Perhaps more so than ever, the car industry seems to get a lot of negative publicity at the moment. If you believe the commentators, car companies are simply evil money-grabbing monsters that take pleasure in the destruction of the Earth. As a worker in the car industry, I find such "bashing" extremely unfair, and so here is my personal response to the critics.

Some critics argue that private cars simply should not exist at all, or at least should be almost never used. We should all work and shop within walking distance of home, or use public transport.

In some ways this is reasonable - I get as annoyed as anyone when I see people using the car for a journey that only takes five minutes to walk, and I am a great believer in using public transport when it is appropriate. But unfortunately modern lifestyles are largely incompatible with this ideal. Jobs are increasingly specialised, and so people have little choice in where they work. And often they can't move nearer to the job, because their partner also works in an equally speciallised job, tens of miles away. Without returning to the old "a woman's place is in the home" idea, it's hard to see how couples like this can avoid a long commute to work. And arguably shops are equally specialised - due to the vast range of products now available, it's unrealistic to expect the local corner shop to stock everything people need, and so inevitably they have to travel to larger outlets. You can't really blame the car industry for this situation.

Then there's the greenhouse gas / climate change argument. Personally I am pretty much convinced that man-made CO₂ emissions are having an effect on the climate, and we should be looking for ways to reduce these emissions. But it seems the car industry is invariably singled out for criticisism, despite being responsible for a relatively small fraction of the problem. Even in the United States, cars and light trucks are only responsible for about 20% of that country's total CO₂ emissions; in Europe the figure is significantly lower. And remember that that includes police cars, ambulances, and any number of other public service vehicles, so the contribution from private cars is smaller still.

While recognising that the car industry has its part to play in reducing CO₂ emissions, I do feel that other sources - air travel being the most obvious, though domestic heating and lighting is a far bigger contributor than is normally recognised - should come under similar pressure.

On a related note, a common complaint is that cars are less economical than they should be. A topical example is the comparison between the 25-odd mpg obtained by the Ford Model T of the early 1900s and the 12 mpg from a modern SUV. "Why hasn't there been the same progress as in, say, computers?", ask the critics.

The first response is that the economy figures for early cars are not directly comparable with those of today, due to the different test methods. The 12 mpg for a Range Rover Sport relates to a cold start followed by a short drive on simulated congested city streets, while the figures for the Model T (and others) are probably under much more economical "cruising" conditions.

And, of course, this is comparing one of the best cars of the early 1900s with one of the worst (in economy terms) of modern days. A fairer comparison with the Model T would be a 1.4 diesel Fiesta, which manages 52.3 mpg on the urban cycle and 74.3 out of town - quite a bit better.

But more importantly, this kind of criticism completely ignores the vast improvements in other aspects of cars. For example:

• Toxic emissions: even in just the last 30 years there has been a 95% reduction in toxic emissions from cars, and the limits are continuing to drop every few years

• Safety: with their airbags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, etc, modern cars are far more likely to save your life in a crash. But this extra protection inevitably adds weight, which makes economy worse

• Performance: an ordinary 4-door family car today will accelerate, cruise at high speed, and stop like a sports car of 20 or 30 years ago. As a result people get where they are going more quickly, which helps businesses; cars are much more comfortable to drive at normal cruising speeds, since there is plenty "in reserve"; and (perhaps most importantly) the better handling and braking of the modern car makes avoiding accidents very much easier

That leads nicely on to the next argument: why do car makers produce big, uneconomical SUVs rather than concentrating on small, economical cars? The answer to that is very simple: that is what customers want. For whatever reasons, many people find SUVs (or people carriers, sports cars, or whatever) fit the requirements of their lifestyles, and as a result they are willing to pay a fair price for them. On the other hand, customers are absolutely not willing to pay enough for small, slow, poorly equipped vehicles to allow the car companies to make any profit. You can hardly expect Ford, etc - who are after all businesses, who need to make a profit to survive - to deliberately ignore the wishes of their customers. Just look at MG Rover to see what happens when car makers don't produce products that customers want to buy. In the incredibly cut-throat business of modern car making, it's not a question of wanting to make "vast profits" - it's a matter of sheer survival.

Yes, many people will pay a premium for a very economical car - the success of the Toyota Prius is proof of that. But the technology to deliver that kind of economy without sacrificing space, comfort, performance and safety is very expensive; many observers doubt that Toyota is making much money on the Prius even now.

And don't forget, this isn't the 1950s, when a small number of car makers in each country dominated the market and could largely drive public opinion. Nowadays, if domestic manufacturers don't offer what customers want, there are dozens of foreign companies happy to step in and deliver.

The oil industry is also frequently criticised for either not caring enough about environmental matters, or indeed actively increasing fuel use. While I am sure the oil companies are not blameless, it is important to remember that the improvements in emissions, performance and longevity of modern vehicles are due in no small part to advances in fuels and lubricants.

No question, the car industry has a heavy duty to the world, and we don't always do the very best that we could. But I think we do pretty well, all things considered, and personally I am proud to be a part of it.