• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

Deuce said:
There's these newfangled things that have been invented called electric motors. If only there was some way to put this astonishing sciencey technology into some sort of wheeled device that could transport a person from one place to another. Wonder what they would call such a miraculous device.
Click to expand...

Wonder what they'll do with all the batteries.
 
Andalublue said:
No, you don't HAVE to drive into the city from suburban and semi-rural areas. Most, if not all major European cities have extensive public transport systems. They also have inadequate road networks that foul up on a fraction of the traffic volume that a US or Canadian city could cope with. In other words, in Europe public transport is better than it is in the US, the driving experience in cities infinitely worse. I occasionally drive into my nearest medium-sized city, Granada and it. is. a. nightmare! Fortunately it is a small enough city that you can walk or cycle throughout the city centre. It's only a matter or time before cars are banned entirely from the city centre, at the instigation of the (right wing) city council, never mind the EU.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Granada is on a freaking mountain and is 1500 years old. What many Americans and Canadians do not understand is that European cities are ancient, not newly built and designed. They are installing a metro in Malaga (biggest city near me) and are finding Roman and pre Roman relics in the ground... doubt you would find anything of real historical value in a US/Canadian city :)

Not to mention our public transport systems are great. I would never drive to Malaga now days, because the train from here to Malaga center goes every 20 min and takes 20 min or so.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Not to mention that Granada is on a freaking mountain and is 1500 years old. What many Americans and Canadians do not understand is that European cities are ancient, not newly built and designed. They are installing a metro in Malaga (biggest city near me) and are finding Roman and pre Roman relics in the ground... doubt you would find anything of real historical value in a US/Canadian city :)Not to mention our public transport systems are great. I would never drive to Malaga now days, because the train from here to Malaga center goes every 20 min and takes 20 min or so.
Click to expand...

I'm sure your degree in archaeology lends veracity to that statement. Roman earthware is far more significant than Native American earthware. Oh, and spearheads, don't forget the spearheads.
 
I would have no problem if they did this in my nearest city, I never drive in, the traffic is ****ed, there's stupid rules due to trams, and the public transport gets me were I need to go at a lot cheaper than the cost of petrol.
 
Amazed said:
-- You Greenies....just aren't to bright.

Back to the horse and bggy days for you, leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

It always pays to double check a story before posting it and then posturing and lecturing others...

Firstly the plan bny those who back it is to cut down on conventional petrol and diesel engined vehicles only... secondly the UK rejected the plan yesterday and thirdly it's just a proposal at the moment, it's not a law and it's not being imposed on anyone.
 
MrVicchio said:
Who cares if the technology isn't here now, it will be then. Obviously Electric Cars are the wave of the future. Of course, how that electricity get's PRODUCED is going to be a big deal. But let's ignore that for now.

Go Battery Cars!

I see this working out like that Kyoto thing, big commitments, few results.
Click to expand...

That's great. Let the market decide vice the government deciding for the market. The government didn't have to mandate the use of cars in the early 1900's. The government didn't have to build gas stations, either. The private market did that all by itself. I say let green energy do the same thing, otherwise, it's going to flop.
 
apdst said:
That's great. Let the market decide vice the government deciding for the market. The government didn't have to mandate the use of cars in the early 1900's. The government didn't have to build gas stations, either. The private market did that all by itself. I say let green energy do the same thing, otherwise, it's going to flop.
Click to expand...

And the government did not mandate better gas mileage then last 30+ years either, and lets see what the market did with that.. oh yea NOTHING. Market forces are a crock and rarely work fast enough. Only reason the gasoline made car became popular was because it was cheap and easy to make. And it will stay that way until government impose high taxes on dirty fuels so that electrical or alternative fuel cars will become viable.
 
apdst said:
That's great. Let the market decide vice the government deciding for the market. The government didn't have to mandate the use of cars in the early 1900's. The government didn't have to build gas stations, either. The private market did that all by itself. I say let green energy do the same thing, otherwise, it's going to flop.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. If there is money to be made, the private sector will find a way. It is not the job of the government to find or fund alternate fuel sources, especially when cajoled to do so by the private sector. IE> Ethanol scam, global warming scam.
 
PeteEU said:
And the government did not mandate better gas mileage then last 30+ years either, and lets see what the market did with that.. oh yea NOTHING. Market forces are a crock and rarely work fast enough. Only reason the gasoline made car became popular was because it was cheap and easy to make. And it will stay that way until government impose high taxes on dirty fuels so that electrical or alternative fuel cars will become viable.
Click to expand...

I might be for that if the government spent the money on fixing the roads instead of pissing the money away.
 
PeteEU said:
And the government did not mandate better gas mileage then last 30+ years either, and lets see what the market did with that.. oh yea NOTHING. Market forces are a crock and rarely work fast enough. Only reason the gasoline made car became popular was because it was cheap and easy to make. And it will stay that way until government impose high taxes on dirty fuels so that electrical or alternative fuel cars will become viable.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you enjoy having government tell you what you can and can not do, drive, eat, watch...etc...Sounds like a free life to you?


j-mac
 
Seriously misleading article. First of all, the UK did not sign up to this agreement. Secondly, all petrol and diesel cars will be removed not ALL cars full stop.
 
j-mac said:
Sounds like you enjoy having government tell you what you can and can not do, drive, eat, watch...etc...Sounds like a free life to you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Sounds like you enjoy living a fearful paranoid life, worrying about stuff that will never happen. Sounds like a miserable existence to you?
 
j-mac said:
Sounds like you enjoy having government tell you what you can and can not do, drive, eat, watch...etc...Sounds like a free life to you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

So you would rather have the "free markets" dictate to you what to do.. like running cars that go 10 miles to the gallon, rather than have government provide regulations that makes it mandatory for all cars to have at least 70 miles a gallon? Which one do you think is looking out for you and not big oil companies and car companies? Not to mention you sound paranoid to say the least.
 
The Preacher said:
I might be for that if the government spent the money on fixing the roads instead of pissing the money away.
Click to expand...

Oh that is a must of course. But the main point is that the consumer often does not know what is best for him or her, and especially the market does not know.. that is the companies. Like it or not, having petrol cars going 10 to 20 miles a gallon is idiotic in the 21st century and the car manufactures will not provide the cars in the US that can because of their ties to big oil. So it is up to the government to force the car companies, since the "free market" will never ever force the companies since they provide the product and if the only product they want to provide is crap, then that is what you get.

It is ironic that Ford, GM and other car manufactures are up in arms over getting 32 miles a gallon in the US, and yet it is no problem for their European subsidaries to get 60+ miles a gallon already...... and that is because the EU has a mandatory minimum mileage which gets increased every 10 years or so. Even my 10 year old VW and SEAT beats the pants of most modern 2009+ US models in mileage.
 
PeteEU said:
So you would rather have the "free markets" dictate to you what to do.. like running cars that go 10 miles to the gallon, rather than have government provide regulations that makes it mandatory for all cars to have at least 70 miles a gallon? Which one do you think is looking out for you and not big oil companies and car companies? Not to mention you sound paranoid to say the least.
Click to expand...

Pete, you just flat out don't get it, do you?

If cars that get 70mpg were that ****ing good, you wouldn't NEED the gov't to mandate them! The free market would! The price of gas goes up, the demand for more fuel efficient cars does as well.

Where in that simple equation is the word "government?"
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Pete, you just flat out don't get it, do you?

If cars that get 70mpg were that ****ing good, you wouldn't NEED the gov't to mandate them! The free market would! The price of gas goes up, the demand for more fuel efficient cars does as well.

Where in that simple equation is the word "government?"
Click to expand...

And here's what you guys never get.

The free market does not lean towards "good." It leans towards "profitable." When it comes to environmental goals, the free market is often in direct opposition to those goals. Why? Because dirty is always cheaper. It's cheaper for Giant Chemical, Inc to just dump all of their waste in the nearest river. Meanwhile, Friendly Family Chemical, Inc, decides to properly store and dispose of that waste. Their costs are higher, they get undercut by Giant Chemical, and go out of business. Hooray, General Electric gets a cheaper supply of hydropetromonoxicilchemicalsoundingname. Hope you like children with fins.

