Melonpool
BtEO wrote:Legislation doesn't mean ban.
Of course not. It could be an extra 10% tax on combustion engines, like they do with other products government dislikes.
It could mean greater and more attractive public transport options, more charging points for electric vehicles or whatever else might end up being able to power our vehicles in 40 year's time; in the shorter term it could mean things like more bike lanes, or carpool lanes to reduce reliance where possible, or continuing the work to reduce emissions in conventionally fuelled cars.
None of this is any better in my view. Stealing money from people to pay for ways to try to force those same people to change behavior isn't any better than a ban. Government has no business deciding what is an "acceptable" means of transportation.
"The Commission denied it wanted to ban cars from city centres but said “phasing out conventional combustion engines is a realistic objective”
Like I said, I'm not all that concerned about whether it is a "ban" or a really expensive push to shift people into just not using them. That is roughly irrelevant. My issue is with the idea that government should even be determining that it would be a good idea to phase out the use of ICE engines, by whatever means they propose.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?
