Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Institute of Public Policy Research, even Electric Vehicles are not green enough to permit unfettered growth in car ownership.
Climate change: Set target to cut car use, minister told
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analystShifting to electric vehicles will still leave the UK with serious transport problems, a report has said.
The IPPR think tank said emissions will fall, but the number of cars on the road will continue to grow.
It foresaw a 28% increase in car ownership by 2050, leading to more jams and harm to the economy.
But the government said it had plans to make transport greener and it was committed to offering people a range of travel options.
…
Unless there is a change in policy, car ownership is expected to be driven up by a growing economy and increasing population.
The IPPR% said failure to tackle this will have negative effects on:
- Health: Walking and cycling (when practical) are healthier than sitting in a car.
- Resources: An ever-expanding car fleet drains raw materials and energy.
- Urban space: Fewer cars would mean more trees, play space, and room for walkers and cyclists.
- Congestion: Traffic jams damage the economy and lead to demand for more and bigger roads.
- Inequality: Allowing current trends to continue will widen the social divide between those who own cars and those who don’t.
…
The IPPR’s proposals to achieve the UK’s low-carbon transition fairly include a national guarantee to make it possible to live a good life without needing to own a car.
It says this should include seven-day public transport for all areas, and the principle that everyday needs should be accessible within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57570010
Why do think tanks like IPPR keep trying to mess up the lives of ordinary people?
Outside London British public transport tends to be inaccessible, unsafe, and infrequent. Cars keep you a lot safer from muggers (providing your employer can be pressured into providing carpark security) and keep you warm and comfortable in bad weather.
Even in London I can’t imagine what it is like for single women trying to travel at night. As a regular commuter on British transport for over a decade, including the London tube system, I encountered plenty of situations which made me feel unsafe. Britain’s revolving door justice system ensures a steady supply of drug addict muggers and rapists, to keep life interesting for public transport commuters.
Yet despite the obvious problems, there seems to be this ongoing utter determination amongst climate activists and progressives to force people back to using public transport, or force them to abandon long commutes altogether, regardless of the harm this does to people’s lives and personal safety.
The IPPR could try listening to the people whose interests they claim to represent, drop the climate nonsense, listen to the self evident desire of British people to own a car. They could try to solve car ownership inequality by using their funds to help poor people purchase their first car. But for some reason think tanks like IPPR almost never seem to back solutions which empower the ordinary people whose interests they claim to represent.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I sympathize with the idea that more walking and cycling would be a good thing. As a physician much of my work is driven by an epidemic of obesity and diabetes which is largely due to life style changes (poor diet and inactivity). Old cities built before the emergence of car ownership were, by necessity, smaller and denser. People who live in those centres now are often healthier because they walk a lot. So yes having a change in direction in urban design that provides greater choice for a car-free existence is a great idea.
But experience tells us that this is a problem for the market, private innovation and consumer choice. When the government decides what’s good for us and starts writing policy the Pandora’s box of unintended consequence opens fully and nothing but misery and government jobs pour out.
Now I see Honda are committed to no ICU cars by 2040.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/evs/300341171/hondas-bold-approach-to-evs-is-in-stark-contrast-to-toyota
We’ll see if this statement is just virtue signaling in order to get better press from the weak minded. Or it’s actually a plan they intend to follow through on.
Regardless, given many governments stated objectives of banning non-electric vehicles over the next few decades, it’s hardly surprising that some companies are making plans based on that.
In either case, it’s not the proof that you are so desperate to believe in.
BTW, I read through the article, and through all of the links provided, as well as all the links from those articles.
Nowhere did I find an actual statement from Honda, just EV advocates declaring what they believe Honda has said. More than likely your article is just more of the usual left wing propaganda, based on nothing more than smoke and wishful thinking.
Earlier this year griff made a similar pronouncement about a GM press release.
When I checked the actual release, it was merely an announcement that every GM model was going to have an EV option. Nowhere did it say that GM was going to stop making ICE cars altogether. I suspect if any of the so called reporters had the courage to actually link to a press release, we would find something similar.
The writing is on the wall for ICE cars. You just have to open your eyes to see it.
This stuff is hilarious in view of the Covid restrictions on public transport. If there’s one sector that people now really dislike it is being forced onto buses and trains in masks, with social distancing, which with the reduced carrying capacity are now hard to find and get onto anyway. Then add the recently increasing crime on subways etc and the chances of banning cars is nil.
Then as for the cars we’re all going to be Cuba now, with 50 year old Chevys and a very good artisan-mechanic sector. And if the pollies try to ban gasoline it’ll just be displaced to the black market.
On top of everything nothing much climatewise has actually been happening in the real world this century. The indicators are going sideways.
The ones that aren’t going sideways, are going down.
I somehow feel sure that the no cars requirement does not apply to the people making the decision. It’s only the peasants who need to give up their cars.
That’s the way it has been in most socialist paradises.
If only these ‘think tanks’ could have thought ahead 30 yrs ago and advised the town planners to build bigger roads and adequate car parking spaces instead of reducing them with bicycle lanes .
Doubtless all the members of the IPPR would be in some special category who are still allowed the freedom an mobility of autonomous individual transport.
Like the Malthusian death cult of climate zealotry, it’s always something which applies to other people.
RT (untermenschen times) has a nice article about solar panels creating a mountain of trash that will negate any conceivable environmental gain from the highly disposable technology – and then some:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/527472-solar-panels-create-more-waste/
“Inequality” So someone who’s sacrificed a lot of money and free time to learn a good trade, develop a business or get a degree and good career doesn’t deserve to have more money and be able to spend it how they like? Solving inequality for socialists involves the most uncreative and uncaring way: make everyone poor.
The gov’t un-think tank better be careful what they wish for: no private cars means no one paying road/registration and fuel taxes!
“Unless there is a change in policy, car ownership is destined to increase.” But there has been a change in policy. It involves the banning of the sale of new ICE cars after 2030, after which you can only buy EVs. I’m surprised people keep missing this crucial point.
The idea is that at least half current car owners will not be able to afford an EV. I believe this to be true because I see a lot of cars more than 10 years old. Typically you can buy these for under 4000 GBP. And at the tail end of the bell curve, there are a number of 15+ year old vehicles as well.
Where are 15 million second hand EVs supposed to come from? Even if they existed, they would cost a lot more than 4000 GBP. And if they did by some strange economic fact cost 4000 GBP, that would imply a massive depreciation on the vehicle.
So there you are. Current policy is designed to reduce car ownership by a large percentage.
“at the tail end of the bell curve, there are a number of 15+ year old vehicles as well”
I drive 2 or more 30 yr old cars.
The big laugh, one of them has a Honda engine with catalytic exhaust and meets modern – current emission standards.
Seriously though, the private car and the civilisation that came with it is obsolete, at least 100yrs out of date, but we haven’t yet thought up a viable alternative.
Shutting people in concrete boxes by decree, doesn’t work either, resulting in just spontaneous outbursts of violence, as the Covid aftermath has shown.
Hardly a week goes by here, l without some gruesome crime taking place (blasted through the media)- usually resulting in some poor women being beaten to a pulp or murdered by their partner, or some lunatic going amok with a knife or a gun.
People murder with impunity in private cars,but nobody seems to take any notice.
Let me fix some of these ‘points’:
THink what this would mean. Ordinary people removed from the roads, less traffic, better commutes for the rich, the Elite and the connected.