The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[Renegade]

Interesting perhaps controversial policy unveiled today. If I understand it correctly, the sales of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned in 2040.

Now how enforceable this will be, what government changes will occur in the next 20 odd years and what technological improvements and societal changes will occur in that time, are all unknown. Will humans still be doing the driving by then? But it's an interesting and bold target, fairly unprecedented around the world currently.

As of now I don't think the infrastructure is there for widespread electrical car ownership, not to mention the cost currently way exceeds petrol/diesel. Until those two factors change it'll never take off. Indeed we don't even know if the current generation of design of electric cars will go on to become the standard, or if a better design will come along that changes the required infrastructure.

Self-driven vehicles are already safer than human-driven ones, I think it's only a matter of time before they become the norm (after a period of semi-autonomous driving), I don't think we'll be driving our own vehicles in 2040 other than for recreation. People have went bananas at some of the auto-pilot accidents that have occurred due to a missing software design consideration or two, but statistically they are already safer. Once enough people get over giving control to a machine - that doesn't day-dream, doesn't fall asleep at the wheel, doesn't break the law, doesn't drink and drive - I don't think it will be legal to drive, it would be negligent on the part of law makers. Elon Musk predicted that Tesla will perform a fully automated journey from a car park in California to a car park in New York by the end of the year.

With the acceleration (hur hur) of technology, including the incorporation of shared network technologies (which will be able to detect where other vehicles are on the road to avoid accidents, limit traffic congestion and enable (personalised) car pooling to limit the number of cars on the road at any given time), I don't think there is a chance humans will be driving their own cars by then. As to the question of fossil fuel consumption, it depends on how quickly the public begin to trust this new technology, before major reconstruction of our transportation systems are enacted.

 

[Stagat]

But it's an interesting and bold target, fairly unprecedented around the world currently.

Not really. France, India, Netherlands, Norway have all announced similar plans. Some don't want to wait until 2040 to reach their target either.

This was an interesting quote too:

But Tony Seba, a Stanford University economist who has published research predicting electric cars will even more rapidly take over from conventional cars, said of France’s plan: “Banning sales of diesel and gasoline vehicles by 2040 is a bit like banning sales of horses for road transportation by 2040: there won’t be any to ban.”

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Not really. France, India, Netherlands, Norway have all announced similar plans. Some don't want to wait until 2040 to reach their target either.

This was an interesting quote too:

Norway are a pretty interesting case, massively subsidising the cost of electric cars for their populace, on the back of huge fossil fuel sales to the rest of the world! A slightly different situation in the UK...we'll have to rely on market forces to bring those costs down, which as you suggest may well happen sooner than later if all the other variables come into line. Personally I think its a little silly to pursue a large scale human driven electric cars program at the moment, but we don't know exactly when automated driving technology will come of age.

India's private car ownership is small in relative terms, about 20 per 1,000 inhabitants (granted it's still a bloody lot of cars!). Again, a very different situation in the UK, where many households have multiple cars. India might be able to a sweet spot whereby widespread car usage (be it ownership or some other model) increases at around the same time as the electric / automation changes come in.

Certainly going to be interesting times in this country.

 

[Habbinalan]

Norway are a pretty interesting case, massively subsidising the cost of electric cars for their populace, on the back of huge fossil fuel sales to the rest of the world! ............

From what Norwegians tell me, it's one of the few ways in which they can meet their commitment to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Their electricity generation is largely hydro, with some geothermal and wind. They export electricity. More than half their total emissions are from the oil and gas industry (mostly exports but create emissions in country) and road traffic.

 

[Laker]

I'm not a "greenie" at all but my immediate reaction earlier was that 2040 was really unambitious.

But there you go, funny how perceptions on things like this differ.

 

[Habbinalan]

I'm not a "greenie" at all but my immediate reaction earlier was that 2040 was really unambitious.

But there you go, funny how perceptions on things like this differ.

I think it's a bit like the Victorians saying they'll ban horse drawn carriages for road transport by 1920.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

tell that to the rag and bone men

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

Where do hybrids fit into this?

 

[Techno Natch]

They will be exempt apparently.

 

[Gladders]

23 years is a long time in technology terms, I think it's a very realistic target.

The biggest problem I see with it is the potential blockers from the large multinational oil companies when no one is buy petrol anymore! And how the government is going to make up the shortfall in taxes from petrol tax!

 

[Habbinalan]

tell that to the rag and bone men

.....and the dray men and milk men I suppose

 

[Stagat]

.....and the dray men and milk men I suppose

Another of your own photos Alan?

 

[Habbinalan]

Another of your own photos Alan?

Not quite -- although I was brought up on dairy farms and helped milk the cows as a nipper. Avoided getting up in the middle of the night for the milk rounds though.

 

[merseyboyred]

We'll be utterly fucked well before 2040.

 

[Aber gas]

And people still wonder why we're building guillotines.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/they-want-homeless-mayor-blasts-10924597

That's a joke for any sensitive Tories here. We only want your houses.
Don't panic.

 

[Jockney]

Ken stopped a little short today of advocating that we purge the oligarchs Maoist style, but we'll get there.

 

[silkyman]

Welp. That's Rees Mogg done then. Good.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Welp. That's Rees Mogg done then. Good.

http://www.theonion.com/article/will-be-end-trumps-campaign-says-increasingly-nerv-52002

 

[Abertawe]

Entitled to his views. Dunno why anyone would wish to get married in a cult that says their love is wrong anyway. Abortion should be much much stricter than it currently is but not for rape is a bit much.

 

[silkyman]

http://www.theonion.com/article/will-be-end-trumps-campaign-says-increasingly-nerv-52002

That's what worries me.

 

[silkyman]

Entitled to his views. Dunno why anyone would wish to get married in a cult that says their love is wrong anyway. Abortion should be much much stricter than it currently is but not for rape is a bit much.

The thing is, it's not just his 'beliefs'. His voting record shows that it's his politics too. Unlike Farron who was hounded out for having similar views, but actually voting against them. (But the press needed to kill off the only non-brexit backing party somehow)

 

[Abertawe]

The thing is, it's not just his 'beliefs'. His voting record shows that it's his politics too. Unlike Farron who was hounded out for having similar views, but actually voting against them. (But the press needed to kill off the only non-brexit backing party somehow)

No Farron was a typical non committal liberal douche. The fact he wouldn't give an answer one way or the other was the real reason he was ridiculed. The party you represent is also important, you quite simply can't lead the Lib Dems when you think gay marriage is a sin whereas no one votes Tory for their empowerment of gay rights.

 

[Benji]

Is abortion really any crueler than naming a baby Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher?

 

[Techno Natch]

Entitled to his views. Dunno why anyone would wish to get married in a cult that says their love is wrong anyway. Abortion should be much much stricter than it currently is but not for rape is a bit much.

In what way should abortion be more stricter?

 

[Abertawe]

In what way should abortion be more stricter?

Morning after pill only except for rape or serious medical concerns.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm all for Mogg becoming leader.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Morning after pill only except for rape or serious medical concerns.

Abortions should be more freely available than they currently are - people shouldn't require the consent of two doctors, for example.

It's appalling that you would want someone to have to prove that they were raped in order to access an abortion.

 

[Abertawe]

Abortions should be more freely available than they currently are - people shouldn't require the consent of two doctors, for example.

It's appalling that you would want someone to have to prove that they were raped in order to access an abortion.

Life is sacrosanct.

I don't understand your second line. It's almost as though you're suggesting I've said something I haven't. Upon reporting a rape there is no reason why we can't have a streamlined process that ensures the victim is treated with the up most dignity & respect.

 

[Laker]

But don't you run the risk of people claiming rape in order to get an abortion? Surely you'd need it to be proved to avoid that?

I'm more lenient - if there are serious misgivings about the life that baby will come into (whether physical or social) then I'd be for abortion.

 

[smat]

Controversial I know but I think all Royal babies should be aborted.