Green issues?

Question

Should the government just ban production of petrol driven cars? This would include leaving all that have already been sold to run the streets, it would only affect the manufacturing process. Therefore, as more cars get knackered more green cars will be sold. A simple solution. what do you think?

Answer 1

in 2002 Professor David King, UK cheif scientific advisor, called for a complete ban on the sale of petrol-and diesel-powered cars. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article203406.ece
http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art33.html

technically the zero emmission personal transport solutions are available now.
They are much simpler to make, but would still employ car workers; and the country that takes the lead now could reap the reward of thriving motor industry - insead of letting manufacturing move to China (eg MG-rover)

More importantly non-fossil fuel cars (electric vehicles in particular) are much more pleasent to drive - quiete, smooth, smell free, powerful. GM couldn't meet demand for EV1 despite their attempts to dampen it, see www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com. And Tesla have already sold out of 2007 cars built by Lotus, Norfolk UK

Max torque is provided from 0 so incredible acceleration www.teslamotors.com 0-60 4 seconds.
Easy to make multi-wheel drive motor in each wheel give far better off road capability, see mitsubushi,
& if you want a stupid ugly vehicle then consider how powerfull electric locomotives are.

The only people to loose out are those that can't adapt to better technology, like dinosaurs. BBC/Top Gear has not mentioned the Tesla, they would rather crash 250 mph fossil fuel dragster than report the 350-400mph Bluebird http://www.bluebird-electric.net/

Answer 2

That's not a good idea. Historically, regulatory efforts that are "prescriptive"--that mandate changes such as you suggest--don't work well. what does work is a "standards setting" approach. This means doing three things: first, develop and set standards of performance (in this case, reduction of emissions, especially CO2). Second, examine existing policy and regulation to identify barriers to change--and make the needed changes. Third, implement policies (e.g., tax credits for low-emission vehicles as one possibility) to encourage market changes.

when such an approach is used, it puts a premium on innovation--and leaves producers at liberty to find the most efficient means of meeting the new standards--without trying to anticipat and mandate which approaches are preferable before the fact.

The problem with the auto industry is really a problem with the energy industry. Specifically, we have a well-entrenched special interest roup--the oil and coal industries--that is doing everything possible to block any such changes. The last thing they want is a free market in ideas and innovation in energy production. In fact, they are getting desperate--they know, as do es anyone familier with recent technological developments, that technology has caught up with them--there are a range of cost-effective solutions to producing alternative energy currently available. and more progress is being made--rapidly.

There is another reason to avoid the "madated solution" approach. Opening the market to innovation and entrepreneurial creativity will result in the implementation ofalternative energy technologies--for autos and other areas--in a way that will produce economice growth--a win-win situation. But mandating solutions has the opposite effect, more often than not--by forcing industries--and eentually consumers--to absorb arbitrarily imposed costs.

Answer 3

You have to be a bit careful about this approach. Although it might be effective, you will displace hundreds of millions of auto workers world wide, their families, the person that owns the local grocery store they buy their food at, and the car wash the local grocer uses to wash his, now , un-necessary fleet of trucks. See where this goes.
The trick is to do this slowly. The workers will naturally re-train themselves and seek new and different work. We are not going to quit commuting, so the new "clean" vehicles will need to be built as well. This will re-hire many, if not all of the displaced workers. The whole thing takes time. Go to slow and the environment suffers, go too fast and you get millions of homeless people. Everything in moderation.
just my thoughts.
Scotty

Answer 4

The Government will not ban the production of petrol driven cars for the same reason that they will not put a complete ban on smoking, they are making too much money from taxes.

Answer 5

Good idea in theory, but the implementation would be a nightmare without sufficient lead time. Pass the law, and say it takes effect in 2030, and that would give the companies time to develop the technology for a replacement.

Answer 6

I don't think it is a good idea. What about a car that gets 100 to 500 miles to the gallon. It is possible. But it isn't good for the gas companies. I drive a Hummer and I only get about 12 MPG. I am not about to trade my car in for a small little thing ..... I would much rather have a modification to my car to get better gas mileage.

Answer 7

why just cars why don't we just ban everything and go back to living in mud huts after all that's what the greens want.Lets be serious global warming is a natural phenomenon that cant be stopped we should be looking at real ways to adapt for the global changes instead of stupid ideas like yours

Answer 8

That's a good idea, something radical need to be done!
For those of you who does not know, the world is literally dying!

At present 15% of all species are dying. Something need to be done, and it need to be done now, not tomorrow!
Some of those species are key species, if dead, it could literally mean the end!

Answer 9

If we care enough for our environment I would go for that idea.