If we want too cut Carbon Emmitions, why don't Government(s) tell Car manufacturers to make all cars electric?

Question

Or they can't sell there cars!

Well it was worth pointing out!

Sorry about the typo! Emissions!

Answer 1

California tried this. They passed a bill in 1994 requiring automakers to build a small percentage of electric vehicles, and that percentage would increase year-by-year until there would be a substantial percentage of electric vehicles on the road.
*
It almost worked. There were some electric cars on the road there for a while. But the auto companies hated the idea, and the oil companies openly lobbied against it, too. It appears that the auto companies didn't want the program to succeed. The electric cars got very little advertising, and the automakers refused to actually sell any of the cars, they were only leased. Carmakers also made it difficult to get a lease. GM made prospective lessees fill out mountains of paperwork, and many requests were turned down. There was a backlog of at least 5,000 applicants by the end of the program.
*
The Bush administration worked to kill California's ZEV program, and succeeded in modifying it so that electric cars were no longer required to be sold. When this happened, the vast majority of the electric cars in California were taken from the lessees and crushed. Protesters managed to save a few of the cars (from Ford and Toyota) from being destroyed.
*
To keep electric cars from being made again, the patents for the best battery system (NIMH batteries) were bought by Chevron/Texaco, and prohibited for electric vehicle use. Some of the remaining Toyota EVs with NIMH batteries have over 100,000 miles on these batteries with no sign of failure. But EV-sized NIMH batteries are no longer available.
*
Luckily, there is lots of new battery research in the works, and we may see some interesting cars in the next couple of years. Check out these links:
*
http://www.milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html
http://aftermarket.autoblog.com/2006/10/12/mitsubishi-looks-ahead-with-an-electric-i/
http://www.fevehicle.com/services.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1141599010468&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist971715454851
*
And if you don't want to wait, here's a way to get a practical EV right now, for only a few thousand dollars:
*
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
*

Answer 2

There are too many interests involved in keeping oil drinking vehicles rolling on the roads.

Till Big Oil chooses to go green and offer us clean alternative fuels in the gas stations, they will keep having meetings with governments and telling them how it is and how it is going to be.

I mean, how hard is it to drive up to a BP station and swap out an empty battery and swap in a charged one and drive off again?

All the oil companies have to do is offer us the most efficient, longest lasting batteries they can produce and charge those batteries up ecologically. We'll happily pick and choose between the Shells and BPs and Essos of the world just like we choose between telephone providers or local bakeries.

There is just as much money in that industry as in the oil. The nations that provide oil should give us the alternatives now, so we can keep the rest of the oil for the myriad of other uses that come with the plastics industry. I mean, even Saccharine comes from petrolium and the whole world loves their sweeteners!

If Shell or BP use solar power or natural gas to charge these batteries, I don't care, just as long as they leave me a running car and a world to drive it in with the cloth-top thrown back.

The industry gives us more powerful, faster cars every day and the government keeps lowering the speed limits to keep us alive. More living drivers means more clients and more taxpayers. Therefore, the government should make manufacturers reduce the power of the vehicles to a point where the energy efficient models are just as fast and then we'll happily switch over. If we are being sold "Fast and Powerful is good" on a daily basis, all they have to do is change the marketing and sell us "Slow and Green is good" instead. We'll lap it up all the same, don't you worry.

Answer 3

Air Travel has to be reduced as it is also a big polluter and with airports extending their runways all over with the hope of more destinations and bigger planes they should stop the cheap flights. As far as I know there is no VAT on aviation fuel which is not a level playing field for other transport systems.
Electric cars could be used locally although I am not sure about long distances. There was an experiment in La Rochelle in France years ago with all the car parks having charging plugs for the cars but it couldn't of been a success or we would all be using them already.

Answer 4

If they want to ease Carbon emmisions, why don't they tell volcanoes not to errupt, they create more bad air than any amount of cars, but nobody mentions this fact in case people realise cutting emmisions isn't the answer, it's stopping the destruction of the methods of absorbing those emmisions. 1 old Oak tree will absorb the emmisions of a 4.0 V8 constantly running for a year. If anybody truely wants to stop the climate issue, plant a bloody tree in your garden.

Answer 5

Actually, BMW will market a car, very shortly, powered by hydrogen. The resultant exhaust? Water and oxygen. Noise levels reduced by 50%. And, a 25% increase in excelleration and top speed.

Darned Germans rock in engineering!

Answer 6

Because all of the republicans are in good with GM and the oil business they really dont care about carbon emissions.

Answer 7

Electric cars only have a limited range before you'd need to stop and redcharge so until battery cell technology improves drastically
its not really a viable option.

Answer 8

the government is not in a position to tell there benefactor's any thing. they could make a mistake,
and Tony has only 1 year to pay off his million £ odd mortgage on his big House and owner soldiers are fighting for oil rights

Answer 9

its a bit like why don't the government restrict cars sold in the uk to 70mph as theres nowhere you'll legally need to use a speed above that in this country, doing that will save on emissions as well

Answer 10

ita all about fuel economy, the more aerodynamic the shape, the better the gas mileage. thats why they get 50 mpg, if they were shapes like regular cars the mileage would be alot lower, and the wow factor would be gone.i think part of it was also, you know exactly what car it is when you see it, and get people talking about it its free advertising! the old ones are hidious, but the new technology in car emmissions,and everyone making them, they can lessen the ugliness out of them and fight for the best looking one. go figure