You're a libertarian. Love freedom and all. Do I have the freedom to pollute your land? Your air?

Clean is more expensive. Therefore the free market will lean away from them. Ok, so eventually gas prices will rise to the point where an electric car is cheaper. How long will that take? How much damage will be caused in the meantime? If the price at the gas pump actually reflected the cost of the damage being done to future generations, it would already be too expensive. Instead, we're shoveling that cost onto our grandchildren. Your gasoline is artificially cheap because you're skipping out on the actual bill.
 
Deuce said:
Clean is more expensive. Therefore the free market will lean away from them. Ok, so eventually gas prices will rise to the point where an electric car is cheaper. How long will that take? How much damage will be caused in the meantime? If the price at the gas pump actually reflected the cost of the damage being done to future generations, it would already be too expensive. Instead, we're shoveling that cost onto our grandchildren. Your gasoline is artificially cheap because you're skipping out on the actual bill.
Click to expand...

And in 50 years, our grandchildren could be cursing us for mandating CFL bulbs and battery powered cars. They could be spending trillions of dollars cleaning up mercury wastes and digging up old batteries so they could be properly disposed of. Fifty years ago, people were promoting the wonder mineral asbestos. Today's wonder invention is oftentimes tomorrow's nightmare.

Do you think the wonderful electric cars will haul furniture and groceries into the middle of these enlightened EU cities ??

Actually, I would predict that the EU would be extinct well before gas vehicles.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Pete, you just flat out don't get it, do you?

If cars that get 70mpg were that ****ing good, you wouldn't NEED the gov't to mandate them! The free market would! The price of gas goes up, the demand for more fuel efficient cars does as well.

Where in that simple equation is the word "government?"
Click to expand...

And you dont ****ing get it. The only reason there is 70mpg cars is because of government regulation since there has been zero incentive the last 50+ years to do jack**** on gas mileage. Like it or not, the best thing for society in the short, medium and long term will ALWAYS be to get the most out of the least amount of oil, but the opposite is for both oil companies and car companies. The less they run per gallon the better for the oil companies, and the less money car companies have to use on R&D to make new engines that are more efficient.

And that is how it has gone in the US. Cars have become bigger and bigger, with more cup holders and food placement areas, and bigger seats for bigger asses, but the mileage and performance has gone no where for 40 years. In fact the official average mileage per gallon has gone from 20 to 22 in 21 years.. WOW that is the free market for ya!

If we had let it up to the "market" after the 1970s oil crisis, then we would be in the same boat as the US today on mileage. But no our politicians were wise to force through minimum standards and today Europeans benefit hugely from this.

For example.. right now the gas price here is 1.30ish euro per litre.. that is abit under 5 dollars a US gallon. Now my 10 year old VW goes about 18 km on the litre, which is 68.4 km on a gallon, which is about 42 miles per gallon.. on a 10 year old car. Now according to your own government, the average US passenger car gets 22.6 miles per gallon. So that means that the average US car has use 2 gallons when I use one.. which means with the average US fuel price of 3.86 dollars per gallon, that an average American uses 7.72 dollars to go the approx same distance per gallon as I use my abit under 5 dollars..

So I ask again.. who got the better deal here? And again, I say.. my car is 10 years old.. if I bought a modern car today, the mileage per gallon would be much improved.. especially if I bought a diesel.
 
PeteEU said:
And you dont ****ing get it. The only reason there is 70mpg cars is because of government regulation since there has been zero incentive the last 50+ years to do jack**** on gas mileage. Like it or not, the best thing for society in the short, medium and long term will ALWAYS be to get the most out of the least amount of oil, but the opposite is for both oil companies and car companies. The less they run per gallon the better for the oil companies, and the less money car companies have to use on R&D to make new engines that are more efficient.

And that is how it has gone in the US. Cars have become bigger and bigger, with more cup holders and food placement areas, and bigger seats for bigger asses, but the mileage and performance has gone no where for 40 years. In fact the official average mileage per gallon has gone from 20 to 22 in 21 years.. WOW that is the free market for ya!

If we had let it up to the "market" after the 1970s oil crisis, then we would be in the same boat as the US today on mileage. But no our politicians were wise to force through minimum standards and today Europeans benefit hugely from this.

For example.. right now the gas price here is 1.30ish euro per litre.. that is abit under 5 dollars a US gallon. Now my 10 year old VW goes about 18 km on the litre, which is 68.4 km on a gallon, which is about 42 miles per gallon.. on a 10 year old car. Now according to your own government, the average US passenger car gets 22.6 miles per gallon. So that means that the average US car has use 2 gallons when I use one.. which means with the average US fuel price of 3.86 dollars per gallon, that an average American uses 7.72 dollars to go the approx same distance per gallon as I use my abit under 5 dollars..

So I ask again.. who got the better deal here? And again, I say.. my car is 10 years old.. if I bought a modern car today, the mileage per gallon would be much improved.. especially if I bought a diesel.
Click to expand...

No, the reason there are no cars that get 70 mpg is that few people want to drive around in a shoebox that holds two people and one small bag of groceries. Right up the road from me, there is a car dealer selling SmartCars. They look like a roller skate on four wheels. I saw a crash test of one that got hit by a Honda Accord. It wasn't a pretty picture.

If you never need to carry more than two people and don't buy much, feel free to buy a toy car. I haul too much to ever own one. Thanks, but I'll keep my truck.
 
Gill said:
No, the reason there are no cars that get 70 mpg is that few people want to drive around in a shoebox that holds two people and one small bag of groceries. Right up the road from me, there is a car dealer selling SmartCars. They look like a roller skate on four wheels. I saw a crash test of one that got hit by a Honda Accord. It wasn't a pretty picture.

If you never need to carry more than two people and don't buy much, feel free to buy a toy car. I haul too much to ever own one. Thanks, but I'll keep my truck.
Click to expand...

And eventually you'll be driving an electric truck.
 
Gill said:
No, the reason there are no cars that get 70 mpg is that few people want to drive around in a shoebox that holds two people and one small bag of groceries. Right up the road from me, there is a car dealer selling SmartCars. They look like a roller skate on four wheels. I saw a crash test of one that got hit by a Honda Accord. It wasn't a pretty picture.
Click to expand...

LOL seriously. You can say that of any car..want me to find the exploding GM truck you-tube videos? As for safety.. the Smart car in the US has gotten high marks for safety.

If you never need to carry more than two people and don't buy much, feel free to buy a toy car. I haul too much to ever own one. Thanks, but I'll keep my truck.
Click to expand...

My 10 year old car can hold 4 people plus what I need at the store. I dont need a freaking truck to carry toilet paper home. And if I buy something "big", then it really has to be big not fit into the car.. and then again most places where you buy "big items" have delivery services that often are free. I can fit a 40 inch LED tv in my car.. does that count as "big" stuff?

Also a "Smart" car is one of the smallest cars out there and is hardly representative of the average European car. Yes the average European car is "smaller" than the average US car, but I would rather have a smaller safer car than a gas guzzling hog that costs me a fortune to run.

You do know, that with your attitude, you have lost any right and credibility to complain about high gas prices right?
 
PeteEU said:
As for safety.. the Smart car in the US has gotten high marks for safety.
Click to expand...

I call bull****...

Video: Smart car jarringly stupid on safety, crash tests show | OregonLive.com
Versus a midsize Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan, the Smart ForTwo is not only pulverized, with the passenger compartment getting squashed, but it goes airborne like a beach ball.
The two-seat Smart car isn't the only example of how owners of small, fuel-sipping models sacrifice safety on the road, sometimes substantially.
Click to expand...

They tested 3 small cars, including the Smart car...
All three small cars received "poor" ratings in the crash test, which is the Insurance Institute's worst rating.
Click to expand...

All this from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom