare tomorrow's technique in car-production to today's of ferry-production, 2. do not mention that even a lowered amount of pollution still have negative effects on the environment, especially since they have neglected the effect on areas outside the Öresund region, and 3. do not take into consideration less pollutant means of travelling, for example trains. I can consequently not find that an increased amount of car traffic would have a positive effect on the environment after reading the article.
</doc>