• 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

If we don't have the battery power to economically create viable electric transportation for city commuters by 2050 I think there's something significantly wrong with our scientific community. Its one thing if this was a goal by 2015 or even 2020. But we're looking at FORTY years from now. Look how much progress has came with regards to batteries from 1990 to 2010. Seriously, I don't see what the big hubbub is on this one to be honest. Its a goal for FORTY years from now that in all honesty should be easily and economically doable.
 
Zyphlin said:
If we don't have the battery power to economically create viable electric transportation for city commuters by 2050 I think there's something significantly wrong with our scientific community. Its one thing if this was a goal by 2015 or even 2020. But we're looking at FORTY years from now. Look how much progress has came with regards to batteries from 1990 to 2010. Seriously, I don't see what the big hubbub is on this one to be honest. Its a goal for FORTY years from now that in all honesty should be easily and economically doable.
Click to expand...

I think you're absolutely right. I'd go further, I not only believe it should be doable, I believe that by 2050 such batteries will be available and the idea of nasty, dirty internal combustion engines will be purely of historical interest, just as steam power is to us now. I look forward to buying a new electric coupé for my 88th birthday that year.
 
Andalublue said:
I think you're absolutely right. I'd go further, I not only believe it should be doable, I believe that by 2050 such batteries will be available and the idea of nasty, dirty internal combustion engines will be purely of historical interest, just as steam power is to us now. I look forward to buying a new electric coupé for my 88th birthday that year.
Click to expand...

Now this I doubt. I think there are some things that are much farther off than cars from moving away from the internal combustion engine or from gas power in some form. Numerous military and industrial vehicles, aviation, and other such things. While I could see the technology being far improved in 40 years, I think its very plausible ICE and gas will still be around by then in some form or another. Its plausible that some sizable shift in technology would change that but its far less of a certainty than cars who have a very clear and obvious progression that's been visible with regards to the move away from standard ICE versions.
 
Amazed said:
Electric Cars have at best been a red herring for those who INSIST that we are destroying our environment.

They are not selling, they won't because people don't want them.......

Now.....

1) Do you own an electric car?
2) Do you support Gov regulation mandating what an American can, or can't drive?
Click to expand...

I do want an electric car. I just bought a car 4 years ago or I'd be in the market. Also, I do not have the income currently. You can acquire an electric car for $33,000, which is not too bad. The upkeep is not unreasonable and they are quite fast since they weigh so much less. It also has a small generator in it so that you can travel past the original charge (250 miles?).

We are so far behind the curve we can't mandate anything currently. However, Obama has taken a step recently:

Obama Goal to Cut Oil Imports Is Well Within Reach - ABC News
When President Obama called for reducing the nation's oil imports by one-third by 2025 in a speech Wednesday, he echoed similar goals — still unfulfilled — set by every president since Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

Not every vehicle can be electric, nor should they all be. However, once we begin to manufacture more electric cars and less fuel-based vehicles, the prices will even out.

Why would you be against these measures?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Cities in Europe generally have several hundred years of history going on, in streets clogged with far too much traffic they were never designed for. Transit times in London, for example, have gone down in the last hundred years. Having a "congestion zone" with a tax for using the city centre has helped a little, but an outright ban on fossil fuel cars will have many benefits for everyone from drivers to people who like to breathe.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read your argument the last time you posted it. I'm sorry, but it still doesn't make much sense. The assumptions I'm supposed to believe is that one, breathing in england is a problem, and two, that congestion zone issues can only be solved by banning of outlets by the government. I hate to inform you but neither of those two assumptions are true.

There is no right to drive, so there is no loss of liberty.
Click to expand...

Liberty has to do with doing what you wish. Rights have nothing to do with liberty. Saying that however, something can't be a right if it against liberty. The fact is a good government that actually is for the people stands by their peoples liberty and does not dicate what they want on society.
 
PeteEU said:
So you are saying, that a government that stands up to big business and says "stuff you" and forces regulation that improves mileage and many other things for the average citizen is not brave? In the US it would be the right thing to do but it would be political suicide, and hence brave. I would think that any government that improves the lives of its citizens despite certain powerful aspects of society saying no, is brave as hell to even try so.
Click to expand...

