• 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

Bruce said:
That's pretty cool.
Click to expand...

This test shows a much better picture. Hitting a brick wall at 70mph and no damage to potential occupants.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

I'd far rather be in that Smart than in this Chrysler...

 
Last edited:
Bruce said:
If the cars aren't running on petrol/diesel, then they're not banned. And there's no way to stop cars emitting CO2 if they're burning hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...

And batteries will never work in cars, right??

Saying batteries will never be a feasible option for cars is no different than saying that vehicles burning hydrocarbons will always emit CO2.

Fact is, we don't know what advances in either technology will be made over the next 50 years.
 
Gill said:
And batteries will never work in cars, right??

Saying batteries will never be a feasible option for cars is no different than saying that vehicles burning hydrocarbons will always emit CO2.

Fact is, we don't know what advances in either technology will be made over the next 50 years.
Click to expand...

Except that hydrocarbons always emit CO2 upon combustion, it's unavoidable chemistry.
 
Bruce said:
Except that hydrocarbons always emit CO2 upon combustion, it's unavoidable chemistry.
Click to expand...

That's true, but it doesn't mean the CO2 will be exhausted into the air does it??

It's not possible that something will be invented that absorbs, eats, destroys the CO2 emissions ???

I've been reading about experiments that found bacteria which manufacture hydrocarbons from CO2. Point is, none of us have a clue what the world will be like in 2050. Actually, I believe that well before 2050, the theory that CO2 is changing the climate will be laughed at.
 
Last edited:
You go with resolving the problem you know you have. At the present state of development of the IC engine there is no way to avoid CO2 emissions, and diesel poses an extra problem with particulates, so you plan for that. If a giant finger points out of the sky and zaps a solution in the intervening years, well and good. If not, go with plan "A". It not only reduces emissions but makes the city centre a much healthier place to live and work.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
You go with resolving the problem you know you have. At the present state of development of the IC engine there is no way to avoid CO2 emissions, and diesel poses an extra problem with particulates, so you plan for that. If a giant finger points out of the sky and zaps a solution in the intervening years, well and good. If not, go with plan "A". It not only reduces emissions but makes the city centre a much healthier place to live and work.
Click to expand...

And, as I stated, the present state of the development of batteries makes them unsuitable as a long-term source of transportation power. Neither batteries nor the elimination of CO2 emissions from internal combustion engines will solve our problems today, but in 40 years, hopefully progress will be made in both, one, or some entirely different fix.
 
Its like they don't even have individual countries anymore, its just the EU.
 
Mason66 said:
Wow, the Top Gear guys are really going to be pissed about this.
That is their whole show.
Click to expand...
If they're still around in 2050, they can do top gear about the non-"conventionally fueled cars" that have replaced the "petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries".
 
apdst said:
But, is it practical?
Click to expand...
Prob'ly have a better idea as to it's practicality in 2035 or 2040 when we are not trying to peer quite so far into the future.
apdst said:
I mean, if it were so awesome, the government wouldn't have to mandate it's use. Yes?
Click to expand...
I think that they were mandating standards. Which is a little different. Makes me think of railroad track gauge, number of prong-holes in an electrical outlet, etc

But, also and besides, there are many good ideas that are also backed up by laws. Just because there's a law for something, doesn't mean that the something is a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
If they're still around in 2050, they can do top gear about the non-"conventionally fueled cars" that have replaced the "petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries".
Click to expand...

In 40 years' time Clarkson and May will almost certainly be dead. Hurrah! If there were any poetic justice in this world, Clarkson would perish under the wheels of a super-charged Range Rover whilst on a zebra crossing, on a bike!
 
apdst said:
So! Anyone living outside the city, that wants to visit the city will have to go to the suburbs, park their car--and pay, of course--then pay to get on a public transit vehicle, to go ahead and conduct whatever their business is, within the city.
That's going to be cheaper, how? :rofl
Click to expand...
Or they could own whatever we'll be driving in 2050 and use that. A little early to say what my great-grand kids and their generation will be driving, imho. YMMV.
 
Demon of Light said:
Except there is a substantial difference in that this is more than just saying how to make safe runways. It amounts to dictating from on high what cities do with their infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Crazy things that infringe on individual liberties, like the standard width of a lane, the number of sides on a sign, signs colors, and other very, very personal standards like that which really should be idiosyncratic and variable from city to city.
 
PeteEU said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Cause North America was entirely uninhabited before the Europeans got here.
No cities existed here before the Declaration of Independence
 
The Preacher said:
If there is money to be made, the private sector will find a way.
Click to expand...
Eventually. Someone will eventually. It's largely a question of who. Who will own the rights and patents to that technology?
China is forging ahead in this are atm.
The Preacher said:
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.
Click to expand...
The private sector does a fair bit more than cajole in re energy policy. Petro companies have lobbyist. I suspect that Petro lobbyist have a bit of a bankroll to work governments over with.
It's not entirely clear to me that allowing voices to speak to the govt about non-petro fuel sources is such a bad thing.
 
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...
This has a lot of implicit assumptions and very little realistic influence from outside forces.
It's not clear that your premise is true outside of a thought experiment. There are many other factors that come into play when choosing cars to purchase besides fuel economy.
 
Henrin said:
Why do people keep bringing up that it will only ban fossil fuel cars like somehow that makes it worthy of support?
Click to expand...
It's brought up because people seem to think it says bans all cars whatsoever, and the difference between all cars and petro-cars is notable, imho.
Henrin said:
Its still liberty out the window last I checked.
Click to expand...
Sure, to some degree. I can't burn my trash in the city either, but I can live without that "liberty" that pretty easily.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's brought up because people seem to think it says bans all cars whatsoever, and the difference between all cars and petro-cars is notable, imho.
Click to expand...
Quite. It's quite relevant to mention that only fossil-fuel-burning cars would be banned because clearly it is not a ban on cars at all, despite what the mouth-foaming auto lobby might have you believe. It's merely banning a certain kind of fuel, just as leaded petrol was banned here in Europe some 20 years ago.
Sure, to some degree. I can't burn my trash in the city either, but I can live without that "liberty" that pretty easily.
Click to expand...
Good point. There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways in which city dwellers curtail their behaviour in order to make co-habiting a confined space workable. Not burning your trash is one, not polluting up the atmosphere with CO and CO2 emissions are another. Not keeping pigs on your balcony might be a third. They are all curtailments of your freedoms, it's just that most people are prepared to give up some of their untrammelled freedoms in order to make life liveable for everyone.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Cause North America was entirely uninhabited before the Europeans got here.
No cities existed here before the Declaration of Independence
Click to expand...

Irony is not your strong suit. Fact is, compared to Europe, the US oldest continuously occupied "city" is from 1559. Our cities are from before Christ was born,.... Athens is from 4000 years before Christ, Lisbon 1200 BC, Cadiz 1100 BC and so on.

Add to that the amount of history in the ground in general due to more occupation in Europe than in North America, and that means you have far more chance of finding ancient remains in the ground in Europe than in the US. And this point makes it horrifying to see highways next to the Alamo, a true American historical place. It would be like plowing up the Versailles gardens for a highway in my opinion.
 
PeteEU said:
Irony is not your strong suit. Fact is, compared to Europe, the US oldest continuously occupied "city" is from 1559.
Click to expand...
FWIW, which is not much, you're off by almost six-hundred years.
 
Ben K. said:
Are the sites of these old cities still in use or were the modern settlements built elsewhere making it unlikely old ruins will be found in a modern US city?
Click to expand...
Yes and no
 
Simon W. Moon said:
FWIW, which is not much, you're off by almost six-hundred years.
Click to expand...

Am I? We are talking about CONTINUOUS inhabited in the USA. I admit though that the date was off.. by 6 years... too early.

St. Augustine, Florida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founded in 1565 by Spanish explorer and admiral Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, it is the oldest continuously occupied European-established city and port in the continental United States.
Click to expand...

You were saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom