By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels 4:16PM BST 28 Mar 2011
The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050.
The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.
Top of the EU’s list to cut climate change emissions is a target of “zero” for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU’s future cities.
Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.
“That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”
The Association of British Drivers rejected the proposal to ban cars as economically disastrous and as a “crazy” restriction on mobility.
=================================================================
Gee, ya think? And the greens/labor wonder why they just got booted out of power in Australia and why the American public no longer gives a rodents posterior about global warming.
I think it will the EU that’s banned by 2050, not the automobile. Why? The automobile actually provides a useful function for people.
==================================================================
Here’s the plan:
A new European transport plan 
aims to increase mobility and further integrate the EU’s transport networks – while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the bloc’s dependence on imported oil.
Measures to encourage major infrastructure investments, change the way freight moves and people travel would boost economic competitiveness and create jobs.
The plan – with goals to be met by 2050 – focuses on travel within cities and between cities, and on long distance journeys. It includes calls for:
- cities to completely phase out petrol cars
- shifting to rail or water 50% of all passenger and freight road transport currently making intercity journeys of more than 300km
- airlines to increase their use of sustainable low-carbon fuels to 40%
- shipping to cut 40% off its carbon emissions.
===================================================================
UPDATE: Per my comment above:
I think it will the EU that’s banned by 2050, not the automobile. Why? The automobile actually provides a useful function for people.
It seems to mirror the thinking of many:
A MASSIVE wave of public support was last night surging behind the Daily Express’s crusade to liberate Britain from the stranglehold of Brussels.
An exclusive poll conducted on the first day of our crusade showed an astonishing 99 per cent of people agree we should quit the European Union.
In an indication of the strength of public feeling on the issue, the poll saw the biggest ever response to a Daily Express phone survey, with tens of thousands of people swamping our switchboards.
Read more and sign the petition: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/213821/21382199-of-you-say-Get-us-out-of-Europe#ixzz1HztMDhJN
h/t to Fred Berple for the update
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When are the Europeans going to wise up and kick these psychopaths out?
The really good reason to ban cars from cities is nothing to do with carbon emissions – it is to get rid of the gridlock traffic jams that ensure that the average car speed in e.g. central London is about 8 mph. For this reason I would say, go for it. But what London needs is effective park and ride schemes that link up with an efficient and non-overcrowded tube and rail network. At the moment the tube is worse than cattle trucks in the rush hour – you literally would not be able to transport animals under those conditions – so investment in infrastructure will be needed if more people are going to leave their cars behind.
What’s truly frightening to me is the overall tone of comments in support of this idea, and the complete lack of grounding in reality they all share.
Tom in Florida says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:16 am
Not to worry…. the UN will enforce it!. It has the right to intervene anywhere.
I agree with travis B.
One can be a climate sceptic and find this idea interessing.
In centers of cities like London or Paris, individual cars are no longer a convenient and efficient mean of transport.
I lived in Paris for a long time where I experienced more than once the “joy” of being trapped in my car for hours just for going /coming back for / from the WE.
Needless to say that I never took my car during the week. Always the subway.
I could say the same for London : transiting by car from the Heathrow airport to the center of London is a nightmare.
In high density centers, individual car is non longer a mean of freedom; it’s a… “network contention problem”. Hence, as in internet networking, you have to put in place strong “throughput management policies” 🙂
The auto industry is rubbings its greasy sweating palms together with glee because the government is going to force everyone to buy new cars instead of letting them upgrade in their own time. Millenium bug scam all over again.
It must be nice to be able to make arbitrary decisions which get enacted into law without any of those tedious obstacles like feasiblity, practicality or reality.
Where are Jorj X. McKie and
BuSab when we need them?
Restriction from freedom of movement and mobility is against European Human Rights legislation. They will probably just amend the legislation
/Mango
I don’t deny climate change, I know climate changes
@ur momisugly Thierry says:
March 29, 2011 at 9:19 am
I agree with travis B.
One can be a climate sceptic and find this idea interessing.
In centers of cities like London or Paris, individual cars are no longer a convenient and efficient mean of transport.
