Does Capitalism Dream of Electric Jeeps? A Conversation with Thea Riofrancos
The political scientist tells us why the electric car revolution won’t save us.
Thea Riofrancos, Dewi Tan, Matthew Wagstaffe
Dec 7, 2023
Frank Lloyd Wright’s spectacular Broadacre City model—an arcadian fantasy of America transformed into a sprawling suburban network of family farms, first proposed in 1932—was only conceivable thanks to the growing availability of automobiles. Today we know the environmental consequences of gasoline-powered cars, and the rise of electric vehicles once again places the relationship between mobility, American culture, and the natural world at the center of conversations about design. Given the relentless pace of climate change, there is an urgent need to redesign our mobility infrastructure, shifting from a fossil fuel-dependent system to an electrified one. Recently, we spoke about these issues with Thea Riofrancos, associate professor of political science at Providence College in Rhode Island, an expert on resource extraction and the renewable energy transition.
Frank Lloyd Wright. Broadacre City Project. 1934–35
Atacama Salt Flat, Chile. Photo: Thea Riofrancos
How did you become interested in researching the politics of renewable energy technologies?
In my earlier work, I examined the political economy and social conflicts surrounding extraction in Latin America, a region that has long been a source of resources for empires and global markets. While initially I focused on what we might call traditional-extraction-sector materials—for example, oil—more recently I’ve been interested in the extraction frontiers of renewable energy technologies. As we confront the climate crisis, we have to shift away from fossil fuels and toward an energy system that produces zero emissions—a process that’s become known as the “energy transition.” I’m interested in the material implications of this transition, and in how it meets nature in the form of extraction.
How does the electric car fit into this dynamic?
Lithium is an essential ingredient in the rechargeable batteries that we use in devices like phones, laptops, and electric vehicles. In 2019, I began doing field work in the Atacama Desert in Chile, where lithium mining exerts a great impact on the surrounding environment. While there, I began thinking about the global forces that were shaping this extraction site. What policymakers and car companies have proposed, in terms of getting the transportation sector to zero emissions, is for every American to swap out their traditional vehicle for an electric vehicle. I don’t want to sound like a skeptic about the emissions-reducing potential of electric vehicles—I believe they’ll start meaningfully reducing emissions soon. But I’m doubtful that the electric passenger vehicle is a technological panacea for all of the environmental problems of the transportation industry. An alternative would involve large mass transit options and a lot more walking and cycling than individual car driving. This would allow for less extraction of lithium and an overall reduction of harm to the impacted ecosystems and communities.
Tesla Model X electric vehicle
Why do you think this fantasy of a green transportation technology magic bullet persists?
There are many well-meaning environmental advocates who think that changing as little as possible is the most achievable way to organize an energy transition. They argue that it is more politically feasible to enact policies that require Americans to adjust as little about their lives as possible. Simply electrifying passenger cars is an example. But, in addition to the high lithium mining costs, there’s a host of other reasons why we don’t want to replicate the status quo built environment and its main mode of transportation—cars—as we move into a zero-emissions future. Merely replacing the status quo with electric cars is not enough, since our current built environment—and the privileges individual car owners receive—is complicit in producing and reproducing spatial segregation based on class and race.
What do you think are the main challenges of reducing car-dependency in order to create a more systemic change in the transportation sector?
The US transportation sector, which currently accounts for approximately 30% of emissions, is the largest contributor to climate change, and the only sector of the economy in which emissions are still rising. These percentages are much higher than the transportation sectors of other countries, which is a clue to how car-dependent we are. In the cultural iconography of America, cars represent a form of freedom; they embody our belief in individual and class mobility. More importantly, due to the physical landscape of America—with its sprawling suburbs and highways—many of us depend on cars to go about our everyday lives. Car ownership has become a requirement for full social citizenship in a lot of the United States. However, I feel optimistic about the younger generation and their growing concern with climate change. In fact, existing research has shown that car ownership has become both less desirable and affordable.
Why do you think it’s so important to fight for these larger systemic changes as we undertake the energy transition?
We know from histories of technology and energy that the longer a system exists, the harder it is to change. We have sunk a lot of capital into existing infrastructures of our built environment. But because we are building the renewable energy sector largely from scratch, we should think holistically about how these infrastructures will be funded and the communities they will serve. Currently, however, because we remain under capitalism, this sector is being planned primarily by private investors and corporations. I don’t think that these market actors are well situated to properly plan an energy transition: Such a transition will likely not be fast enough, it will not be just enough, and it will be chaotic, meaning not coordinated. These actors tend to focus on their own profitability first and, especially under conditions of financialization, the horizons of their projects are much shorter than the long-term visions required to plan a new energy system.
What can the building sector do in terms of systemic change to move toward a more sustainable future?
The building sector ought to tackle the climate crisis in the same way as electric vehicle manufacturers and policy-makers: small-scale technological solutions will not work. Only by tackling the entire system of building production—from the way architectural labor is organized to the design professions’ broader social role—can the industry begin to envision the just, green world of tomorrow. Likewise, only by questioning the global processes of consumption and production can we address the underlying reason for the high demand for electric cars.
In order for the building sector to transform, we must first establish a social and political organization. This can take the form of an architecture union or a worker-oriented architecture that allows one to confront the social role of architects. Much of the labor is precarious and being undervalued, and we need to change this so that architects would be empowered to take on a more important social role. This applies to practitioners being part of climate movements in universities and firms, where they can collectively pressure institutions to confront the climate crisis and be more equitable. Architects can put their expertise to good use, whether divesting from fossil fuels, embracing low- or no-carbon materials in their practice, or designing passive and energy-efficient houses. To be impactful as professionals, they have to interface with communities and policymakers outside the field.
Anaheim Regional Intermodal Transportation Center. Platlinum Certified LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) building. 2014
