why dont we ban all vehicles except public transport for one day a week surely this would reduce co2 levels?

Answer 1

Because many people would not then be able to get to work. The public transport network would not be able to cope with the extra load, and many people are not within reach of public transport.

Answer 2

What a splendid idea!

Where would all the extra trains and buses come from, and the bus-lanes and railway tracks to run them on?

As for trains, they're a bit of an ecological disaster to be honest. Heavy, inflexible, high maintenance, labour intensive and not very fuel-efficient, they only score over other forms of transport when they are running to almost full capacity.

Having doubled or trebled the amount of buses and trains, where would they all sleep at night, or rest during off-peak periods?

If it were such a good idea, the private companies would have flocked in that direction years ago, but as usual, any such move would be paid for by an already over-taxed middle-class, with higher fuel-duties and road-charging scheme.

Let's put it another way.

Who are among the biggest cuplrits that have created the sheer scale of daily commuting?

The answer is local, regional and national government.

Centralised hospitals, schools, colleges, fire-stations, ambulance-stations, police-stations, planning departments, social services offices, local goverment building-depots, regional offices. health service administration, post-offices, local government departments, town-halls, community transport departments, universities, civic halls, education departments, regional councils, libraries, street-cleaning services.....the list must run to thousands; many of them inefficient, badly managed and over-staffed.

Maybe it's good that Ken Livingstone travels to work by taxi after he's fed the newts, but perhaps it would a better idea if he, and all the rest of his colleagues stayed at home at least 3 days a week .

Bring back local services which served the community, rather than the community serving the local services which service the myth of "saving tax payer's money," and it would be a very good start to reducing CO2 emissions.

Answer 3

People couldn't get to work.

I'd like to know why the government isn't providing more incentives to put solar panels on our roofs, build more efficient houses and cars, etc.

They could mandate a given R value for all floors, ceilings and walls, and windows, or at least give a tax break for meeting the standard. That would not only help the environment, it would reduce people's heating and a/c bills, thereby providing an immediate and measurable benefit to the people who would have to pay for it.

The government also should build more bike paths (and the citizens should use them!), and offer incentives for companies to provide shower facilities and bike racks.

Why don't companies offer flex time--four days a week, 10 hours a day? It would require some getting used to, and workers would have to adjust to the longer workday, but it would be better for all in the long run.

Sorry, catneman, the problem's not Bush/Exxon. We knew we had a problem with oil in the '70's, when we had that gas crisis. We were collectively stupid in stopping focusing on alternative energies when the Arabs opened the spigot again.

Answer 4

Because there are better and less disruptive ways to decrease CO2. It would be very easy to have cars that use 20% (or more) less gas.

To the guy who quoted CO2 emission levels:

There's a natural carbon cycle that creates and destroys CO2. That handles the plants. But it's a delicate balance and we're ruining it by digging up carbon that was disposed of years ago by nature, and burning it, creating excess CO2. The natural carbon cycle can't handle that and the result is a huge increase in atmospheric CO2, which is easily seen in the scientific data. Look at this graph:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are the natural carbon cycle doing its' thing. CO2 goes up a little in the winter when plants are inactive, and down in the summer. The huge increase is due to us burning fossil fuels.

Answer 5

If there was any kind of a good public transport system in my area I would use it. Unfortunatley there isn't. This idea would result in the loss of millions upon millions of dollars, since the whole economy would basically shut down one day a week. People would not be willing to do this nor would the government allow it.

Answer 6

Ok, in theory great, but in practice do you really think that if everyone in the World travelled on all the public transport for a day a week that there would really be enough public transport to take them all? - I think not!

Answer 7

Dear son of grace, i don't know where you live, but can you imagine asking an american NOT to use the car for 1 hour, let alone one day.As the US and other large industrial nations emit so much of the Co2 anyway without regard to anyone or anything, to ask for a one day no car use, is like asking the USA to switch off their Air conditioner.
Oh my!!!! what a disaster !!!

Answer 8

pick the day of the week when no one needs to go to work as most public transport is poop. most public transport routes dont go where you want them to go and you need to take at least two buses.

but yes it would reduce CO2 buy loads

Answer 9

All the vehicles in the world put out 1.5 gigatonnes of CO2 in a year. All the plants put out 450gt. the oceans 80gt. banning cars totally would have very little effect.

Answer 10

Silly idea. People will just drive more on other days. Anyway, cars do not emit that much co2 compared to trucks, buses, trains, airliners, ships, power plants, steel mills and so on. Also, I read somewhere that rice paddies emit a lot of co2.