I lived in Paris for a long time where I experienced more than once the “joy” of being trapped in my car for hours just for going /coming back for / from the WE.
Needless to say that I never took my car during the week. Always the subway.
I could say the same for London : transiting by car from the Heathrow airport to the center of London is a nightmare.
In high density centers, individual car is non longer a mean of freedom; it’s a… “network contention problem”. Hence, as in internet networking, you have to put in place strong “throughput management policies” 🙂
Perhaps they are looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. Could it be that large metropolitan areas/super cities are the problem, instead of transportation?
I am all for developing clean and renewable energy technologies – the sooner the better. But there is a basic problem in the bigger picture that I believe you’re not seeing. I call it the Tarzan Principal.
The Tarzan Principal – When swinging from tree to tree high above the jungle floor it is vitally important to make sure you have the next vine firmly in grasp before letting go of your current vine that is carrying you. Failure to follow this very basic concept will result in tragic consequences.
This is fallacy of thought that I see being espoused by these green ideologues (as opposed to green realists whom I believe most WUWT visitors to be). They think it a good idea to force humanity to completely let go of the energy that has supported us before clean and renewable energy is firmly in grasp. It’s not a good idea.
It is a good idea to create free market incentives to pursue clean and renewable energy development and transition as it becomes both economically viable and sufficiently capable of supporting the world’s energy needs. Right now it is not and cannot. Championing disincentivizing taxing schemes and draconian laws now to force humanity off FF without real energy alternatives is blind and foolish ideology that ignores the Tarzan Principal to disastrous consequences.
I don’t automatically attack progressive thinking. I automatically attack ignorant, idealistic, and narrow minded thinking that is masqueraded as progressivism.
As I’ve said before, its not about climate, its about control.
Hank Hancock says:
March 29, 2011 at 10:18 am
The Tarzan Principal – When swinging from tree to tree high above the jungle floor it is vitally important to make sure you have the next vine firmly in grasp before letting go of your current vine that is carrying you. Failure to follow this very basic concept will result in tragic consequences.
@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly
Of course. Not sure where anyone said “banning cars tomorrow”. Pretty sure the article said in 2050, close to 4 decades away.
Most of the people on this planet are entirely ignorant as to what exactly, “technology” can do for us today, let alone 40 years from now.
Inner city transport is conducted today via FF vehicles not because there are not alternatives but because the status quo is easier to follow than change. Change is expensive, status quo is cheap. It is about “will”, both personal and political. And of course it is about money. But what it is not about, is technology and alternatives, those already exist today.
Your Tarzan Principal is entertaining but hardly all encompassing. There is always the “Courageous Tarzan Principal”, which states that as long as you can “see the next vine” you don’t always have to have it firmly in your grasp. You could always let go and hope you catch it.
No one ever accomplished or changed anything without first setting a goal.
You don’t drive in the middle of London unless you REALLY need to! Whenever I go there I have a place I park in the suburbs and take the Underground (Tube, Subway, whatever). Anyway, this is never going to happen for the very good reason that, as many have pointed out, oil may well be a lot more expensive and in much shorter supply in forty years. Put that together with what forty more years of battery (and superconductivity) technology might bring and it’s fairly certain that electric vehicles may well be the norm by then and if I’m still around I hope I’ll be driving one. Just to give one recent example, I heard on the radio just yesterday that MIT (I believe) are working on a battery that can be charged in SECONDS. But more recent news:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566
This whole idea is ‘no more likely than square bananas’, according to the UK govt, so file this under ‘EU nobodies sounding off just to make it look like they actually DO something for their zillions’ and forget it.
1DandyTroll says:
March 29, 2011 at 2:57 am
And soon, in a town near you, streets will be filled with hippie communists running around screaming about the new plague of static electricity induced rash’, or what not, and demanding, yet again, the end of civilization, or else . . . they go really really bonkers . . . again!
I’m finally going to call bs on your constant whining about “hippies”. I call you out because I see that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The “hippies” I’m comfortable around care nothing for communism (or consumerism come to think of it). They will happily accept electricity from sensible sources which are at best harmony with (for want of a better expression) nature. So, difficult though it may be for you to understand, that means that such things as bird mincers don’t do it – the cleanest practical way of making the stuff that helps generate the heat and light (not to mention the music) which we all need, is what we want and when there is a better way of doing that than now, then we will embrace that. Until then, we’re stuck with what we have. Oh, and, by the way, we are all in favour of saving as much power as possible – think what else we can buy with the money we save ;-).
Mind you, clean is good, it’s simply not good enough to foul your own nest – just look at the birds in your garden, or have you killed them all to demonstrate your “non-hippy” credentials?
By the way, don’t think I’m particularly vexed with you dear boy – I do look forward to your posts as I think that even the No. 1 Science Blog needs a comedy poster from time to time. Maybe it’s you going “really really bonkers again”!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/the-empire-strikes-out/
Could be a few problems getting the car batteries charged.
Perhaps we could go back to the horse and cart? May be a few problems though
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/
Any tips for an Iron age round house.
@Thierry says:
“In centers of cities like London or Paris, individual cars are no longer a convenient and efficient mean of transport.”
How very authoritarian of you. So because you think it is not a convenient way of transportation for you you are to decide it is not convenient for everyone else too?
What does the inner city center folks think is convenient you think? I know one thing it is not very convenient for them to have outsiders running around however they bloody please. :p
UK Sceptic says:
March 29, 2011 at 5:54 am
I’m not giving up my Freelander for anyone.With winters growing colder and snowier and the roads where I live (in the sticks) tending to flood there no (corrected) way I’ll ever use a tiny, low wheel base electric car.
Hah! I see your Freelander and raise my Defender!
For certain times over the last 2 years in my Wiltshire village, I and a similarly endowed (!) friend have been about the only people able to move about.
It’s funny how we FWD owners stop being public enemies on occasion, isn’t it.
malcolm says:
March 29, 2011 at 10:07 am
It must be nice to be able to make arbitrary decisions which get enacted into law without any of those tedious obstacles like feasiblity, practicality or reality.
Where are Jorj X. McKie and
BuSab when we need them?
Does this make the Europe the new Dosadi?
At the rate the EU is going, by 2050 they likely won’t have an economy to speak of to buy cars in any event.
UK Rejects first ever sensible EU proposal:
http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2011/03/uk-rejects-first-ever-sensible-eu.html
“The idea that it requires a noisy, pollution-creating, ton-and-a-half mobile living room with leather arm-chairs and a 200-horse-power motor to haul some commuter’s arse across town at an average speed of about eight miles an hour is simply insane.
“It is time for the developed nations to redesign and rebuild their cities and transportation infrastructure to provide a safer, healthier, more beautiful, and vastly more energy efficient human habitat. …
REPLY: Traffic troll, ignore, Anthony
malcolm says:
March 29, 2011 at 10:07 am
Where are Jorj X. McKie and BuSab when we need them?
Thank you for your interesting link. When I read (on Wiki):
In Herbert’s fiction, government becomes terrifyingly efficient. Red tape no longer exists: laws are conceived of, passed, funded, and executed within hours, rather than months. The bureaucratic machinery becomes a juggernaut, rolling over human concerns and welfare with terrible speed, jerking the universe of sentients one way, then another, threatening to destroy everything in a fit of spastic reactions.
I immediately thought of the Blair/Brown era of knee-jerk reaction lawmaking in Britain.
Didn’t the IPCC tell us that most of Europe would be under water by 2050 because of melting ice caps due to runaway global warming? So that would eliminate the need for automobiles! Now lets see, where did I put my row boat… ;->
This IS the logical outcome of this CO2 nonsense. Get ready to bow down to the “Green God”, more slavery is coming…
I met a man from Tito’s Yugoslavia. He talked about the papers that were necessary to go from town to town. Often, even if you had the right papers, one would be met with “what do you want to go there for?” and a big refusal stamped on it.
First, take away thier vehicles, then deny thier pass to travel.
No need to go out tonight, just call the EU for pizza.
The UK needs to get out from under the heel of the EU before the concertina wire and the guard posts go up.
Where’s my hat tip?
And you should change Australia to NSW in ther comment about labor and grens losing power – it was only in one state so far