By on August 23, 2019

If you’re any kind of a car enthusiast, or you just think the personal automobile is a terrific transportation device, this news has got to be chilling. The cross-party Science and Technology Select Committee of Parliament has issued a report that says that if the United Kingdom is to reach its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050, private automobile and truck ownership must end.

Oh, and if you think your morally pure Tesla or some other EV is going to protect your privilege for personal transportation, no, the environmental Jacobins are coming for all privately operated motor vehicles.

To start with, the committee report says that, starting in 2035, the government should start banning the sale of all conventionally powered cars and trucks, including hybrids, “at the latest.” That, however, won’t be enough. The committee adds, “The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions.”

That means that even pure battery powered EVs have got to go.

It’s quite simple, at least in the eyes of the select committee. You see, the manufacture of even zero-emission vehicles itself produces “substantial” carbon emissions as well engaging in other environmentally harmful practices. The only way to eliminate carbon emissions associated with the manufacture of private automobiles is to eliminate the manufacture, sale, and ownership of those private vehicles.

As the committee report puts it, “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”

There was a time when American car enthusiasts looked to Europe for automobiles that car lovers could desire. Think of all the great British, French, Italian, and German marques. Now, many European cities want to ban cars from urban centers, the European Union wants to put a 112 mph speed limit on all cars, including exotics, and now a select committee of the British Parliament is seriously recommending effectively banning the automobile. William Lanchester, Henry Royce, Charles Rolls, William Lyons, W.O. Bentley, and Colin Chapman must be spinning faster than any of their engines ever did.

The relevant section of the report is below:

Plan for reducing vehicle emissions: The Government must bring forward the date of its proposed ban on the sales of new ‘conventional’ cars and vans to 2035 at the latest, and ensure that it covers hybrids too. In the near-term, the Government must reconsider the fiscal incentives for consumers to purchase both new and used vehicle models with lower emissions. The Government should also work with public services and owners of public land, such as schools and hospitals, to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicle chargepoints, and introduce measures to ensure that chargepoints are interoperable, compatible with a smart energy system, reliable, and provide real-time information on their current functionality. Although ultra-low emissions vehicles generate very little emissions during use, their manufacture generates substantial emissions. In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions.

[Image: Harry’s garage/YouTube]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

106 Comments on “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050...”


  • avatar
    -Nate

    ! It’s not even April 1st .

    This is insane .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    labelnerd

    I think we can now see how Brexit got so screwed up. These people are almost as insane as US leadership.

  • avatar
    ScarecrowRepair

    I’ve often wondered if one reason for the US economy expanding so much faster then European ones was due partly to Americans having ewer restrictions on cars, especially in making their purchase price AND their fuel price so much cheaper. Get to work faster, get to meetings faster, deliver samples, everything of the sort that could be done faster with personal cars than depending on taxis or mass transit or bicycles.

    Watch movies of the period. Americans had lots of big cars that could carry a lot. Europeans had few cars, and those were cramped and slow, with puny engines to dodge taxes.

    Seemed to typify the economies too. Americans roaring ahead, Europeans sputtering along.

    All central planning is the same. It cripples economies. Substitutes slow cautious committees for personal initiative and accountability, and if a bad decision is made, covering up and saving face is inevitable; but committees have no competition to try a different tack.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Growing more slowly? Watch movies of the period?

      What time period are you talking about? Growth? Like when Germany was bombed back to the stone age and fully recovered in 15 years? That growth?

      • 0 avatar
        ScarecrowRepair

        Good point — I mean from the invention of the automobile and how US governments generally left it alone, while European governments took its expense as a sign it was upper class only, thus the politicians saw it as both a new revenue source and a sign of social class to regulate in the name of the lower classes. Slap it down! Regulate it! And since engine size was the primary price determinant, tax by the engine size to make sure the rich paid their fair share.

        • 0 avatar
          la834

          The US government hasn’t left automotive regulation alone since the mid-1960s. Since then, there has often more automotive regulation in the US than in the EU, which is why there are so many fewer choices in the US car market. The US also jumped on safety and pollution regs decades before Europe did.

      • 0 avatar
        Stanley Steamer

        Yeah we helped pay for that too.

        • 0 avatar
          chuckrs

          Specifically, the Marshall Plan and similar for Japan. Compare and contrast our postwar actions to the clusterfark devised by the French and British in 1918 – and compare and contrast the outcomes.

          • 0 avatar
            -Nate

            Yes, America rebuilt Europe and Japan, make no mistake .

            They started it, we finished it and then cleaned up their mess .

            -Nate

      • 0 avatar
        CarnotCycle

        “Like when Germany was bombed back to the stone age and fully recovered in 15 years? That growth?”

        To be fair there, only 1/2-2/3rds of Germany “fully recovered” within fifteen years. As P.J. O’Rourke liked to observe, nothing ever kept a bunch of Germans poor for long – except Communism.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      It took Europe a fair bit to recover – during and after WWII the US positioned itself as the world manufacturing leader. Automotive freedom probably figured very little into the US’s overall success during that period.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “I’ve often wondered if one reason for the US economy expanding so much faster then European ones was due partly to Americans having ewer restrictions on cars, especially in making their purchase price AND their fuel price so much cheaper.”

      No, the reason we expanded so fast was because we came out of WWII relatively unscathed. PERIOD.

      • 0 avatar
        ScarecrowRepair

        No, not PERIOD, not even close, especially if you include WW I, which was my mistake for not specifying the period.

        Did you know that almost every European country was a kingdom before WW I and a democracy (even if rather weak) after? There was a reason so many Europeans emigrated to the US. Europe was a constipated mess with rigid social classes ruled by aristocrats.

        Even so, Germany’s minimal democracy had thrown quite a scare into the Prussians by voting in a lot of socialists in 1912, and by 1914 they were looking at an easy war with France to district the voters. The war itself was not very physically destructive, unlike WW II, mostly destroying only a strip of French territory. Millions of people died, but again, nothing like WW II.
        The result was social upheaval: punish the rich and the aristocrats for getting them into such a stupid pointless war, and that was what I was wondering: if the over-taxation and over-regulation of cars, as a symbol of the rich and powerful, was part of the reason their economies never grew as fast as the US.

  • avatar
    geo

    Watching leaders implement clearly-unwanted policies and pander to the elite causes me to believe that politicians who betray the populace should face execution.

    People generally don’t vote for idiocy like this, but it’s happening. Do they go along with it so they don’t feel unsophisticated?

    Is it time for another world war?

  • avatar
    Matt Foley

    I’d like to tell you how I really feel about car-hating eco-communists and the best way to deal with them, but I’m afraid I’d run afoul of our forthcoming “red flag” laws.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’ll be honest. If the only way to “stop” climate change is for everyone to give up individual transportation (including EVs/hybrids/motorcycles) and live in stacked hovels with their AC set to 87 while eating bugs & wasabi tofu then I’d rather take my chances with climate change.

    Even if we need to build sea walls or relocate entire cities over next century that seems like a smaller ask then requiring such massive lifestyle changes of the entire world.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      Even removing CO2 from the atmosphere in large quantities would be cheaper and easier than asking that kind of sacrifice from everyone on Earth.

      Ultimately I think that is what will be done.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      “… give up individual transportation (including EVs/hybrids/motorcycles) and live in stacked hovels with their AC set to 87 while eating bugs & wasabi tofu then I’d rather take my chances with climate change.”

      You’re literally describing how about three quarters of the world already lives. Addressing climate change isn’t comfortably wealthy people like us agreeing to live a little bit less comfortably. It’s five billion sweaty peasants agreeing that they and their children will stay that way. YGTBFSM.

      All of this green posturing in developed countries can’t do anything about the climate, a fifth grader with a calculator could figure that out. But it can surely make the government bigger and the rent seeker class richer.

      • 0 avatar
        volvo

        Wow
        Pithy and you nailed it.

        • 0 avatar
          chuckrs

          Why not find a green substitute for cement in concrete? The manufacture of cement creates a ton of CO2 for every ton of cement.
          And while you are at it, incentivize using natural gas in ships. The bunker crude they burn is much more polluting generally and produces more CO2 than natural gas.
          The former is a difficult technical problem; the latter is a difficult political problem.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Everyone ignores the elephant in the room.

      “The world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to a new United Nations report launched today.”

      “The world’s population continues to increase, but growth rates vary greatly across regions

      The new population projections indicate that nine countries will make up more than half the projected growth of the global population between now and 2050: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia, Egypt and the United States of America (in descending order of the expected increase). Around 2027, India is projected to overtake China as the world’s most populous country.

      The population of sub-Saharan Africa is projected to double by 2050 (99% increase). Regions that may experience lower rates of population growth between 2019 and 2050 include Oceania excluding Australia/New Zealand (56%), Northern Africa and Western Asia (46%), Australia/New Zealand (28%), Central and Southern Asia (25%), Latin America and the Caribbean (18%), Eastern and SouthEastern Asia (3%), and Europe and Northern America (2%).”

      https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

      tl;dr:

      Two billion are estimated to be added to a world already significantly overpopulated at 7.7 billion.

      Nine nations are estimated to make up the total sum of increase, with the final nation (USA) likely contributing through population growth due to illegal and legal immigration. Many of these nations already comprise the bulk of unsustainable populations.

      Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to DOUBLE while the majority of the world regions will see a decline (inc North Africa as a whole which is expected to decline 46%).

      I know the Earth is changing but I also know the reasons given are at best false and at worst a hoax. Even if I subscribed to the propaganda and became a climate drone in my belief system, I find it so curious the REAL reason behind such CO2 growth and unsustainable living is excess second/third world populations wanting to live Western lifestyles. Notice this is never EVER discussed! This mathematically CANNOT happen given the known energy consumption rates of the US and known supplies of oil. Period. If climate “change” can be altered it must be altered through a drastic reduction in excess humanity. We must act before it is too late, the first world MUST strike the third before they are strong enough to destroy us. This is the great threat of the 21st Century, “climate change” is merely a symptom of the problem.

  • avatar
    tylanner

    Public transportation in urban areas should be a major part of any serious plan to curb transportation emissions…there is even a chance that new and efficient ways to move around a city would benefit both the environment and the people.

    The most critical purpose of government is to duly consider the long-term impact of current practices and policy on the health and safety of their citizens.

    Problems like de-carbonization are very difficult to navigate politically and it will certainly take an uncommon amount of resolve to see through. But this type of problem is exactly why we have central governments….

    In a case of murder we’ve get clear and immediate consequences of a physical act. In the mass-burning of fossil fuels we get a very clear and immediate benefit coupled directly to a hazy but nonetheless immense consequence.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    Stop it, TTAC.

    Here’s the actual report recommendations:

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1454/145412.htm

    It says nothing like what this article says, and specifically mentions banning only “diesel heavy goods” vehicles by 2050. If anything, it’s anti-EV. There’s *no mention* of banning personal vehicles. All it says is that the government should work to provide more alternatives – basically, more public transport options – to “reduce the number of personal vehicles required”. That’s not a ban. You may disagree that a government should try to provide services to incentivize people to not drive as much, but it’s not a ban on private cars, or anything remotely like that.

    This is super disappointing misleading clickbait from TTAC. I really expect better.

    Now, can we all stop foaming at the mouth, please? Yeesh.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      No, the report *does* call for the end of private car ownership, so the reporting is accurate.

      The problem with the story is that it makes it seem as if private car ownership is going away, but doesn’t mention that for that to happen, the proposals all have to be codified into law by Parliament.

      Parliament reports to voters. Good luck with convincing voters that they can’t own a car anymore. The idea that voters are going to give up cars is, as they’d say in Britain, pure bollocks.

      So, the story itself is accurate; the conclusions it draws are unfounded, to put it politely.

      • 0 avatar

        While I did not indicate the exact parliamentary procedure whereby laws are enacted in the UK, I made it pretty clear that this is a committee report.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I think what you were trying to do was to sound the alarm about something that you find politically unpalatable. Fair enough. But the way to do that responsibly, if you ask me, is to point out how that would actually work.

          I think that doing that leads to a more rational discussion; leaving it out leads to a food fight, which is where this is likely to go.

          Just observing.

      • 0 avatar
        Stanley Steamer

        Banning ownership leaves open the possibility of subscription use, so cars will still exist.

    • 0 avatar

      The report says exactly what I reported. I linked to the report, quoted it accurately and even provided the full context so don’t try and give the impression that we were trying to hide anything.

      “The Government must bring forward the date of its proposed ban on the sales of new ‘conventional’ cars and vans to 2035 at the latest, and ensure that it covers hybrids too. ”

      “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions.”

      If you’re going to claim that the committee did not explicitly call for the banning of private automobiles, my response is that is a distinction without a difference.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        There is an important difference between “We need to ban all cars” and “We can’t accomplish our goal just by replacing gas cars with EVs”.

        The latter allows for a solution based on the combination of replacing gas cars with EVs for some benefit and then making up the rest of through other measures.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “The Government must bring forward the date of its proposed ban on the sales of new ‘conventional’ cars and vans to 2035 at the latest, and ensure that it covers hybrids too. ”

          Am I being stupid here? What is it they are calling for with this sentence?

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            Ban on ICE vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            Snooder

            The point is that it DOESN’T call for “banning all personal vehicles by 2050.”

