TRANS U.K. Parliament Committee Wants to Ban ALL Private Cars and Trucks by 2050

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2...s-to-ban-all-private-cars-and-trucks-by-2050/

By Ronnie Schreiber on August 23, 2019

UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050

"If you’re any kind of a car enthusiast, or you just think the personal automobile is a terrific transportation device, this news has got to be chilling. The cross-party Science and Technology Select Committee of Parliament has issued a report that says that if the United Kingdom is to reach its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050, private automobile and truck ownership must end.

Oh, and if you think your morally pure Tesla or some other EV is going to protect your privilege for personal transportation, no, the environmental Jacobins are coming for all privately operated motor vehicles.

To start with, the committee report says that, starting in 2035, the government should start banning the sale of all conventionally powered cars and trucks, including hybrids, “at the latest.” That, however, won’t be enough. The committee adds, “The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions.”

That means that even pure battery powered EVs have got to go.

It’s quite simple, at least in the eyes of the select committee. You see, the manufacture of even zero-emission vehicles itself produces “substantial” carbon emissions as well engaging in other environmentally harmful practices. The only way to eliminate carbon emissions associated with the manufacture of private automobiles is to eliminate the manufacture, sale, and ownership of those private vehicles.

As the committee report puts it, “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”

There was a time when American car enthusiasts looked to Europe for automobiles that car lovers could desire. Think of all the great British, French, Italian, and German marques. Now, many European cities want to ban cars from urban centers, the European Union wants to put a 112 mph speed limit on all cars, including exotics, and now a select committee of the British Parliament is seriously recommending effectively banning the automobile. William Lanchester, Henry Royce, Charles Rolls, William Lyons, W.O. Bentley, and Colin Chapman must be spinning faster than any of their engines ever did.

The relevant section of the report is below:

Plan for reducing vehicle emissions: The Government must bring forward the date of its proposed ban on the sales of new ‘conventional’ cars and vans to 2035 at the latest, and ensure that it covers hybrids too. In the near-term, the Government must reconsider the fiscal incentives for consumers to purchase both new and used vehicle models with lower emissions. The Government should also work with public services and owners of public land, such as schools and hospitals, to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicle chargepoints, and introduce measures to ensure that chargepoints are interoperable, compatible with a smart energy system, reliable, and provide real-time information on their current functionality. Although ultra-low emissions vehicles generate very little emissions during use, their manufacture generates substantial emissions. In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions."
 

MountainBiker

Veteran Member
You can bet that the elite and govt. officials will all still have private cars. Non-govt. elite will just have them in the name of businesses and govt. officials will have them in the name of govt. entities. Private jets and yachts will still be everywhere as well. Do as I say not as I do.
 

Bensam

Deceased
All I can say is thank God for those patriots that separated us from those British idiots. What morons.
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
Idiots.

This climate change BS is the biggest mass hysteria hoax to ever hit the planet.
I realize that the "committee's" advice will probably be soundly ignored by saner minds in UK gov't...but these types should be immediately laughed, and VOTED out of any positions of power. W.T.H.
 

Kayak

Adrenaline Junkie
Realistically speaking, at some point a lot less people are going to own cars. If you consider a basic newish inexpensive car costs an average of $800 a month on the low side (car payment, gas, insurance, oil changes and other maintenance, new tires spread out over the yearly cost, etc), and possibly a LOT more if you have to pay to park and/or want a nicer car, then catching an uber anytime you need to travel is probably already cheaper than car ownership for a whole lot of people. (And yes, older cars can cost a lot less if you know how to work on them, but that doesn't describe most of society.)

But they need to let the markets work this out. Not everyone will make this choice even if it's the cheapest way to go, and that's fine. Also, if you have kids who are active in extracurricular activities, it won't be the cheapest way to go in today's market. At all.

I do foresee a whole lot less people owning cars a decade or two from now, especially if self-driving cars become the norm. However, it needs to be a personal choice, not a law.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
It is more likely stealth anticipation of peak oil. We try and cover it up, but fracking is a failure. I have a feeling the Green New Deal/Climate Change is all about pushing to transition to non-fossil fuel energy and preparing for the lesser standard of living that is coming with the scarcity of oil. If society swallows the sacrifice and changes its world view to embrace living in the 19th century, things will be so much easier for the elite.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-26/can-trump-re-industrialize-america-without-blowing-world

Can Trump Re-Industrialize America Without Blowing-Up The World?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

The G-7 Blues

What’s at stake in all these international confabs like the G-7 are the tenuous supply lines that keep the global game going. The critical ones deliver oil around the world. China imports about 10 million barrels a day to keep its operations going. It produces less than 4 million barrels a day. Only about 15 percent of its imports come from next door in Russia. The rest comes from the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Think: long lines of tanker ships traveling vast distances across the seas, navigating through narrow straits. The Chinese formula is simple: oil in, exports out. It has worked nicely for them in recent decades. Things go on until they don’t.

That game is lubricated by a fabulous stream of debt generated by Chinese banks that ultimately answer to the Communist Party. The party is the Chinese buffer between banking and reality. If the party doesn’t like the distress signals that the banks give off, it just pretends the signals are not coming through, while it does the hokey-pokey with its digital accounting, and things appear sound a while longer.

The US produces just over 12 million barrels of oil a day. About 6.5 million of our production is shale oil. We use nearly 20 million a day. (We’re not “energy independent.”) The shale oil industry is wobbling under the onerous debt load that it has racked up since 2005. About 90 percent of the companies involved in shale oil lose money. The capital costs for drilling, hauling a gazillion truckloads of water and fracking sand to the rig pads, and sucking the oil out, exceed the profit from doing all that. It’s simply all we can do to keep the game going in our corner of the planet, but it’s not a good business model. After you’ve proved conclusively that you can’t make a buck at this using borrowed money, the lenders will quit lending you more money. That’s about where we are now.

Europe is near the end of its North Sea oil bonanza and there’s nothing in the on-deck circle for them. Germany tried to prove that they could run the country on “renewables” and that experiment has flopped. They have no idea what they’re going to do to keep the game going in their patch of nations. They must be freaking out in their charming capital cities.

The next economic bust is going to amount to the crack-up of the oil age, and the “global economy” that emerged in its late stage. It was all about moving fantastic quantities of things around the planet. The movements were exquisitely tuned, along with the money flows that circulated freely, like blood carrying oxygen to each organ. All of that is coming to an end. The nations of the world must be feeling desperate, despite the appearance of good manners at meetings like the G-7. What’s at stake for everybody in the dark background is the ability to maintain high standards of living only recently attained. And the fear behind that is not knowing just how far backward these high standards of living may have to slide.

A lot of people still alive in China must remember a daily existence on par with the 12th century. In the USA, where democracy is mostly represented by low-order thinking skills, the memory of life before electricity and running water is long gone. We’ve been living in Futurama since the end of the last world war. That war, by the way, is not entirely forgotten in Europe, despite all the charm currently on display and the tourists swarming with their selfie sticks. The place was a charnel house for centuries and the Euro folk will do about anything to suppress conflict. Lately, it looks like they’re willing to give up on Western Civilization itself to keep the peace.

Lord knows what Mr. Trump’s strategy is with these so-called “trade talks.” He has explicitly enough pushed for the re-industrialization of America, and that implies — among other things — decoupling from the China’s torrential merchandise supply lines, cutting off its revenues. Closing off China’s access to US markets itself might be enough to finally blow up China’s deeply fraudulent banking system. Maybe the aim is to just disable China, derail it from its seeming aim of becoming the next world hegemon. Does Mr. Trump think he can do that without blowing up the rest of the world’s financial arrangements? The stock markets haven’t been digesting that story very well lately. Could the US government be collectively dumb enough to think that shale oil will permit this country to re-industrialize while the rest of the world stumbles back into a dark age?

More likely, all the advanced nations will make that downward journey together. The US is well on its way, despite all the MAGA bravado. The country is reeling in bad faith, delusion, official corruption, porno-pharmaceutical vice, and ethnic rancor. The people who live in FlyoverLand style themselves like Visigoths, all tatted up and armed to the teeth, moiling angrily at the edge of the Rome-like coastal enclaves. The elites want to stuff themselves inside their phones and live there. Guess what: that won’t be a “safe space.”
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Except...

Realistically speaking, at some point a lot less people are going to own cars. If you consider a basic newish inexpensive car costs an average of $800 a month on the low side (car payment, gas, insurance, oil changes and other maintenance, new tires spread out over the yearly cost, etc), and possibly a LOT more if you have to pay to park and/or want a nicer car, then catching an uber anytime you need to travel is probably already cheaper than car ownership for a whole lot of people. (And yes, older cars can cost a lot less if you know how to work on them, but that doesn't describe most of society.)

But they need to let the markets work this out. Not everyone will make this choice even if it's the cheapest way to go, and that's fine. Also, if you have kids who are active in extracurricular activities, it won't be the cheapest way to go in today's market. At all.

I do foresee a whole lot less people owning cars a decade or two from now, especially if self-driving cars become the norm. However, it needs to be a personal choice, not a law.

