CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
(OP)
Laws forcing carmakers to limit CO2 are going to be set at pan-European level. Today, the average from vehicles is around 160 grams per kilometre. After much debate, the European Commission looks ready to ask for an overall cut in carbon dioxide emissions from new cars to 120 grams per kilometre by 2012.
While the vehicle manufacturers would be required to attain the 130-gramme mark, additional cuts of five grams per kilometre from both bio fuel use and other technology, such as better tyre design, would further contribute.
This Wednesday, EU sources say the Commission will suggest its strategy be implemented through binding legislation. The proposal is part of EU efforts to fight climate change, with European carmakers falling short of targets, which have been voluntary till now.
Ecologist expert Aat Peters argues for strict broad-ranging standards: "Every climate policy is a policy mix. So, there is technical innovation in cars, there is innovation in tyres, there is innovation in fuels, and many other aspects of policy like traffic management, etcetera. These are all elements which are important, but none of these elements should be exchanged for the other."
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association says its members reduced CO2 emissions by 13 percent to in 2004, compared to 1995 levels. Yet environmentalists say carmakers should take more responsibility for the emissions from bigger, more fuel-consuming engines.
Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee of the current EU presiding nation, Germany, which makes mostly big cars, said: "What we need is a code of good conduct which takes into account the sections of the market, so that the makers of smaller cars don't just sit back while those making the big ones bear the whole burden."
Cars on the EU's roads - their number increasing by some three million per year - create more than one-fifth of Europe's greenhouse-gas emissions.
EuroNews
7 of February 2007





RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
I agree that it is politics and not engineering. I do think it might go forward though as the form of a requirement that engineering will need to achieve. Public policy tends to set the standards we all try to follow.
Regards,
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
mind you, the economic fall-out would probably also rid the planet of that nasty human population.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
But this would involve making the tyres less safe.
So, instead of slowly killing the people with pollution, we opt to kill them off quickly?
Companies will stop doing business in Europe. Already BP and Shell are getting out. Many more to follow.
______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Even assuming that CO2 is a problem and that reducing emissions from cars is a way to address this there is still more to look at than just the emisions of the vehicles themselves.
Why do people drive so much?
Why aren't they using public transport, what can be done to improve it and increase its use.
If people aren't living close enough to where they work that they can walk/cycle/public transport then why?
Accomodation prices? Quality of life?
The list goes on...
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
As for where people live, the houses are in one place, and the factories are in another. The "good" houses with the "good" schools are nowhere near where the jobs are.
I guess there are people who live in an apartment near the mall they work in, but who wants to work in a mall? For that matter who wants to live in an apartment?
For better or worse, it's a car society around here.
Individual perception of "Quality of Life" has everything to do with it.
Regards,
Mike
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
I think that Individual behaviour is one of the most important items on CO2 reduction. Individuals must be more and more prepared for changes.
Rules should not be based on political demagogy. Rules on CO2 emissions should be ambitious but economical feasible. CO2 rules being universal, should take into consideration earth geography specificities, on what it concerns economies and development.
Technologies should aim rules accomplishment, creating devices, engineering and alternative energies to lower emissions reduction.
This being obvious is not easy to implement because of the impact on quality of life, economies, employment and in world development sustainability.
Regards
Luis marques
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
a) In London, they found that by removing roadways from service( blocking access), they reduced the number of people that wanted to drive through the resulting gridlock, and increased the number of people that rode bikes and took the bus. Sort of cosnsistent with the normal observation that as a a set or roadways are expanded or added, the total amount of traffic increases. Ergo, to reduce car traffic into a city , reduce the number of roads. ( I found that the most effective way of increasing bus ridership is to simply eliminate parking spaces in the city, as at Seattle and Vancouver BC). This apporach does not involve taxes or any legal /political hassles.
b)IN Germany, the proposal to add a 55 mph speed limt to the autobahn died a quick death, but they projected it would reduce car exhaust emission from the entire nation by over 33% ( and would rpobably cut Porsche , BMW and mercedes sales by much more than that).
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Why the difference? One reason accounts for the vast majority of it: fuel prices! Fuel is taxed far more in Europe than it is in North America.