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I suppose “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban Sale of All ‘Conventional’ Cars and Trucks (Including hybrids) by 2035” would be a more accurate headline.

            Although that doesn’t exactly put my mind at ease either.

        • 0 avatar
          SPPPP

          Snooder, did you not notice the other sentence?

          “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”

          It seems pretty clear that they want most people not to have a car.

  • avatar

    Prepare for Airstrip One……

    As we can all predict, “important people” will still have access to vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Does this also mean all air traffic is permanently grounded? The U.K. is going to become Japan from several centuries back isolated and stuck in the Stone Age. With ideas like these who can feel bad for them? The morons voted these ideas into office so they can handle the consequences.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        No, just commercial aircraft for the proletariat. The elites get to keep their private Jets. After all, they have to get to climate conferences somehow.

      • 0 avatar
        volvo

        @Hummer

        The committee members who proposed this idea were not “voted” into office by the public. A description of the committee and its remit is here.

        https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/role/

        It appears the leaders of this committee are part of the relatively continuous unelected bureaucracy that exists in most western governments to propose, write and shepherd proposals through congress/parliament. These serve as a resource for the elected members of government who might not be in power long enough to enact change in government philosophy.

        Turnover and change in philosophy of these bureaucracies takes many election cycles. Elected leaders come and go but the other multiple layers of government officials mostly remain until they retire.

        And yes I imagine these committee members (important as they are) imagine they would have a government car and driver at their disposal should their recommendation become law.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          So your saying British politicians get their ideas from the farthest lunatic fringes of the insane asylum?

          The entire country of people should be proposing ideas that work best for them not an unelected bureaucracy.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Ideas are just that, Hummer…ideas. Some make sense; others (like this one) don’t. Either way, ideas have to be legislated into law in Britain by people who are elected, and do you see voters actually saying “take our cars away”? I sure can’t. If they sign on and it turns out to be a blunder, then that’s on the voters. If the voters somehow let it happen by default, then that’s on them as well for failing to pay attention. Either way, this idea lives and dies with voters, and I’m about 99.9999999% certain the latter will happen.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I don’t disagree Mike, but two Points on that, first if the people don’t pipe up and show outrage then there will be some in government that assume the people are alright with this. So imo some level of outrage is warranted, granted as an American my thoughts are worth diddly squat if the people of the U.K. want their automobiles taken away for no reason other than suit their government.

            Secondly, these ideas are actually being forwarded to people of power, this group supposably represents, – well who exactly? If people in power hear these ideas on the constant rather than those they represent then certain less than savory ideas may make it before vote. I lend you EUs long list of laws on Cabbage or whatever vegetable it was that made the news several years back. Again, being that I’m not a citizen, all I get to do is point and laugh at Europe.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Really doesn’t matter if it’s a committee advocating something you find outrageous or not – they put the report in the public domain. It’s the voters’ game from there.

  • avatar
    Lokki

    This kind of “punish ourselves in the name of a noble cause” gesture always bemuses me. What percentage of the earth’s automobiles are in the U.K.? Who is going to China and India and Africa to tell the citizens of emerging countries that they may not -ever- own private vehicles? Unless that actually happens, the U.K.’s action would be statistically meaningless.

    This “Ban-All-The-Cars!!” is exactly the same kind of feel-good magical thinking as was banning plastic straws in the United States in the name of reducing plastic in the oceans.

    https://www.earthday.org/2018/04/06/top-20-countries-ranked-by-mass-of-mismanaged-plastic-waste/

    The United States is 20th on the world ranking of mis-managed plastic waste with Earthday.Org saying that only nine-tenths of one percent is mis-managed…., what percent of America’s plastic waste is composed of drinking straws? Hint: plastic straws make up a very small percentage of America’s total plastic waste…only .9% of which is being mismanaged. Say perhaps, .9% of the .9%?

    But….it makes people feel good..

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    If I had a buck for every stupid, misguided or wacked-out idea that got tossed around in a legislative committee worldwide, I could buy an immaculate ’63 Stingray split window coupe.

    Last I checked, the UK has a popularly elected government, and there’s no way voters are going to simply give up their personal vehicles.

    People really do need to relax.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      And with little guns around, they can’t even overthrow their gov. Unless police and army will join

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        So…just because a report in parliament gets aired that you don’t like, it’s “take up arms against the government” time?

        Nope. Calm yourself, sir.

        This is a crappy idea, and I give it zero chance of ever becoming law. And if it does, it’ll be because British voters let it happen. That’s the way their system works.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “People really do need to relax.”

      I think it quite early to grab your musket over this report, but voters don’t have a perfect track record (US prohibition to use a nonGoodwin example). I think railing against things early while still “in committee” is a better idea than to wait until things get far enough along for actual votes. Letting one side control the discussion is a bad strategy.

      Granted, I’m just a relative nobody commenting on a Canadian car site, but hopefully someone with a little more influence chides this and calls for more reasonable solutions.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Prohibition’s a good example, but then again, We The People figured out pretty quickly that a mistake was made, and it was undone. The system worked (eventually).

        I think the reaction to this story illustrates how little trust people have in their systems of government. I mean, seriously…if you really stop to think about this, what MP is going to go to a town hall meeting and say, “well, ladies and gents, you’re gonna have to give up your cars”? No way. Viewed in that light, the only reasonable conclusion is that this idea is going nowhere fast. But viewed in the “I totally distrust the government” light, a different conclusion is reached…Slavuta’s response above is where folks who feel this way go almost immediately. It’s not “it’s a stupid idea that won’t go anywhere” – it’s “I feel like I need to take up arms and fight this.”

        Sad, really, but that’s where things have gone. A successful political system depends on rationality, and that’s largely gone out the door.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I don’t think they could pull off passing a law saying all cars are banned as of right now.

          I do think they could pull off a law in 2020 saying all cars are banned in 2050.

          I’m not an expert on UK law, but once legislation is passed it tends to be more difficult to undo it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, 2020 is next year. What happens between then and now to make that more palatable?

            You’re also leaving Brexit off the table. That’s going to cause a whole range of economic and societal disruptions; in the wake of that crapshow, are the British people really going to want to add to the chaos by binning their cars?

            I’m going with a hard “no” on that.

            Now, if they move in 2030 to make this happen by 2050 ****after**** they’ve instituted nationwide systems to make sure people have sufficient transit options to make their lives work with zero disruption (a feat that Brexit will make more difficult, by the way), they could try selling it. But you and I know they won’t get that infrastructure built in 10 years, so I’d say the idea is still D.O.A.

            I just don’t see it as a political possibility now, or any time in the near future.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        Yup. These these ideas need to get shot down quickly. Otherwise it starts spreading like the plague.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      “People really do need to relax.”

      The people of the UK has been relaxing for far too long. They can be jailed for complaining about rape gangs already. Complacency has replaced their free society of laws with tyranny. Learn from their mistake, or you’ll forfeit everything you’ve been given by people who weren’t trained sheep.

      • 0 avatar
        John

        The English People have trained to be Sheep, when they allowed themselfs to be disarmed, now only the Military, Security Service’s and the Security Companies Employed by the Social and Governmental Elites have weapons.

    • 0 avatar
      Lokki

      Yeah…..

      “15 major cities around the world that are starting to ban cars”

      Cause everybody in these cities voted to ban cars, right?

      https://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2018-12

  • avatar
    Carrera

    Nothing new here. Going back full circle to communism where private ownership isn’t allowed, only the government can have cars. This time is done at the altar of environmentalism not communism though.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Everyone from U.N. Official Christiana Figueres to AOC’s chief of staff has admitted that the Global Warming Agenda is really about destroying Capitalism. Capitalism is just a term used for the property rights which serve as the foundation of personal freedom. The people who use it want to take it away and return everyone to feudal slavery, from whence they can be disposed as desired by the kind of people who think about taking everyone’s cars and jobs. It is never too soon to stop someone who thinks they should exert control over how you live your life.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC31

      Actual historical Communist states have nothing on modern anti-mobility psychos. They generally TRIED to provide their people with cars, they were just, predictably, really bad at it.

  • avatar
    Loser

    Rush, Red Barchetta?

  • avatar
    cdotson

    I wonder if the British people will wake up to the fact they’ve been remembering the 5th of November in precisely the opposite context to that which they should remember.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Horse-drawn wagons FTW!

    *BONG* “Bring out your dead!” *BONG*

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      “Horse-drawn wagons FTW!

      *BONG* “Bring out your dead!” *BONG*”

      C’mon, that was a serf-operated push cart. That’s the true goal of all this enviro-whackiness. Eternal serfdom, with the greenies as the feudal lords.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    This same sort of policy – if enacted – provides the seeds for revolution. It reminds me of The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbade American colonists from moving west.

    http://www.ushistory.org/us/9a.asp

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      You’re right, and that’s why this idea is going to die a quick death.

      • 0 avatar
        volvo

        It might be withdrawn but won’t die. It will just be shelved to undergo some tweaking and brought out again every couple of years. The people who proposed and believe in this agenda will remain in place and bide their time. They are not elected and can take the long view resurrecting such programs when the elected government is more receptive to such proposals.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          The thing is, I have a feeling we’ll soon find that the current model for transportation – i.e., depending 100% on private ownership of vehicles – is not sustainable, and environmental concerns are just one reason why. I could add things like traffic, the congestion of inner cities, and the costs associated with roadbuilding, all of which are practical concerns that have zero to do with global warming.

          I *do* think a move to a different transportation model that works better and pollutes less *is* needed, but willy-nilly telling people they can’t drive cars anymore is the wrong approach. If this wrongheaded report gets them talking about the right approach, then it served its’ purpose. Good ideas are often built on bad ones.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            If I had asked people what they wanted they’d have told me “faster horses” – Henry Ford

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Most cities already aren’t “depending 100% on private ownership of vehicles”.

            However, with current technology there’s only so much the state can offer people without also restricting citizen’s ability to travel. Now technology obviously will change over time but I don’t support a “bans, buses, and Amazon” approach to transportation (not saying you do).

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            *Everything* depends 100% on private ownership of vehicles, ajla – it isn’t just cities.

            Put differently: if all those privately owned vehicles disappeared, literally NOTHING would work as it currently does. Even the public transit systems are built around an expectation of how many people use cars; if cars disappeared, those systems would be quickly overwhelmed (and if cars disappeared, how would all the folks who work in transit get to work to begin with?).

            That model has to change – setting aside things like global warming, we just can’t keep up with all the costs associated with building roads for more and more cars. It isn’t working. The question is how the model changes. I suspect the big change won’t have anything to do with car ownership, but rather what people use cars for. Right now, it’s working and shopping, when you boil it down, and it’s not hard to think of ways all that can be done without cars (or with less dependence on them).

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I live in a dense city. For trips under about 5 miles in the city, especially at rush hour, my ebike is usually faster than my car. Ebikes aren’t well known yet in the US (or the UK) but the Netherlands and Germany show that they can be a big part of the solution to city transport where there’s no room for everyone to bring two tons of metal with them.

  • avatar
    darex

    They’re poised to lose their entire auto industry, and this is their response. Sour grapes methinks.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    They said nothing about scooters and motorcycles. Or unhorseless carriages? It’s beyond stupid.

    Will cops still use cars? What about commercial trucks? Trash/utilities? It’s one thing to talk about passing laws, another thing to actually enact them. It’s yet another to not keep bumping the “deadline” ahead at the last minute, eventually reaching a compromise, and guess who gets to play the role of the hero?

    It’ll never happen.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Exactly – it’s a non-starter, just like a million “ideas” I’ve seen floated on this side of the pond.

      And for the record, for every stupid “leftist” idea I’ve seen floated, there’s one from “the right”. Anyone remember W. proposing to privatize Social Security? Yeah, right. Just let me know when that comes up for a vote on the House floor, Mr. Bush.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        Instead, how about just increasing Social Security options to include the same passively managed index fund investment options as the Federal Thrift Plan for government employees? That would have been more palatable than privatization.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Or just acknowledge what’s already the truth: the idea of the Social Security trust fund or individual Social Security accounts is a joke. Social Security is a social insurance program like the ones that support retired people in every other developed country, and should be operated as such, funded from general government revenue and supported by general taxes (which are a good deal less regressive than the payroll tax that currently funds the artificial “trust fund”).

          For proof of my point, just imagine what would happen if the trust fund actually ran out. Would benefits suddenly be cut by 30%? Of course not. They would continue on as normal and general funds would fund the difference.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            General deficits would fund the difference. FIFY.
            Extending the thrift plan to cover some portion of SS would decrease the demands of SS on the Treasury – based on the different ROI between T-bills and the stock market and other investments over the past few decades we might not be looking at running out. The tweaks proposed to fix SS aren’t all that drastic. The real problem is keeping the pols from overly influencing investment decisions if direct investment even if passive is enacted. Piles of $ to politicians are like piles of $h!t to flies.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I am going to venture that if these committee proposals make it to the public there will be massive protests just like in France over the increase in fuel costs. People might not get rid of the regulators as some have mentioned this is a job for life but all the elected representatives will put pressure on the regulators not to go forth with these proposals. The public can vote their elected representatives out of office. I cannot image these proposals ever seeing the light of day without massive protests. Doubt these proposed regulations in their current form will ever happen.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Come to think of it, Big Oil would fight this, too. The entrenched lobbyists who want to maintain the status quo far outnumber those who want to upend the civilized world.