Standing up to big business is not bravery. How many people do you know that actually support big business to people that don't. To go into it as if people support big business and therefore its a risk is kind of dishonest on your part. I might support big business and business in general but I stand pretty much alone.

Free speech.. suck it up. I am 100% correct. Your political establishment is in the pockets of big business that in no way what so ever would want better mileage or regulation that benefits consumers. Hell they are fighting to get rid of the EPA and other regulators, just so they can screw over the population even more.
Click to expand...

I hate to sound predictable(though I already been doing that the entire time) but gas mileage is a market force with or without government.

Also the EPA is not saving the world and the world would go on just fine without it. I'm all for killing off the EPA.

LOL you seriously live on another planet then. No one is forcing you not to have a gas guzzling truck.. you just have to pay top dollar to have one, because you with your arrogance and selfishness are contributing relatively more to pollution, road damage and so on. Not to mention that people like you are one of the main reasons that the US has gone from 16 miles per gallon average mileage to 22 miles per gallon in 30+ years.... free market my ass.
Click to expand...

People buy what they want. If people want big trucks that IS the free market at work. As for road damage meh, that is a different topic, but good for you for bringing up. Everyone pays for the roads if they work. Driving is not a requirement which it would have to be if you are going to tax based on the damage they do to the road. I'm going to assume that is not what you want.

Also much research would not even happen if it was not for government funding in one way or another. The US would never have gone to the moon if it was not for government funding. The Internet would not be around if it was not for government funding. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

I see no problem with that. The moon is not interesting and the internet is a waste of time.

Btw, you could of used medical research and got a bigger bang for your buck. Though the answer would still be meh.

The point is that in Europe in the late 1970s the politicians decided after one of the worst oil crisis ever, that European countries would not be hit as hard again. Hence they put in mandatory mileage requirements and have raised them year after year. Sure the car companies complained and still do, but if they want to sell cars in Europe, then they need to innovate and improve their cars. No way in HELL they would have done that on their own with 20 dollar a barrel oil or even 100 dollar a barrel oil. The profit margins on providing ****ty low mileage cars would be too great.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier in this post, car mileage is market force and would still go up without government as people would demand it and the businesses would want to get more sales regardless if government is in the market or not. What your argument should really be saying is the improvement would be slower, not that it wouldn't exist.

I am very glad that my politicians said "stuff you" to the oil and car companies and that now my 10 year old VW goes double the average mileage of the average modern day American car. It saves me a ton of money every year... and that is what it is all about.. not how many cup holders or people with fat asses that can be in a car or if the rims look cool or not.
Click to expand...

So its about you. Kind of knew that already but thanks for saying it outright. :)
 
Henrin said:
Standing up to big business is not bravery. How many people do you know that actually support big business to people that don't. To go into it as if people support big business and therefore its a risk is kind of dishonest on your part. I might support big business and business in general but I stand pretty much alone.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every US politician supports big business over the people. Just look at the last 40 years of legislation.. time and time again the big business have gotten their legislation proposals pushed through.. GE and Exxon paying 0 dollars in taxes is just one of many many examples.

I hate to sound predictable(though I already been doing that the entire time) but gas mileage is a market force with or without government.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the market has ONLY provided ****ty gas mileage so far in the US and hence the consumer is getting hit hard with high gas prices. If the government had the balls to go in and mandate European style gas mileage standard, the US consumer would be much better off now. As it stands now, the European consumer with "high" European gas prices is far better off than the American consumer when it comes to going to the gas pump.

Also the EPA is not saving the world and the world would go on just fine without it. I'm all for killing off the EPA.
Click to expand...

So who would bust the big polluters? The EPA might not be doing its job good enough, but that is no reason to get rid of the only agency that stands between having 2 headed babies and not. Like it or not, if Big business could get away with it, then they would pollute like no tomorrow.. look at China or Russia for god sake.

People buy what they want. If people want big trucks that IS the free market at work. As for road damage meh, that is a different topic, but good for you for bringing up. Everyone pays for the roads if they work. Driving is not a requirement which it would have to be if you are going to tax based on the damage they do to the road. I'm going to assume that is not what you want.
Click to expand...

Yes it is up to the individual if he or she wants a big truck. What I am saying is it should be much more expensive for he/she to own such a truck rather than a fuel efficient car. Of course people who absolutely need a truck for work should be excempt some how, but there is no reason for a person in LA or a major US city to drive around in a freaking truck unless it is related to his/her job.

I see no problem with that. The moon is not interesting and the internet is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

...

Btw, you could of used medical research and got a bigger bang for your buck. Though the answer would still be meh.
Click to expand...

US pharma uses more on advertising than on R&D. And yes their R&D is mostly funded by government grants.. as is the military industry and much more. Is that also a big "meah"?

Like I said earlier in this post, car mileage is market force and would still go up without government as people would demand it and the businesses would want to get more sales regardless if government is in the market or not. What your argument should really be saying is the improvement would be slower, not that it wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

And as I said, the market forces have been going on in the US for the last 40 years and mileage has barely gone up. Why? Because people are ignorant and only think short term. That means when oil does go up, then they have a car that looks cool, has 10 cup holders and can hold 3 average Americans (6 normal human beings) but only goes 20 miles to the gallon if they lucky and then they start complaining about wanting better mileage, but the US car maker cant provide it fast enough. That is why a government mandated minimum mileage standard (not the present US one) is the way forward and it takes the future into consideration. The free market would NEVER do that, especially considering that the free market is a crock to say the least.

So its about you. Kind of knew that already but thanks for saying it outright. :)
Click to expand...

It is about everyone. A huge majority of Europeans are damn happy now days that their politicians did what they did.
 
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...

Yeah, just like the free market created infrastructure allowing for the mass use of cars as long-distance transportation... oh wait...
 
TheBook said:
Yeah, just like the free market created infrastructure allowing for the mass use of cars as long-distance transportation... oh wait...
Click to expand...

Because that was something that had to happen to have long distance transporation...oh wait...
 
PeteEU said:
Pretty much every US politician supports big business over the people. Just look at the last 40 years of legislation.. time and time again the big business have gotten their legislation proposals pushed through.. GE and Exxon paying 0 dollars in taxes is just one of many many examples.
Click to expand...

When the times call for punishing big business almost everyone does so. When it doesn't everyone wants to play ball. That is just it. It doesn't mean that when they stand up they are brave, it just means they can see a benefit from it.


Yes, but the market has ONLY provided ****ty gas mileage so far in the US and hence the consumer is getting hit hard with high gas prices. If the government had the balls to go in and mandate European style gas mileage standard, the US consumer would be much better off now. As it stands now, the European consumer with "high" European gas prices is far better off than the American consumer when it comes to going to the gas pump.
Click to expand...

How is it ****ty? Trucks again?

So who would bust the big polluters? The EPA might not be doing its job good enough, but that is no reason to get rid of the only agency that stands between having 2 headed babies and not. Like it or not, if Big business could get away with it, then they would pollute like no tomorrow.. look at China or Russia for god sake.
Click to expand...

Who has two headed babies? Does China and Russia have a crap load of two headed babies running around? Are they turning green, growing antenna, or maybe they're just like the cone heads of SNL? I want to see these two headed babies!

The answer to your question is you. Russia or China does not allow this to happen. That is really it.

Yes it is up to the individual if he or she wants a big truck. What I am saying is it should be much more expensive for he/she to own such a truck rather than a fuel efficient car. Of course people who absolutely need a truck for work should be excempt some how, but there is no reason for a person in LA or a major US city to drive around in a freaking truck unless it is related to his/her job.
Click to expand...

So your reason to be mad at them and force them to do what you wish is because they have no reason to have it? Kind of a weak argument.

US pharma uses more on advertising than on R&D. And yes their R&D is mostly funded by government grants.. as is the military industry and much more. Is that also a big "meah"?
Click to expand...

Tell me you didn't just bundle military research that is not in the interest of the free market and a direct interest and original purpose of government with medical research that is none of that.

And as I said, the market forces have been going on in the US for the last 40 years and mileage has barely gone up. Why? Because people are ignorant and only think short term. That means when oil does go up, then they have a car that looks cool, has 10 cup holders and can hold 3 average Americans (6 normal human beings) but only goes 20 miles to the gallon if they lucky and then they start complaining about wanting better mileage, but the US car maker cant provide it fast enough.
Click to expand...

I love your fat hate you just have to put in your posts.

How have car companies failed to meet what people want?