Want to make cars, homes, businesses etc. consume less fuel? Don't force Greg Loccock to build something the market won't purchase- that would be pointless. Instead, TAX FUEL. People conserve what they find to be expensive, and they waste what they find to be cheap. If the tax revenue is dedicated to offsetting the capital investment required to improve energy efficiency, what we may see is economic GROWTH rather than economic collapse. Especially in the US- if I were an American, the fraction of the enormous US economy that is transferred yearly to oil-rich nations (my own included), AND to their military to keep their access to these resources "secure", would appal me.
Everybody is an environmentalist when it means that someone ELSE has to make the sacrifices and they can choose to keep doing what they're already doing. Right now "the environment" polls as the #1 issue with Canadian voters, principally because of concerns over global warming. Politicians are quickly ducking into the hardware store to bathe in green paint. We'll see if any of this leads to decent public policy, but I'm not holding my breath. I doubt that there's the political will to do what truly needs to be done. Rather, I expect ill-considered and ineffective regulation of industry.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
http://e
Note that the EU admits that the decision has been taken before having determined how much it will cost. I guess the EU is the only place where this kind of decision-taking is tolerated and even admitted in public. I would not dare to try this at home.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
http
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
The CO2 figures for the biofuels listed do not include the CO2 emissions associated with the fertilization, cultivation or transportation of the fuels, some of which would usually be of fossil fuel origin. However, they also do not take into account the fact that nearly 100% of the carbon contained in the biofuels themselves originated in the atmosphere and was "fixed" from that source by the plants that produced this fuel. If you were able to get 100% of the fertilizer, tractor fuel, refining energy, transportation fuel etc. from similar bio-fueled sources, then using these fuels would be neutral in relation to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, rendering the fuels essentially stored concentrated solar energy. The trouble is, that would make the fuels themselves very expensive, while at the same time reducing the yeilds possible of these fuels per acre of arable land planted with the source crops.
Some of the biomass materials such as bagasse, corn stover, switchgrass etc. are either waste products of food production or plants that grow wild with little or no fertilizer or other inputs for cultivation. These materials unfortunately suffer from low useful energy content per unit raw mass, and even lower energy content per unit volume. That represents a large transport cost, rendering them poor fuels- except for local stationary energy production such as electricity generation etc.
Similarly, the figures given for the fossil fuels don't include the energy necessary to recover, refine and transport these fuels.
So yes, I think you're missing something.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
I have nothing against fuel-efficient cars or biofuels, I am just looking for cost and benefits of these plans.
Are there any reliable figures on overall CO2 emissions from biofuels vs fossil fuels? (plenty apparently UNreliable figures available, I noticed when googling around a little)
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
In the case of ethanol, the economic benefits to farming states overwhelms the discussion of environmental costs or benefits. And, its promotion has backfired , as seen in the food protests in Mexico ( high price of corn meal caused by preferred use of corn to produce ethanol).
Its a good time not to be a politician.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
I think you got my point.
When I was a young kid in the UK during late 70s/early 80s all the major stores were in the center of town. I happened to live close to the center of town so we walked to town to shop. All of the bus routes led to the center of town so you could fairly easily catch the bus to go shopping if you lived further out.
In the late 80s/early 90s they started building out of town shopping areas (typically one very large supermarket with 5-20 smaller stores around it) with giant car parks, and closed some of the stores in town. Although some of the shopping centers had a free bus service from the shopping center to the town center and back by the time you'd made the connecting bus journey (who’s prices accelerated above inflation) it was a pain, could take half a day to do a couple of bags worth of shopping.
So we got a car and started driving to the edge of town to shop.
Then in the 90's the big concern with global warming takes off and they basically told us to stop using the car and use public transport/walk/bike etc instead and increased the already heavy gas tax. Sadly the infrastructure of the town now only supported cars so we were pretty much forced to pay the tax.
My example of shopping can apply to jobs/accommodation too.
Seems unfair to punish people for a behavior the government effectively taught them.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
And, as you said, they are now pushing the idea of living downtown again and driving less.
Whatever. I don't think we are realistically going back.
Regards,
Mike
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
USA were maybe pioneers on environment rules as on other engineering standards. Federal states have great independence and are sovereigns in the definition of establishing their own exigencies on regional policies.
Before CEE, European countries had their own standards; most of them based on US codes. Now inside EEC European community there are commissions of standardization trying to uniform European standards codes, not only to avoid confusion laws between member states but also with quality exigencies to protect European industry against outside EEC pressure.
To avoid this world dispute between codes, rules and standards, with different tolerance degrees and ranges, from one state to another, why not to create a world agency for environmental purposes? WEO (World Environment Organization)
Luis marques
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
The UN can't enforce a sanction against any country anytime for anything so what measures would the WEO be able to enforce? Stern letters, harsh language?
The world seems to be unable to come to a consensus on what to do with countries that commit genocide, approve mass murders, encourage illegal drug production, allow slavery, etc, etc. Somehow getting all the countries together on an issue that may or may not exist seems quite far fetched.
Therefore it will remain each country's decision on what to do and most "free" countries will probably listen to their population.
EOIT
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
EOIT
The idea of WEO is not to establish a rigid consensus but to point an acceptable basis of consensus between nations.
It is a discussion that soon or later nations have to start. Environment questions are trans national and for that reason should be treated globally, I think there is no other way.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
We can start by getting a basis of consensus within one nation. Pick one. Any one would be a good start.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Separately, there are lists of standards (EuroNorms, ISOs and national standards) that confrom to the requirements of the EU commission's directives: if you make a toy in line with EN71-1 to 8 and EN62115 you can put a CE mark on it as these EuroNorms are considered to be in line with the toy safety directive.
In order to have a WEO with similar legal powers to the EU commission, we'd need some kind of world government in environmental matters, which is very, very unlikely to happen!
What we can (and do) have, are various international standards organisations (ISO, CEN, CENELEC etc) that are trying to establish standards that apply worldwide (or across all of Europe, not just the EU, in the case of the EuroNorms). These include environmental matters: for example the ISO 14000 series (developed from the BSI environmental management standards) and the various ISOs for fuels including the amount of lead in petrol (developed from a US standard) ans smokeless solid fuels and so on.
So the limit on CO2 emissions from cars may become a directive, but is unlikely to become a EuroNorm or an ISO, as you can't write a standard that says "you can only use small engines". There may be a future EuroNorm or ISO for some engineering aspect of car design (tyre rubber specification, say,) that achieves the required CO2 emmission limits, but that's a different thing.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
There is a time and a place for unilateralism.
Of course, how do we achieve a 20% reduction in CO2?
Setting these targets for cars is one thing but it only makes sense if they have some expectation that they have a realistic handle on how many cars will be on the roads in 2010 and how many of them will be new cars.
On the other hand, setting a quota for cars might be another way forward. Each country should set a quota that is currently about the number of cars registered and each year reduce the quota by an amount related to how many older cars are taken off the road. It seems pointless to me to set develop a set of emissions limits on a per car basis without some pother stricture that limits the growth in vehicle numbers.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Rather, you need to tax FUEL, as the only proxy for fuel-combustion related emissions that we have any control over. Use less of it, pay less. Increase the tax until it has the desired result. Invest the tax revenue into alternatives priced CHEAPER than the cars people will be replacing. The market will do the rest. People WILL move closer to work and to transit hubs, and businesses will move closer to the people they serve, if it's in their economic interest to do so.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Now, go to the opposite end of the spectrum. I work in manufacturing. Like most mfg. companies anymore, we're located in the middle of nowhere to take advantage of cheap labor. I'd love to have the plant closer to the city; but we couldn't afford the salaries. For many of us in smaller towns, you have to drive to do your grocery shopping, general shopping, etc. The excessive fuel tax then penalizes someone like me who had to move to the boonies for a job.
Let's face it, there are simple geographic differences between the US and Europe that contribute to fuel consumption. Add to that housing affordability, school quality, and the host of other issues that involve your choice of location, and I honestly don't see something like that receiving public buy in, global warming or not. Speaking of which, I was praying for global warming during last month's sub-zero temps...=)
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
personally i believe that this won't makes a gnat's difference, that global climate change is being driven by forces beyond our control. i also believe that we should be more conscious of our environment. and finally, i wish we'd pursue fusion power with the gusto that we put into some self-destructive efforts (like this global warming) as i believe that this is the only long term solution to our power needs.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Even "taxing" at these levels is not getting the job done.
Nor is there any sense that this has been achieved without any negative effects.
Some 15 or 20 years ago the AA produced a survey which suggested that petrol would have to be priced at around £5 a gallon to make any impact on use. What that £5 is in today's money I couldn't say but at 98p a litre, we are still only just reaching that numerical value.
There is a point here about the establishing of an elitist society where those with money will just pay it over. The poorer folk? Well, they'll do more of what they do now; skip MOTs and essential maintenance, forget about tax discs and insurance and devote their limited funds to fuel.
Some traffic is not going to be affected; lorries, business use etc. all that happens is that there is a bigger cost burden on industry.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
And of course, it's possible that companies (or business parks) could be encouraged to run coaches form the factory to the centre of town. Several companies that I've worked at in teh past have run free coaches like this. Why not more companies?
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
The prices of Gas in the US have as much as doubled at various points over the last year & half compared to around 2 years ago.
This has hit some poorer families. It has also hit some middle income families who pushed their finances to buy SUVs etc, in many opinions as a status symbol. However the genuinely rich don't care that it now costs well over the $100 mark to fill up their SUVs. This doesn’t limit their lifestyles since their ‘surplus’ income happily accommodates this.
Is it fair that the poor bare the brunt of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions?
Rationing might be an option but eventually would probably hit the same issue since those with money would find a way of 'buying' gas from those without.
Perhaps an arbitrary law to lower the consumption of all vehicles isn’t actually the worst idea.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
I'm not crying any tears for people who bought SUVs as status symbols, regardless what their income levels were. They knew these vehicles were fuel-inefficient when they bought them, and bought them anyway.
Who is taking public transit? In North America, it's generally the poor. Money from fuel taxes used to subsidize public transit, improving service and reducing fares, will actually be yet another means of transferring wealth from the rich, who will continue to drive (or be driven) regardless of the cost, to benefit those who have no choice in the matter.
Which homes are the least energy efficient? It may not be true in all jurisdictions, but in mine it's definitely the social housing units occupied by the poor. They're almost 100% heated by electricity- pure energetic idiocy. Local governments don't spend money retrofitting these because it's not as politically sexy as spending money on schools and hospitals (i.e expenditures which benefit the people who vote). But if you had a dedicated fuel tax to spend on energy efficiency projects, there's at least a possibility that these needed expenditures would actually happen. And the middle and upper classes, who have the capital to make the investments necessary to improve the energy efficiency of their own homes, would finally see some economic payback from doing so.
Again, I don't care how you choose to spend your money, as long as you're paying the full cost of all you consume. That's far from being true for fossil fuels consumption right now. I don't want your individual choices in regard to where you live relative to where you work, how big your house is, what sort of light bulbs you use, or what kind of vehicle you drive, to be any of my business whatsoever. But until fuel is priced properly, I become party to these transactions and your choices ARE my business.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Is that really true? No, honestly! Can you back that up with data? European gasoline and diesel are taxed so heavily, how does that compare against estimate cost of global warming?
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Surveys of vehicle purchasers here in North America continue to show that people are concerned about other factors far more than they are about fuel economy, even though gas prices at the pumps have risen steeply in the past few years. That proves that fuels pricing is still nowhere nearly high enough here to have a true effect on purchasing decisions.
As to the potential costs of global warming, they have been estimated to be truly enormous, but that presupposes you buy a connection between manmade greenhouse emissions and global warming. These costs can be dropped to zero if you simply deny that there's sufficient evidence to justify a connection, which explains why this approach is so popular at present. Pay for more studies and don't change your behaviour- it's a very easy political and economic sell.
When you also consider the costs of all the other known harmful effects on people's health and the greater environment resulting from fossil fuels exploration, efforts to "secure" continued cheap supplies, refinement, distribution and combustion of these fuels, these fuels are really a bargain at current pricing. The other costs are borne by health care budgets, military budgets etc., and show up in effects on people's lives that are very difficult to quantify in simple dollar and cents terms.
