Are Eco Friendly Cars Really The Answer?
British motorists are in focus again as Green Britain considers additional taxes on gas guzzlers alongside incentives to encourage more eco-friendly vehicles.
A recent report from the department of transport has shown that the middle market – vehicles emitting between 141 grams and 225 grams of CO 2 per kilometre – is likely to be the most sensitive to tax increases. An increase in showroom prices of just 1% in this market is likely to encourage large numbers of motorists to buy greener cars. The findings of this report will be considered in the next government budget round.
Will this likely form part of a genuine plan to seriously tackle Co2 emissions? Or will it be another method of fleecing tax payers under the cover of a green agenda? We are not in favour of gas guzzlers - even Jeremy Clarkson, a notoriously outspoken global warming sceptic, described people who drive large 4×4s in Chelsea as “selfish and stupid”. However, we do feel that the car is the wrong target in this case.
You see, even if we get to the point where all cars on our roads have zero emissions we will not have resolved the key issue: The problem with cars is that they require considerable energy to build, take up lots of space and require huge areas of land to be covered in asphalt. If population and affluence continue to grow at current rates, and we continue to rely on private cars as our predominant form of transport, the British Isles will eventually turn in to one giant car park – in fact, parts of it already have. The same problem is faced throughout the world, particularly in developing nations where car ownership is set to soar.
Instead of trying to make a quick buck out of motorists (we don’t believe for one minute that tax revenues will be spent on green alternatives) governments need to focus on implementing proper solutions for moving people around.
People in Britain are largely put off by public transport, and with good reason – it’s rubbish. What’s required is the vision and the investment to make a public transport system that really can move people quickly, efficiently, safely, conveniently and without the smell of urine. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where public transport provides an experience superior to the car in all of these respects.
At this point, many readers will be about to remind me of the fact that people enjoy car ownership, enjoy driving, and that the car is a symbol of our freedom, technology and modern way of life. I fully agree. But the pleasure of driving on today’s roads has largely been eroded by heavy traffic, high fuel prices, bad driving and hot tempers. Building an effective public transport system to take care of the more routine movements of people and goods as part of regular economic and social activity will free up roads for the enjoyment of the recreational motorist and for other trips outside of the daily routine.
We don’t believe that cars should be penalised or banned, we just believe that cars are for fun and adventure, and public transport is for actually moving people around. If we could get over that psychological hurdle then we might create the political will to make the kind of public transport investments that we really need. Additional taxes, on the other hand, will make very little net difference to pollution and to the world’s future transport challenges.
Additional information: The Daily Telegraph
Cars are a good analogy for climate change and planetary systems. I wrote something on environmental impact assessment of cars in June 2000. I will try and find it. At present AVG has decided to take over my computer after the last update. I cannot send emails and the OS is doing anything it wants.
Back to the car analogy. In 2002 in the run up to the Iraq war world leaders were debating about changing the colours of the furry dice in the the global car.
Having been just invited to contribute to the new generation of UK climte models and recommended to the Cabinet Office to advise on sustainable devlopment, I had two things going for me. One was kudos, if I wrote something in a UN report for the UK government it would be read.
This was 2002 remember. So the second was I knew that within the political system the knowledge of global ecological systems was minimal. What was there was, in the main disjointed, inappropriate, confused and at times completely inaccurate.
if you don’t understand UK Government, let me try and explain with a hypothetical. 1000 scientists may work on reserach for evidenced based policy.
This goes to say the science directorate. Then to the Cabinet Minister for a decision re policy or legislation.
Now the chances are the Minister has gone through school, education and all their life and never read one book on science or engineering or anything similar. They do art history and politics. Get a degree in law and become an MP.
Many civil servants are the same who advise or prepare work for Ministers. Give them something on global ecological systems and their eyes would glaze over. I realised this.
In the run up to Iraq the politicians were discussing changing the colour of the furry dice of the planetary car.
I had been asked as a mechanic to advise these politicians in a UN report on the priorities of running a car.
Now I would have liked to have given them the full benefit of my knowledge and explained about brakes, steering, suspension etc. But I knew it was pointless, it would lose them. These people think a car is about furry dice and beaded seat cushions. Full stop end of knowledge.
So I take something blindingly obvious. I point to the tyres and say “tyres are more important than furry dice”. Those black round rubbery things.
What I hoped would happen would after they got interested in tyres this would stir their interest in brakes, fuel lines etc. All the other equally important things that are essential to the safe and continued running of the global car.
Unfortunately this did not happen. The Chief Car Technician to the Government saw my recommedation. He went to the media and said “tyres are more important than furry dice to the safe running of the global car”.
Everyone went wow. Tyres! All the beaded seat and noddy dog people suddenly got into tyres. Suddenly everyone has a view on the mechanics of the global car.
Some people are obsessive. They measure the tread depth with little gauges. Others prefer just to look at the tyres and decide. Other little groups debate whether they are going to have Pirelli or Bridgestones. With squiggly patterns or blocks
Other groups don’t agree. They believe bald tyres are fine as they put down more rubber, so in the dry create more grip.
Tyre changing suddenly became the No 1 global topic for debate. The politicians talk aboutit, it fills the media. There are even tyre changing websites!
This was not supposed to happen. I said tyres are more important than furry dice as an introduction to global car mechanics. In the hope that people could also then get interested in steering and suspension and brakes.
Everyone in the car is now going to die because they think if they talk about tyre changing they will be safe.
What is going to happen is they are going to shoot off in their global car chatting about tyre changing. Get to the first corner. The steering is loose. They can’t make the bend. Panic, hit the brakes which fail. Lose cotrol as the suspension is shot. Crash in a fireball because the high pressure fuel lines are corroded and burst.
Everyone dies.
OK I admit I made everything up. I never told the UK Government that tyres are more important than furry dice, as an introduction to global car mechanics.
I told them climate change is a greater threat than terrorism as an introduction to sustainable planetary ecological life support
system management.
There is a corner on the evolutionary pathway of the planet approaching.
http://www.mp2.worldfriend.com/sustainable_development_forum.htm