  • avatar

    I would ask: So you would be willing to spend millions upon millions of dollars to lower the average temperature of the Earth one tenth of a degree instead of spending that same amount to effectively feed, clothe and house all those in need of such things worldwide??

    Yeah, makes sense to me, I think, I guess, hmmmmm.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t think this is going to happen. If this happens there will be protests in the street and any elected official will be in jeopardy of losing their office. People are not going to sit still and let this happen without a fight.

  • avatar
    ThomasSchiffer

    We have a bunch of crazies in Germany that dream of car-free cities and a world in which everyone takes the train ‘everywhere’, does not travel by airplane, avoids consuming animal products and knows proper gender grammatical syntax (whatever that is). And the scary aspect is that these lunatics are getting quite a lot of support from the younger generation; a younger generation that has no longing for car ownership and are in no way fascinated by them, their design, their technology and the freedom of mobility that they provide.

    I predict the next few years are going to be hell on earth for German car enthusiasts. Already the government is taking steps in my country to make driving as expensive as possible. A carbon tax is supposed to drive up the price of fuel to unaffordable levels. The yearly car tax is going to be increased (again). There is talk of lowering city speed limits from 50/60 km/h to an unbearable 30 km/h, or even slower. Traffic lights are going to be programmed to keep cars idling longer at a light in the hopes of annoying drivers so much that they willingly will take public transportation. The irony is that many of these demands come from the so-called ‘environmental political party’, the Greens. How blind must they be to not see that their perverted ideas create more pollution? More and longer red traffic lights for example, that’s a no-brainer!

    • 0 avatar
      volvo

      The younger generation has had it so good for so long they don’t have a clue what industrialization, chemistry and all the “hard” sciences have brought to their lives.
      In the third world the push will be to achieve 2nd and then 1st world status the environment be damned.

      • 0 avatar
        ThomasSchiffer

        Precisely, Mr. Volvo.

        Germany’s wealth comes primarily from the car industry and the associated suppliers as well as machine engineering (Maschinenbau). That industry is about to be destroyed by unrealistic EU emission requirements and a spoiled youth who does not understand where our wealth comes from and demonstrates for us to give up our cars and our lifestyle (see the ‘Friday for Future’ demonstrations).

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    Ronnie needs to taking his lying FOX news shtick over to FOX news where it belongs.

  • avatar

    I wonder why Europeans even need cars? Europe is so small that you can walk almost anywhere. And if you are lazy you can take bus or train. It is so liberating to not have a car. I an sure voters in UK will support this legislation. In Soviet Union only few people owned the car and the rest of population was riding public transportation. And everybody was happy, much happier than today under Putin sitting whole day in traffic jams.

    • 0 avatar
      ThomasSchiffer

      A car provides the freedom to go anywhere at anytime. I can enter my cars and drive to destinations that I cannot reach by a train. Inside a car I have a certain level of privacy, comfort and safety which I do not have on a train, especially a malfunctioning, uncomfortable, overburdened and unsafe German train.

      The idea that we should take the train everywhere is being propagated by the Greens and youth and liberals. But they don’t understand that trains cannot bring me to certain destinations.

      For spontaneous travel it is also stressful to 1) book a train and 2) get to the train station where 3) I will have to wait for its arrival/departure. Then, once I arrive at the city where my primary destination lies, how will I get there? Taxis are expensive. Buses don’t go everywhere and in many rural areas a bus stop sees a bus only once or twice a day! A world without private car ownership will involve a lot of annoying and stressful planning.

      Then, as I said before, German trains are awful. In the summers the airconditioning systems tend to fail, they are rather slow (even the Inter City Express trains rarely travel faster than 120 km/h), they are unpunctual and thanks to Merkel’s open border policy there have been a number of assaults on trains from so-called ‘refugees.’ All of this considered, no thank you, I would rather take my car and enjoy the comfort that it provides than ride a slow train.

      Alas, the Greens, liberals and other anti-car fanatics believe in and push for a future in which Germany is a car-free country, the Autobahns should be open for bicycles (a really stupid idea) and everyone travels everywhere by train, and then the last few hundred/thousand meters with an E-Roller (unless those are also banned). That is a future that I do not want to experience. I enjoy driving, I like cars and I hate the Greens, liberals, Greta Thunberg and the other crazies out there who are using climate change to push their agenda.

      There is no denying that there is a global change in the process, however I do not buy the claim that it is man-made. Furthermore, IF it is man-made then it will require the entire world to fight it, and that won’t happen. The emerging markets are striving for the lifestyles that we in West currently enjoy. They want to travel the world by air or ship, live in fancy homes that consume high amounts of energy, they want to enjoy animal products on a daily basis, they want to drive cars (possibly thirsty SUVs) and so forth. And we are supposed to tell the people in these countries that they should refrain from attempting to strive for this lifestyle in order to ‘stop climate change’? It won’t work.

      Our money and our research should be spent on how to adjust and cope with a warmer earth. That is my opinion.

      • 0 avatar

        “I can enter my cars and drive to destinations that I cannot reach by a train. Inside a car I have a certain level of privacy”

        Thomas, that’s exactly the reason why Elites (or Government which are the same people) do not want ordinary people to own cars, short wave radios (so called jamming), to suppress Google and Amazon, to ridicule American way of life. They would make Internet illegal tomorrow if they can. The problem with Internet is that Elites want to have Internet avaulable to only them but there is no practical way to deny Internet to ordinary people. It is much easier with cars – just make them unaffordable for “unwashed” masses. The pity that these nasty Americans invented mass production of cars and other”luxury” items. European elites would never allow that. But unfortunately for Europeans Americans won the war and started the process of Americanization of Western Europe, i.e. turned it into consumer society. If US did not exist Western Europe most likely would look like former GDR. In 30s Germany was pretty close to turning into communist country (with little help from Soviet Union of course). Hitler himself was former communist.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    This is an example of extremist policies. I do my part to combine trips, cut down on unnecessary trips, and take the park and ride bus to work but to give up owning an automobile all together is not something I am willing to do and this represents an extreme position that will affect our way of life and our economy. I am willing to drive a cleaner and more efficient vehicle as long they are not completely disposable and the cost is not too prohibitive.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I take comfort in knowing what we now call the UK will have gone Children of Men by that date, so it won’t really matter.

  • avatar
    kurkosdr

    …aaand the agenda is slowly revealed: Bureaucrats regaining their “right” to define how far a city expands by controlling transportation. Damn that middle class and their suburban sprawl (which has enabled the middle class to live in comfort btw)

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Hopefully the citizens rise up and rebell which is what has happened throughout history.

    • 0 avatar
      -Nate

      But bumpstocks, disconnector links and pederson devices (yes, I’m old) are no longer legal so you armchair soldiers aren’t going to do anything no matter how loudly you rattle your imaginary sabers .

      -Nate

    • 0 avatar

      “Hopefully the citizens rise up and rebell which is what has happened throughout history.”

      They already did. See Brexit.com.
      I is also well known fact though that Brits hate cars and guns and love NHS, trains and buses. See Quora.com.

      • 0 avatar
        -Nate

        “old farts such as the commentators here like sit to in their hover rounds watching FOX news and rile up young men to “fight the government” for gun “rights” ”

        I’m not so sure it’s the old farts that are tying to stir thngs up .

        Many Boomers carries firearms when they were young and used them in anger, some even got shot .

        I’m one of those so I’m in no hurry to begin any war / police action / civil insurrection .

        -Nate

  • avatar
    Joe K

    Isnt that like a good chunk of jobs and tax income?

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    It’s like I keep telling ya jackwagons: electric cars aren’t an environmentalist plot, they’re the car industry’s play to stay in the game given the emerging picture that the only truly sustainable cars might be no personal cars at all. Time to get our heads out of our arses and get on the EV bandwagon big-time. Promote them as the sensible alternative to a phase-out. Because the alternative isn’t Hellcats forever, it’s a bus pass.

    • 0 avatar
      -Nate

      You don’t get it H.P. ~

      We’re Luddites and fossils by _choice_ – we don’t want any damned battery operated vehicles until we’re forced to accept them .

      It’s simple, really : once they crack the battery nut so they’ll drive all day long and not need to be charged until you get wherever you’re going nothing will change .

      As soon as this hurdle is covered ICE vehicles will drop by the wayside, I hope this occurs after I’m dead .

      -Nate


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ptschett: Ferrari Testarossa.
  • FreedMike: Some places have a central reception area where you “register” to see a salesperson, which...
  • FreedMike: This. Let the customer know you appreciate him or her coming in, see if there are any questions you can...
  • jack4x: It’s remarkable how often I’ll be ignored when I go inside a showroom intending to talk to...
  • JimC2: I’m going to respectfully disagree with both of you, Scoutdude and Hummer, about the craftsmanship or...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States