Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.
The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.
The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.
Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.
I see no problem with this, as long as appropriately convenient public transport is guaranteed...which it WON'T be, simply because it is impossible. The truth of the matter is that, within 10 years, if we continue to use personal private vehicles, there simply won't be enough space for them all. PERIOD . CO2 or whatEVER the 'reason'...it won't be possible to continue to use cars etc to travel to/around large cities. And A LOT sooner than 2050, IMHO. Nick
IP: Logged
06:49 PM
pavo_roddy Member
Posts: 4351 From: State with a city named Gotham Registered: Apr 2004
Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.
The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.
The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.
Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.
Here's something I read earlier today that was along the same lines, and I'm curious if these are just very conflicting articles about the same report: http://www.autoblog.com/201...owered-cars-by-2050/
The one from Autoblog doesn't talk about banning cars entirely (unless I was still asleep when I read it, which is entirely possible), but rather banning vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine, making anything purely electric acceptable to drive.
Now, I'm not saying it isn't a moronic plan, because I think it is, but this way it's at least significantly less moronic than banning automobiles altogether.
I can tell you this, though: Regardless of whether they banned all autos, or just ICE powered vehicles, I'd still be packing up my crap and moving somewhere I'm allowed to have them or a truely acceptable alternative exists. While I haven't experienced Europe's public transportation system yet, I've experienced what we call public transportation in the US and I'll never live in a city here that'd require me to use it, its too much of an inconvenience.
------------------ Nick www.naskie18.com GoogleTalk: naskie18 AIM: naskie18
I can tell you this, though: Regardless of whether they banned all autos, or just ICE powered vehicles, I'd still be packing up my crap and moving somewhere I'm allowed to have them or a truely acceptable alternative exists. While I haven't experienced Europe's public transportation system yet, I've experienced what we call public transportation in the US and I'll never live in a city here that'd require me to use it, its too much of an inconvenience.
Plus how are you supposed to get that $300.00 in groceries you just bought home or that live Christmas tree?
What if you wanted to do a basement remodel and needed 4 sheets of drywall and 10 2x4's?
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 03-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:14 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Originally posted by Cheever3000: So what do they intend to do about all the volcanoes that spew the same crap into the air in volumes that far surpass automobiles?
I can find many pages on the Internet that say exactly the opposite.
Here's one that says that during an average year, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities (including automobiles and everything else) are 100 times greater than carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes.
Of course, carbon dioxide is one of the main concerns when considering the possibility of global warming.
If volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide were significant, it would show up as "spikes" after every major eruption on a plot of atmospheric CO2 levels over time. But the data shows exactly the opposite: No such spikes.
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.
A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.
Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.
Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.
The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.
The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.
IP: Logged
11:06 PM
RACE Member
Posts: 4842 From: Des Moines IA Registered: Dec 2002
So what do they intend to do about all the volcanoes that spew the same crap into the air in volumes that far surpass automobiles?
If we are eco-friendly enough to the planet it will stop doing bad things to itself. The Earth has a lot of self-hatred. It is kind of the equivalent of cutting.
IP: Logged
11:15 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by fierobear: WHAT IS the "ideal" average temperature for the earth, newf? Hmm? Answer me that.
I would hazard a guess that the ideal average temperature(s) is what we had not too long ago, before the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases began to accelerate, driven by the technologies of the industrial revolution. Maybe the average temperature(s) at the beginning of the 1800s or 1900s.
That's "ideal' because that is what we have already accommodated ourselves to, in terms of where we currently live and where we currently pursue agriculture.
?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:52 AM
normsf Member
Posts: 1682 From: mishawaka, In Registered: Oct 2003
Restricting travel is restricting your freedom. To artificially put limits on energy is the same as putting limits on what you can do. So are we to be herded into cattle wagons and moved around like sheep to market for slaughter. Told where we can go, how we can go and with whom we can go too, or visit. This wont work, next you will hear " show me your papers" youre not allowed here. A bit melodramatic, but close.
Restricting travel is restricting your freedom. To artificially put limits on energy is the same as putting limits on what you can do. So are we to be herded into cattle wagons and moved around like sheep to market for slaughter. Told where we can go, how we can go and with whom we can go too, or visit. This wont work, next you will hear " show me your papers" youre not allowed here. A bit melodramatic, but close.
"To artificially put limits on where you can go" ???? Norm...come on!! We don't NEED anybody to tell us where we can't drive or go..We do it to ourselves!!
You SURE you want to demand your freedom to drive into cities?? This becomes worse and worse every year. And the only way to prevent it happening is NOT to tell people they can't drive into town..., but limit the number of people who can drive ANYWHERE, or own a car at all. It is all very well emulating King Neptune, but it is equally as futile when the sea threatening to engulf us is US, not the Authorities That is how I see it anyway Nick
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:48 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I would hazard a guess that the ideal average temperature(s) is what we had not too long ago, before the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases began to accelerate, driven by the technologies of the industrial revolution. Maybe the average temperature(s) at the beginning of the 1800s or 1900s.
That's "ideal' because that is what we have already accommodated ourselves to, in terms of where we currently live and where we currently pursue agriculture.
?
Then you are likely ahead of the so called "climate scientists", because I haven't seen their answer to that question.
IP: Logged
10:40 AM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
I would hazard a guess that the ideal average temperature(s) is what we had not too long ago, before the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases began to accelerate, driven by the technologies of the industrial revolution. Maybe the average temperature(s) at the beginning of the 1800s or 1900s.
That's "ideal' because that is what we have already accommodated ourselves to, in terms of where we currently live and where we currently pursue agriculture.
?
Actually it changes every year. Average ideal temperatures is subjective, and with anthropogenic greenhouse gases have only contributed maybe a 1 to 2 degree rise in temperature in a span of 100 years (assuming all measuring devices and locations are accurate and unaffected by other temperature influences).
There has always been floods, droughts, cold spells and hot spells and it wasn't any different during the 1800's or 1900's.
I guess the only way to have a thermostat for the earth and for somebody to come up with an "ideal average" temperature, we just have to ask Al Gore.
Isn't there already a gobal warming bashing thread? Why start a second one?
Also, anyone with any common sense knows that proposals and ideas for something 40 years down the road are more speculation, since so much can and will change between now and then.
If you want to harp about someone "banning" cars from cities, look at what London did a few years ago. Why not start a rant-fest about that, it's real, it's today, it's not pipe dreams in the sky, chickens falling from the sky, the sky is falling, etc.
The London congestion charge is a fee for motorists traveling within the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ), a traffic area in London. The charge aims to reduce congestion, and raise investment funds for London's transport system. The zone was introduced in central London on 17 February 2003, and extended into parts of west London on 19 February 2007. Though not the first scheme of its kind in the United Kingdom, it was the largest when introduced, and it remains one of the largest in the world. Several cities around the world have referenced London's congestion charge when considering their own schemes.
A payment of £10 is required each day for each vehicle, which travels within the zone between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm (Monday-Friday only); a fine of between £60 and £180 is levied for non-payment. From 4 January 2011 several changes were implemented based on the public consultation conducted in 2008, which included the removal of the Western Extension, a charge increase from GB£8 to GB£10, and the introduction of an automated payment system. Transport for London (TfL) administers the charge; Capita Group operated it under contract until 31 October 2009, and IBM took over on 1 November 2009. The system is mostly run on an automatic basis using Automatic Number Plate Recognition.
For reference, £10 is $15.99 US. A lot of folks who work in London but can't afford to live there now can't afford to work there, either. FWIW, The US embassy refuses to pay and at least as of 2009 owed well over three million dollars in fees, fines, and penalties.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:12 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Isn't there already a gobal warming bashing thread? Why start a second one?
Also, anyone with any common sense knows that proposals and ideas for something 40 years down the road are more speculation, since so much can and will change between now and then.
If you want to harp about someone "banning" cars from cities, look at what London did a few years ago. Why not start a rant-fest about that, it's real, it's today, it's not pipe dreams in the sky, chickens falling from the sky, the sky is falling, etc.
This post would have been useful, if it only included the last paragraph, and also had a link to what London did.
Drivers crossing greater downtown San Francisco and the southern border with San Mateo County could be hit with a new toll costing them as much as $1,560 a year.
Who's concerned with something in another country that might or might not happen four decades from now but completely overlooked something that will probably happen four years from now in this country?
IP: Logged
01:34 PM
PFF
System Bot
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
If you want to harp about someone "banning" cars from cities, look at what London did a few years ago. Why not start a rant-fest about that,
For reference, £10 is $15.99 US. A lot of folks who work in London but can't afford to live there now can't afford to work there, either. FWIW, The US embassy refuses to pay and at least as of 2009 owed well over three million dollars in fees, fines, and penalties.
Very interesting post. I had no idea about that, and it has been around for years.
I'll start the rant fest.
It isn't FAIR! Only RICH people will get to drive in the zone. They should start a tax (on rich people, of course) to pay for poor people's fee so THEY can drive in there, too. Because it isn't FAIR.
I know. It IS silly. Just using this as an example of how silly it is to use whether something is fair or not as a justification to tax something.
IP: Logged
01:47 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I'm not sure why they need to BAN ANYTHING in the city?
What they should do is improve public transportation. IT CAN, and WILL work when done properly. I grew up in the Washington DC / Metro Area... anyone who's lived there, or lives there know how CRUCIAL the DC Subway is.
The focus should be on improving public transit in a RESPONSIBLE and COMMON SENSE manner. Not creating fun bullet trains from theme-park to theme-park location, but an actual subway or above-ground metro rail. There should be plenty of stops, with lots of parking at the stations / terminals.
Don't worry about the congestion. Rather than regulating, provide alternatives. Rather than EXPANDING roadways, use that capital to improve public transit and only use funds to maintain the existing roads. Traffic and congestion will ALWAYS be on the city streets, no matter what.
I guess I am confused about the actually POINT of this...
Is the point to reduce congestion, or to reduce CO2 emissions? Becuase as far as I can tell, improving COMMON SENSE public transit will do both, while one or the other only solves half the problem.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
I'm not sure why they need to BAN ANYTHING in the city?