Fix the market and its valuation of this commodity and people's behaviours WILL change. There's significant elasticity in fuel consumption with respect to price, but that elasticity is not infinite. Fail to address the market valuation and this commodity will continue to be over-consumed for people's wants rather than for their true needs.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
No sorry I don't buy that, in God we trust, all others bring data! I am quite sure the cost of global warming consequences if we experience them in, say, 2050, is enormous, but the accumulated taxes paid by car drivers from Karl Benz until 2050 is enormous as well. It's really not obvious which of the two is greater.
The other thing that I think is questionable is that if you make fuel expensive enough, people will stop driving. That assumes that driving a car is a, what's that beautiful word again, "discretionary" activity that can be stopped at any point in time. That is just not true. People may just cut down on luxury, they may give up smoking, they may even economisze on clothes and food, just to be able to go to work and visit their friends and family, which is a very fundamental human need.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
it may be true that people need to get to work, but it becomes negotiable whether they need to do it in a 9 mpg SUV, all by their lonesome, traveling from a bedroom community 5o miles away from work. Once the cost of fuel starts to dig into other lifestyle options, the rational consumer compares the relative cost vs benefits of retaining a 1965 commuting style or biting the bullet and recognizing things are changing. As always, denial is the first response.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
We should all relax. Uncle AL now buys all his energy for his mansions from hydropower (did he lay his own copper wire to the nearest dam?) as we all should. There hasn't been a new dam in ages here in the US and the 15% premium he pays for his power (its kinda like dropping a dollar in the plate on Sunday) couldn't by the paper to mount an effort to get the environmentalist to budge on building a new one today.
So what do all use poor working stiffs do? I think I found the solution. Uncle AL buys "Carbon Credits", so I'll sell him credits. I have a standing offer to anyone out ther including uncle Al, I'll stop burning carbon for oh $1000/ton. For you SUV'rs that about $8K/year and on $3K for small cars. Heck, uncle Al pays $10 to a Carbon Credit club and he can fly 6000 miles on a jet and know that he didn't add to global warming (on paper that is). The club will take about 75% of the fee in keeping people employed (and burning more fuel) and take the rest and plant a tree with a little tag that says "paid in full by uncle Al" on it.
You want to stop CO2, tax the crap out of carbon. Darryl Hanna stated that ethanol and biofuels don't create global warming, and they shouldn't be taxed, duh, oh those silly little blonde hairs must be in overdrive. She also the earth recieves so much solar energy everyday that we must trap it. I agree, lets build solar collectors over her and uncle Al's houses and land so much so that not a drop of sunlight hits her fair skin or uncle Al's farm and it turns to a dust bowl like the insides of the Astrodome, then he can install astro turf knowing that the petroleum based carbons are losked up forever in a non-CO2 state......
Sorry, a real run on sentance...
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Sure, I agree, and I think the EU proposal to force car makers to reduce CO2 emissions is probably a good way forward, although they fail to show a quantitave decision basis.
But it's so "gratuit" to accuse car drivers of not paying enough for the damage they are said to cause. Heck I pay through my nose for fuel and the government does all kinds of beautiful things with it except address CO2 emissions and then people accuse me...
I'm at work now and can't spend time on comparing the one multi billion $ number with the other one, but I'm pretty convinced that the statement is not true.
If you look at the Asia tsunami, I have difficulty to determine the actual cost (even http://
Assume 100 million cars on 300 million Europeans.
Assume 1000 km/month which is roughly 100 liter gasoline per month per car.
Assume 1$/liter fuel tax (I know this is incorrect but it must be the right order of magnitude).
This makes 10 billion US$/month.
Think about it what you want.
You will now tell me that the Asian tsunami is nothing compared to what we will see after the temperature increase... and I guess I will not know what to respond.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Once you net out the cost of the road construction and maintenance, regulation of the petroleum production and distribution industry etc. that is ALSO paid for by that fuel tax, it leaves precious little to pay for anything else indirectly related to fuel, like say the US "investment" of a military nature in Iraq...Is that still running at ~$10 billion per month I wonder? Gotta be close to that...
How do you assess a mere dollars-and-cents cost to the irreparable alteration of the earth's climate? Are you trying to do a simpleminded cost-benefit analysis like those famous Ford guys with their exploding Pintos? How many people burned alive, how much the lawsuits would cost etc.?
Yes, people are adaptable. They'll find a way to make do regardless how badly we wreck this place. Life WILL go on. But chances are they'll need even MORE fossil fuel consumption to maintain the life they've become accustomed to under the worsened circumstances. More air conditioning. More concrete for storm-resistant structures. More fertilizer to compensate for the reduced crop yields. More desalination. A retreat from costal areas etc. etc.
Yeah, yeah, you pay through the nose for your fuel already, and governments "waste" that money on schools and hospitals instead of doing something about greenhouse gas emissions. Great- it shows through in the performance of the European fleet versus the North American fleet of vehicles in fuel efficiency terms. You just proved that pricing things properly has the correct effect- it reduces wasteful consumption, while of course increasing annoying whining from people who feel they're paying too much. Do you have something better to suggest?!
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
"
That is very funny, since cost benefit analysis is now standard practice in the transportation industries for assessing safety improvements. The exact sums that got them into trouble are now performed by people all over the world when deciding on whetehr to put 3 point seatbelts into a/c or buses, or looking at road safety enhancements.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Unleaded gasoline today is 1.7777 US$/gas (http://www.refiningonline.com/) or 0.47 US$/liter net.
Gasoline in France is cheap compared to the UK or Holland or Scandinavian countries.
(and I knew Greg would counter the cost-benefit comment faster and better than I could
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Here's some light reading on the matter:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Bill
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Greg: they'd better be awfully careful with those sums! They got the sums wrong by a mile in the Pinto case- that gas tank reinforcement looked awfully cheap in hindsight..
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
The only mistake the Pinto guys made in the calculations were not to factor in the punitive damages. They obviously weren't expecting to get whacked for doing something sensible.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
Up until now I'd generally thought you had a point, if not a little more extreme than my views.
If you read my earlier posts I made points about cars not being the only issue but all the other factors etc.
I'm not proposing to subsidize the poor, however, before we decide to tax in a way that impacts them more than others we should at least give them a realistic alternative.
From what I've seen, in many/most cases, the current state of public transport not just in the US but in the UK too does not make it a realistic alternative to having a car. I say this from experience, we didn't have car until I was around 10 and it was getting harder and harder to accommodate.
Before the tax is introduced isn't it reasonable to at least have an alternative in place. Many car owners, especially the poorer ones, aren't in a situation where they can just go out and trade their gas guzzler in for a small hybrid!
The environment and humankinds effect on it is a major issue that I do believe needs addressing but it isn’t the only one.
RE: CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe
What it showed is that it is possible to greatly influence the future path of a nation.
The problem may be that the opportunity to make such a change again may not exist.
At the end of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th the vast majority of the population of any country was born, worked, lived and died within a very small geographical area.
The railways made little impression on this pattern of behaviour and we probably have to wait until after the second world war to see a much wider ownership of cars.
Cars have been the great liberating factor. They provided more than just an ability to travel from A to B with ease, they generated a mobility into the populations that never previously existed. That mobility has entirely transformed the way people live their lives. By that I mean that a significant proportion of the population now live and work in quite separate locations and young people no longer have to content themselves with following Pa into the mill but can go any distance to find work that suits them.
If we take away the car we may reverse all those benefits of being able to chose our work and our home. Just think of the impact of not being able to travel and find the job you want and a job that suits you and which exploits your talents to the utmost.
Here is a simple test. Think where you were born. Think what opportunities there were for you if you never moved more than 10 or twenty miles from home.
I suggest that without the car, finding work that suits each of our talents would take most of the population to a distance removed from the home town that, without the car, would be equivalent to emigrating. Perhaps that distance is only 20 or thirty miles.
If we are to eliminate cars, if we are to have a major improvement in public transport, we have to ask ourselves if that would ever be good enough to maintain the current pattern of life, maintain family ties or can we say just how profound the changes will be and what the consequences will be?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com