Uber Taxi only charges something like 43% of the actual cost of the ride to passengers. The balance is made up by them losing at least 1.5 billion dollars of investor money a year and the driver employees not understanding the difference between revenue and profit (so at least a third of them likely are working at a loss, and the rest mostly working for under minimum wage). So, that is NOT a transportation option that is going to be available longterm, at least not at loss-leader prices as now.
 

Kayak

Adrenaline Junkie
Uber Taxi only charges something like 43% of the actual cost of the ride to passengers. The balance is made up by them losing at least 1.5 billion dollars of investor money a year and the driver employees not understanding the difference between revenue and profit (so at least a third of them likely are working at a loss, and the rest mostly working for under minimum wage). So, that is NOT a transportation option that is going to be available longterm, at least not at loss-leader prices as now.

We used both Uber and taxis frequently on our vacation this summer. Parking was impossible, so we left the car in the hotel's lot and let other people drive us because it was cheaper than paying for parking when out and about. Uber ranged from $8 to $14 and taxis ranged from $10 to $12. Exact same average, but Uber had a bigger fluctuation. I never quite figured out how Uber figured their amounts, because the exact same trip could vary by a lot. I'm assuming either time of day or supply and demand at the moment. Either way, costs between Uber and taxis were about the same. Taxis have been around a long time, so I'm assuming their charges are sustainable.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
We used both Uber and taxis frequently on our vacation this summer. Parking was impossible, so we left the car in the hotel's lot and let other people drive us because it was cheaper than paying for parking when out and about. Uber ranged from $8 to $14 and taxis ranged from $10 to $12. Exact same average, but Uber had a bigger fluctuation. I never quite figured out how Uber figured their amounts, because the exact same trip could vary by a lot. I'm assuming either time of day or supply and demand at the moment. Either way, costs were about the same. Taxis have been around a long time, so I'm assuming their charges are sustainable.

I should have been more precise, I see.
Yes, Uber Taxi (their original, or true, name) charges about 43% of the actual cost on average.
They are, as you've already seen just locally, quite variable.
They are also less efficient service providers than legal taxis, and could operate profitably only at higher prices overall than legal taxis charge.
 

Kayak

Adrenaline Junkie
The math still works MS. If a round trip is going to cost between 16 and 30 dollars (8 to 15 each way), and you need one trip a day, you're probably cheaper than the cost of a car. Figure a thirty-day month at thirty dollars a day (work during the week and grocery store/other outings on the weekend), that's $900 a month. I know people who spend five hundred dollars a month just to park in a downtown lot for work, without even discussing the cost of the car, gas, insurance, and maintenance. It doesn't matter if that's a taxi or an uber. Same math.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
The auto is an expression of freedom. Any questions?

The auto is an expression of the people's POWER to do LOTS of things.

They want to enslave us, therefore they are FIRST trying to make us as dependent and powerless as possible.

"Carbon"and "sustainable planet" are the PRETEXTS that they are using to STRIP us of all our rights, freedoms, CHOICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES. They can do nothing to "save the planet" but they CAN use that pretext to strip the hard earned wealth from the majority of the population. Such people should be arrested tried and swing from lampposts.
They are NOT OUR SAVIORS, they are our deadly enemies, more than any other we have ever fought in wars.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
The math still works MS. If a round trip is going to cost between 16 and 30 dollars (8 to 15 each way), and you need one trip a day, you're probably cheaper than the cost of a car. Figure a thirty-day month at thirty dollars a day (work during the week and grocery store/other outings on the weekend), that's $900 a month. I know people who spend five hundred dollars a month just to park in a downtown lot for work, without even discussing the cost of the car, gas, insurance, and maintenance. It doesn't matter if that's a taxi or an uber. Same math.


Arguably not. The cost of the DRIVER + a profit for the service has to be included. If you're talking just using taxis (legal and/or gypsy Uber/Lyft cabs) to get home from a bar several weekend nights a month to avoid a DUI, sure. But, for a minimum wage sort to spend half their paycheck on cab fare to and from work every day, not so much.
 

AlaskaSue

North to the Future
The auto is an expression of the people's POWER to do LOTS of things.

They want to enslave us, therefore they are FIRST trying to make us as dependent and powerless as possible.

"Carbon"and "sustainable planet" are the PRETEXTS that they are using to STRIP us of all our rights, freedoms, CHOICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES. They can do nothing to "save the planet" but they CAN use that pretext to strip the hard earned wealth from the majority of the population. Such people should be arrested tried and swing from lampposts.
They are NOT OUR SAVIORS, they are our deadly enemies, more than any other we have ever fought in wars.

Yep, I believe you have hit all the salient points here! Constrain, contain, restrain.
 
Top