That is why a government mandated minimum mileage standard (not the present US one) is the way forward and it takes the future into consideration. The free market would NEVER do that, especially considering that the free market is a crock to say the least.
Click to expand...

Says you.

It is about everyone. A huge majority of Europeans are damn happy now days that their politicians did what they did.
Click to expand...

People are happy with getting more for themselves. Am I supposed to be surprised that Europeans that love getting things like healthcare from others are happy with this? I don't see how.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
I think you're absolutely right. I'd go further, I not only believe it should be doable, I believe that by 2050 such batteries will be available and the idea of nasty, dirty internal combustion engines will be purely of historical interest, just as steam power is to us now. I look forward to buying a new electric coupé for my 88th birthday that year.
Click to expand...

Battery tech is not going to go anywhere important. The tech is pretty much past the point where the return is at its top. This just gets continued proven the longer this idiocy with electronic cars continues.

Lets all remember the law of diminishing returns.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Battery tech is not going to go anywhere important. The tech is pretty much past the point where the return is at its top. This just gets continued proven the longer this idiocy with electronic cars continues.

Lets all remember the law of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

So, what do you think we'll be using to power our vehicles in 2050? I'm pretty convinced it won't be the ICE.
 
Amazed said:
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 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.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050 - Telegraph

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...

*Nevermind the captions added by the youtube uploader*


The same government tied organization that brought you the "cut global warming or we push the 'kill you' button. No pressure" advertisement.

The people behind this agenda are showing their colors as true tyrants that want to create a socialist / communist controlled society.
 
Sadly, many will love the image that video gives off.

They raised the price of cars so only the rich can have them but don't worry you have electronic bikes? Sounds wonderful. Do they even realize what they said there or really anywhere else in the video?
 
Gill said:
Actually, it's the U.S. that Pete hates.
Click to expand...

There you would be wrong. What I hate are hypocrites, which in this case are people complaining about high gas prices when they and their own politicians not only are complicit in the high prices but have done nothing the last 40 years to negate a price rise that they knew would come ... aka higher mileage per gallon.
 
Andalublue said:
I think you're absolutely right. I'd go further, I not only believe it should be doable, I believe that by 2050 such batteries will be available and the idea of nasty, dirty internal combustion engines will be purely of historical interest, just as steam power is to us now. I look forward to buying a new electric coupé for my 88th birthday that year.
Click to expand...
Henrin said:
Battery tech is not going to go anywhere important. The tech is pretty much past the point where the return is at its top. This just gets continued proven the longer this idiocy with electronic cars continues.

Lets all remember the law of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

The folks at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign might beg to differ with you on that...

New battery technology may allow for complete recharging within minutes
3dbatteries.jpg


"This system that we have gives you capacitor-like power with battery-like energy," said U Illinois' Paul Braun, a professor of materials science and engineering. "Most capacitors store very little energy. They can release it very fast, but they can't hold much. Most batteries store a reasonably large amount of energy, but they can't provide or receive energy rapidly. This does both."

The speed at which conventional batteries are able to charge or discharge can be dramatically increased by changing the form of their active material into a thin film, but such films have typically lacked the volume to be able to store a significant amount of energy. In the case of Braun's batteries, however, that thin film has been formed into a three-dimensional structure, thus increasing its storage capacity.

Batteries equipped with the 3D film have been demonstrated to work normally in electrical devices, while being able to charge and discharge 10 to 100 times faster than their conventional counterparts.
Click to expand...

The implications for electric vehicles are particularly exciting. "If you had the ability to charge rapidly, instead of taking hours to charge the vehicle you could potentially have vehicles that would charge in similar times as needed to refuel a car with gasoline," Braun said. "If you had five-minute charge capability, you would think of this the same way you do an internal combustion engine. You would just pull up to a charging station and fill up."

Braun and his team believe that the technology could be used not only for making electric cars more viable, but also for allowing phones or laptops to be able to recharge in seconds or minutes. It could also result in high-power lasers or defibrillators that don't need to warm up before or between pulses.
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
Electric Cars have at best been a red herring for those who INSIST that we are destroying our environment.
Click to expand...

A red herring from what? And you didn't answer the question if you think they don't exist or at the very least aren't usable?

They are not selling, they won't because people don't want them.......
Click to expand...