What they should do is improve public transportation. IT CAN, and WILL work when done properly. I grew up in the Washington DC / Metro Area... anyone who's lived there, or lives there know how CRUCIAL the DC Subway is.
The focus should be on improving public transit in a RESPONSIBLE and COMMON SENSE manner. Not creating fun bullet trains from theme-park to theme-park location, but an actual subway or above-ground metro rail. There should be plenty of stops, with lots of parking at the stations / terminals.
Don't worry about the congestion. Rather than regulating, provide alternatives. Rather than EXPANDING roadways, use that capital to improve public transit and only use funds to maintain the existing roads. Traffic and congestion will ALWAYS be on the city streets, no matter what.
I guess I am confused about the actually POINT of this...
Is the point to reduce congestion, or to reduce CO2 emissions? Becuase as far as I can tell, improving COMMON SENSE public transit will do both, while one or the other only solves half the problem.
Try to keep in mind this is just a goal being set by a "commisioner" nothing is set in stone, just another article on a website to try and get attention when in fact it's nothing that hair raising when you look at the actual details. Future planning is not a set path but merely a projection.
"Competitive transport systems are vital for Europe's ability to compete in the world, for economic growth, job creation and for peoples' everyday quality of life. Curbing mobility is not an option; neither is business as usual. We can break the transport system's dependence on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility."
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:08 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
"Competitive transport systems are vital for Europe's ability to compete in the world, for economic growth, job creation and for peoples' everyday quality of life. Curbing mobility is not an option; neither is business as usual. We can break the transport system's dependence on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility."
Sure, but like I said, they can improve transportation without BANNING anything.
Your white paper throws in another issue... "breaking dependance on foreign oil."
So what is the reason why they're doing this? I've got three issues that I've identified now:
1 - End dependance on foreign oil. 2 - Reduce CO2 3 - Reduce congestion
What is the primary goal? If they simply are trying to attack one or two of them, it's not solving the problem but perhaps making the others worse. Cities will usually grow. If it's not oil, then it's tons of electric cars, and you still have the issue of where the components to make those deep cycle batteries come from (China). That also doesn't reduce the congestion either.
I think (as with pretty much everything), people need to really sit down and figure out what the actual GOAL is... if the goal to "improve access in and out of the city" then that's what they should be focusing on. What is the best way to do it? Mass public-transit by mean of metro-rails, or flying people tubes in Futurama... whatever it is... that's what they need to work one...
not: 1 - pushing battery powered cars (IE: replacing one dependance on another), or 2 - banning cars to reduce CO2 (still doesn't solve the problem).
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Sure, but like I said, they can improve transportation without BANNING anything.
Your white paper throws in another issue... "breaking dependance on foreign oil."
So what is the reason why they're doing this? I've got three issues that I've identified now:
1 - End dependance on foreign oil. 2 - Reduce CO2 3 - Reduce congestion
What is the primary goal? If they simply are trying to attack one or two of them, it's not solving the problem but perhaps making the others worse. Cities will usually grow. If it's not oil, then it's tons of electric cars, and you still have the issue of where the components to make those deep cycle batteries come from (China). That also doesn't reduce the congestion either.
I think (as with pretty much everything), people need to really sit down and figure out what the actual GOAL is... if the goal to "improve access in and out of the city" then that's what they should be focusing on. What is the best way to do it? Mass public-transit by mean of metro-rails, or flying people tubes in Futurama... whatever it is... that's what they need to work one...
not: 1 - pushing battery powered cars (IE: replacing one dependance on another), or 2 - banning cars to reduce CO2 (still doesn't solve the problem).
But that's exactly what the paper is goal setting, not policy. No one has banned anything.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:20 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
But that's exactly what the paper is goal setting, not policy. No one has banned anything.
I didn't see your update until after where you said it was just a leading title for attention-getting... so there's no where in the article that says they plan to ban cars in the city, or that it's at least an option?
I didn't see your update until after where you said it was just a leading title for attention-getting... so there's no where in the article that says they plan to ban cars in the city, or that it's at least an option?
Sure they say that it's a goal but it's 40 years from now and just a goal, as others have stated so much can happen in 40 years and the fact that it is just a goal by a commision does no mean it will come to pass. It's what future planners do, go back forty years and see what similar planners had as goals for todays cities.
For example: How many goals has California had for emissions and such that have been ignored or postponed?
IP: Logged
02:38 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Sure they say that it's a goal but it's 40 years from now and just a goal, as others have stated so much can happen in 40 years and the fact that it is just a goal by a commision does no mean it will come to pass. It's what future planners do, go back forty years and see what similar planners had as goals for todays cities.
For example: How many goals has California had for emissions and such that have been ignored or postponed?
Still, they shouldn't want it, it should not be a goal or means to an end. That is an opinion, yes.
. CO2 or whatEVER the 'reason'...it won't be possible to continue to use cars etc to travel to/around large cities. And A LOT sooner than 2050, IMHO.
what happened to our flying cars!!!!!!!!
for now, put me in the "still needs more evidence" camp.
