Petrol and diesel cars to be banned by 2040

[Harrowby Hall]

I think polluting diesel cars should be removed much sooner than 2040, as they seem to be the main problem.

Are they the main problem? They produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars!

The main problem with electric cars is fuel storage. Petrol and diesel cars store their energy sources conveniently in the form of liquid. Electric cars require very large and heavy batteries to store their fuel. Try driving a long distance in an electric vehicle. The main problem is  going to be what do you do in the frequent relatively long refuelling stops that current technology demands?

It's also worthy of note that most long distance rail journeys ar powered by electricity. For some trains the power is supplied from overhead cables, but in most the electric motors are powered electricity generated from on-board diesel dynamos.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/20/uk-unprepared-for-surge-in-electric-car-use-thinktank-warns

And half an hour to charge a Nissan Leaf.

Again this underlines why the whole approach is random. I would say this was one of the biggest challenges govt has over the next few years, but currently they like to take that as a challenge and invent bigger ones taking up all industry specialists. It's the sort of thing that might benefit from a more supranational agreement, possibly between a group of like minded countries that might already currently work together on setting standards.

[floo]

so do you have anything to back up why pricing some people out of their cars is going to save the planet, and the poor dear dear children if those rich enough to drive and pollute?

Surely it is the damage to our planet which is much more important. People who drive these cars should be made to realise the damage they are doing whether they are rich or poor.

[Harrowby Hall]

It's the sort of thing that might benefit from a more supranational agreement, possibly between a group of like minded countries that might already currently work together on setting standards.

THAT would never work. Before long they would be making all our laws and flooding this country with their unemployed cheap labour ... 

[Nearly Sane]

Surely it is the damage to our planet which is much more important. People who drive these cars should be made to realise the damage they are doing whether they are rich or poor.

Then quite simply ban the cars don't make it based in price and compensate those affected on a means test basis. Pricing poor people out of usage is ineffective and unfair.

[Nearly Sane]

Are they the main problem? They produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars!

The main problem with electric cars is fuel storage. Petrol and diesel cars store their energy sources conveniently in the form of liquid. Electric cars require very large and heavy batteries to store their fuel. Try driving a long distance in an electric vehicle. The main problem is  going to be what do you do in the frequent relatively long refuelling stops that current technology demands?

It's also worthy of note that most long distance rail journeys ar powered by electricity. For some trains the power is supplied from overhead cables, but in most the electric motors are powered electricity generated from on-board diesel dynamos.

Ah you and your so yesterday's stuff about carbon dioxide, we are dealing with the new new problem, nitrogen oxides and those diesel dudes belch it out like a giant colicky diesel baby.

[Nearly Sane]

THAT would never work. Before long they would be making all our laws and flooding this country with their unemployed cheap labour ... 

and try getting a bendy banana or some chlorination chicken!!

[floo]

Then quite simply ban the cars don't make it based in price and compensate those affected on a means test basis. Pricing poor people out of usage is ineffective and unfair.

The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone.

I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.

[Nearly Sane]

The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone.

I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.

And if your first paragraph is correct then you need to do far more than price since poor people out of their car and think you are doing anything useful.  And it's not old cars that are polluting , it's new cars for diesels. You know the ones that the govt has offered tax incentives for people to drive? It seems a bit bloody perverse to have done that and then say, ah well if you can't afford to drive the thing that's you screwed simply because you spent the money on a car we encouraged you to buy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/26/end-uk-tax-incentives-for-diesel-vehicles-ministers-are-urged

[BeRational]

The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone.

I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.

Exactly, the government wants to ban them so pay the people they want to target to compensate them.

They bought the cars legally, and now the government is moving the goal posts which is not fair.

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly, the government wants to ban them so pay the people they want to target to compensate them.

They bought the cars legally, and now the government is moving the goal posts which is not fair.

Not only did they buy them legally they were encouraged to do so via tax incentives.

[Harrowby Hall]

Ah you and your so yesterday's stuff about carbon dioxide, we are dealing with the new new problem, nitrogen oxides and those diesel dudes belch it out like a giant colicky diesel baby.

I don't dispute that. My point (poorly made, I admit) to Floo's post was that both petrol and diesel are polluting. But also I was saying that a switch to electric-powered vehicles isn't without its problems.

Incidentally, in Jersey, the postal system uses electric vehicles - a new problem: you can't hear them coming ...

[Nearly Sane]

I don't dispute that. My point (poorly made, I admit) to Floo's post was that both petrol and diesel are polluting. But also I was saying that a switch to electric-powered vehicles isn't without its problems.

Incidentally, in Jersey, the postal system uses electric vehicles - a new problem: you can't hear them coming ...

Again, I think it highlights that while a piecemeal solution may have merits, it needs to be reviewed consistently. There isn't a nice simple solution here.

[Rhiannon]

Surely it is the damage to our planet which is much more important. People who drive these cars should be made to realise the damage they are doing whether they are rich or poor.

There's the voice of someone who doesn't have to give the cost of running a car a second thought.

I have a friend who lived on toast for a month to keep her car on the road. This fucking privileged attitude pisses me off more than you can think. Wake up and consider the fact that people are struggling to feed their kids and have the basics of life *now*.

[floo]

There's the voice of someone who doesn't have to give the cost of running a car a second thought.

I have a friend who lived on toast for a month to keep her car on the road. This fucking privileged attitude pisses me off more than you can think. Wake up and consider the fact that people are struggling to feed their kids and have the basics of life *now*.

I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life so we could be reasonably comfortable in our old age.

When we first married in 1969 I had £4 a week housekeeping, believe you me even in those days that wasn't riches, but we had to manage and we did. We didn't claim benefits like so many do these days! You didn't even get child allowance for your first child then.

[Nearly Sane]

I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life so we could be reasonably comfortable in our old age.

When we first married in 1969 I had £4 a week housekeeping, believe you me even in those days that wasn't riches, but we had to manage and we did. We didn't claim benefits like so many do these days! You didn't even get child allowance for your first child then.

what's that got to do with wanting to put in place a scheme that punishes the poor (of which you are not one currently) to get no real benefit in terns of pollution control?

[Udayana]

Punishing the poor is obviously not a solution. Worse, the world economy is dependent on the use of polluting technologies - no one pays the true cost (ie including clean-up cost) for anything much.

The way to drive forward the societal and technological changes needed is to target the rich. Can't see how that is going to happen though.

[Aruntraveller]

I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life so we could be reasonably comfortable in our old age.

When we first married in 1969 I had £4 a week housekeeping, believe you me even in those days that wasn't riches, but we had to manage and we did. We didn't claim benefits like so many do these days! You didn't even get child allowance for your first child then.

Some would argue that being able to donate £1,000 to a charity because of a 'flounce and return' would qualify as being privileged. It's a matter of perspective I suppose - I know that I would find it difficult to justify giving that much away. I know my uncle wouldn't. He is wealthy, I am not -  at least by this society's standards.

I'm not talking worldwide, that's another kettle of malodorous sea living creatures.

What does that make you Floo?

And is it really necessary to be so dismissive of those less fortunate than yourself who are on benefits?

Keep taking the tabloids.

[floo]

I am concerned about what state the planet will be in for future generations if we don't take drastic action now.

I have nothing more to say on this topic.

[Nearly Sane]

I am concerned about what state the planet will be in for future generations if we don't take drastic action now.

I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Which is all very well but why then suggest a solution that has no benefit to the issue and merely punishes those not able to afford it?

[Aruntraveller]

I am concerned about what state the planet will be in for future generations if we don't take drastic action now.

I think we all are. And sooner or later, probably sooner, our recklessness will catch up with us. But it doesn't help to somehow imply that the less well off should suffer more than they already do, to further our efforts to combat the looming catastrophe.

The rich in the short to medium term will be protected from any changes in the transport policy as they will have the wealth to cope. The poor will not. I think that is the nub of what Rhi was getting at.

[Rhiannon]

I think we all are. And sooner or later, probably sooner, our recklessness will catch up with us. But it doesn't help to somehow imply that the less well off should suffer more than they already do, to further our efforts to combat the looming catastrophe.

The rich in the short to medium term will be protected from any changes in the transport policy as they will have the wealth to cope. The poor will not. I think that is the nub of what Rhi was getting at.

That and the fact that people struggling with the basics now are focussed on where the next weekly shop is coming from, how to stay warm this winter, how to get the kids to school. They are struggling for survival *now*, not in thirty or forty years or whenever.

And Floo thinks that they should be made to pay up as a punishment.

[Udayana]

I think we all are. And sooner or later, probably sooner, our recklessness will catch up with us. But it doesn't help to somehow imply that the less well off should suffer more than they already do, to further our efforts to combat the looming catastrophe.

The rich in the short to medium term will be protected from any changes in the transport policy as they will have the wealth to cope. The poor will not. I think that is the nub of what Rhi was getting at.

But ... remember that the poor are also the most likely to suffer the effects of pollution and climate change - that the rich can find ways to avoid.

Whatever the long term solution is, it needs to paid for by those that can afford it now.

[Aruntraveller]

But ... remember that the poor are also the most likely to suffer the effects of pollution and climate change - that the rich can find ways to avoid.

Whatever the long term solution is, it needs to paid for by those that can afford it now.

Totally agree.

[Rhiannon]

But ... remember that the poor are also the most likely to suffer the effects of pollution and climate change - that the rich can find ways to avoid.

Whatever the long term solution is, it needs to paid for by those that can afford it now.

Excellent.

And that's what exactly?