Which is a rather useless statement when you leave it so open ended. Do they not want them because they have a short range? Do they not want them because they're expensive? Do they not want them due to how they look? Do they not want them due to horsepower? Do they not want them because its inconvinent to charge? Do they not want them because they just hate the idea of owning electric? Do they not want them because they're partisan hacks that would rather ignore something that's viable simply because they fear it'll be used politically?

Just saying "people don't want them" is a worthless comment because it doesn't actually tell you any relevant information.

1) Do you own an electric car?
Click to expand...

No, though I'm extremely tempted to purchase a Volt type situation once I have a house with a garage. It'd be ideal for my living situation.

2) Do you support Gov regulation mandating what an American can, or can't drive?
Click to expand...

To a certain degree, yes. For example, I'm okay with safety inspections being mandated. That said, I do think its ridiculous to mandate we move away from oil driven cars. That said, as battery technology continues to improve and become more cost effective I think the economy will move that way on its own.
 
PeteEU said:
There you would be wrong. What I hate are hypocrites, which in this case are people complaining about high gas prices when they and their own politicians not only are complicit in the high prices but have done nothing the last 40 years to negate a price rise that they knew would come ... aka higher mileage per gallon.
Click to expand...

Mandating an even higher MPG would not decrease but increase the cost of gas. Simple supply and demand. If the American public by and large started using significantly less oil than the logical reaction would be to increase the cost of oil so that you're making a similar profit despite the lower consumption.
 
PeteEU said:
There you would be wrong. What I hate are hypocrites, which in this case are people complaining about high gas prices when they and their own politicians not only are complicit in the high prices but have done nothing the last 40 years to negate a price rise that they knew would come ... aka higher mileage per gallon.
Click to expand...

Yeah right.... That's why you bash the U.S. and Americans in 99.9% of your posts.

By the way... how's Spain's unemployment rate and budget deficit ???
 
Moderator's Warning:
Title of thread: "EU to Ban Cars from Cities by 2050".

Yep, nothing there about Spains unemployment rate or budget deficit. Lets keep this at least relatively on topic, and if people want to instead continue to try and drive it off topic then they'll be finding themselves out of the thread
 
Zyphlin said:
Do they not want them because they have a short range? Do they not want them because they're expensive? Do they not want them due to how they look? Do they not want them due to horsepower? Do they not want them because its inconvinent to charge? Do they not want them because they just hate the idea of owning electric? Do they not want them because they're partisan hacks that would rather ignore something that's viable simply because they fear it'll be used politically?
Click to expand...
I bolded my reasons. Once those are resolved (which should not be too far off), I'll buy one.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
I bolded my reasons. Once those are resolved (which should not be too far off), I'll buy one.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is essentially my point.

If people would step out of their partisan box for half a second and honestly and objectively look at the advancement with regards to electric vehicles from 1991 to 2011 they'd notice there's been massive improvement. Research some of the things going on in different labs with regards to various battery technology, such as the one you posted Whovian, and you'll see there's a lot of potential for improvement on the horizon.

In 1994 my old AST computer had a 100 Mhz Pentium Processor, 16 MB of RAM, with I think a 10 gig hard drive and ran us about $1200 with monitor. That was relatively "high end" at that point in time.

4 years later in a tiny miniture laptop package I was able to buy a computer with double the Processing speed and the same amount of RAM for half of that price.

Less than 20 years later I can purchase a phone with two processors both running 10 times as fast as that original computer, that has more than 60 times the RAM of that ATS comp, and has a tiny card smaller than a penny in it that has three times as much memory as that original HD and I can buy the whole thing for $149.

Techonlogy expands by leaps and bounds while prices drop and size reduces. There's absolutely no logical reason when one looks at other forms of technology, when one looks at the work being done in the field of batteries, and when one looks at the progression of electric vehicles to honestly suggest that its unlikely that many of the deficiencies with electric vehicles currently aren't likely going to be significantly improved in 20 years let alone 40.
 
Henrin said:
That is a different technology though. Changing the technology and saying I'm wrong when I was talking about the current tech isn't me being wrong.
Click to expand...

It is when you're posting in a thread about a ban FOURTY years from now and trying to say that its unreasonable and dumb because the technology of today is a failure. Of course we couldn't go to an all electric car society today, which means its a good thing this ban isn't happening in 2012 instead of 2050
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom