...
written by josh , September 18, 2007

The UK takes up only 100 thousand square miles. Where as the US takes up 3.7 million square miles. Less travelling when so many things are so much closer. They also have the advantage of being much older than us, and a more of a car-unfriendly designed country. This is why they have smaller cars in the first place.

The need for gasoline is much less. Going gas free is much more feasible. Definitely not impossible. For us, it's a pipe dream. A hookah dream.

...
written by Kel , September 18, 2007

Great alternative
And in the US, we could just go state by state.

Maybe they'll consider .. SIT
written by Ryan Baker , September 18, 2007

Obviously electric cars are part of this, but I'm interested in what the more progressive rail system means. Do they mean somethting as progressive as SIT?

http://ryan-technorabble.blogs...ncept.html

People in the US think they have longer
written by weee , September 18, 2007

but I'm not sure that if you compare the average daily commute there very different - a lot of people live in cities not Alaska and Texas!
The average mileage per car in the UK is around 9,000 miles; I can't find a figure for the US to compare but I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows...

What alternatives
written by Strange but True , September 18, 2007

It's all well and good to say they're going to abolish petrol cars, but is the investment going to be there to come up with a truly workable alternative - I doubt it.

A bit too optimistic
written by Mark , September 18, 2007

Such aspirations are fine in principle, and I fully support that. But I get the strong feeling that these guys are not really in touch with reality.

They are proposing that nuclear power also be opposed yet they want the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050?

Nice ideas, which will maybe spur development of alternatives, but how realistic??

http://talkclimatechange.com/p...?f=4&t=116

Average mileage
written by Strange but True , September 18, 2007

And the sources I've got indicate that average US mileage is about 12,000-13,000 a year, so a bit more than the UK but not that much more.

...
written by Mark , September 18, 2007

The UK takes up only 100 thousand square miles. Where as the US takes up 3.7 million square miles. Less travelling when so many things are so much closer. They also have the advantage of being much older than us, and a more of a car-unfriendly designed country. This is why they have smaller cars in the first place.

The need for gasoline is much less. Going gas free is much more feasible. Definitely not impossible. For us, it's a pipe dream. A hookah dream.

Shorter distances, yes. But still lacking in public transport infrastructure, which makes the car essential for many. And being shorter on space and more crowded makes it much harder to build that infrastructure.

Cars don't make long distances easer to travel. If anything they have an advantage over public transport on short distances.

http://www.talkclimatechange.com

There is no pipe dream
written by Enrique , September 18, 2007

Our first electric car can run around 200 miles in one charged (Tesla). If we could increased the batteries to run 1,000 miles without been charged, we wouldn't need any cars run on gasoline or diesel.
If someone can invent a rechargable battery as the car runs, It is over for our fosssil run cars.
That can be accomplished within 5 years as there is investment and competition for a new industry. It sure won't come from our Big three American car companies.

Feasability for the UK.
written by shlep_rock , September 18, 2007

If one were to consider the feasibility of electric cars in the U.K., the proposal seems much more realistic. Much of Europe has a higher voltage electrical system. This would help in reducing charge times. Additionally, it would seem overall range may be slightly less of an issue. Given some of the technology that's poised for production already, I'd say electric cars could make it possible.

What about legacy technology
written by Dutch , September 18, 2007

Everyone is arguing about new cars and trucks. I think a ban on producing or selling new gas/petrol/diesel cars and trucks by 2040 is doable, especially with the recent concentration on battery technology.

But even if they can, will they automatically render any car built before a certain date obsolete for lack of fuel? If they want to be free of fossil fuels, they better start with all electric (or H2 fuel cells, or whatever) now so that they have 30 years to phase out older models.

Not a bat in hells chance.
written by rob , September 18, 2007

Everyone is overlooking one thing, this was proposed by the Liberal Democrats, who have about as much chance of getting in power, as I have of becoming president of the USA.
And with ideas like this they have even less chance of gaining power, no one would vote for them.

The public transport system in the UK, outside of London is pretty dire. My village of approx 1500 homes gets one bus an hour, finishing at 9pm and the nearest railway station (which only goes to London) is twenty miles away.
So building the massive public transport infrastructure would cost trillions and be very difficult, with the restricted space available in our cramped towns and cities.

Using electric cars wouldn't be much help, if they are all recharged from gas and coal power stations. I would imagine that transmission losses would make them more polluting than petrol cars.

Supply and demand will do what politicia
written by Cstars , September 19, 2007

By 2040, private use gasoline cars will probably be made obsolete by the cost of fuel.

As demand rises out of proportion to new oil discoveries, and the supply of the cheaper forms of oil drop off, gasoline costs will force people out of their gas powered automobiles.

So the idea consists off...
written by George Vaccaro , October 13, 2007

higher taxes and tolls? Wow, that's really innovative.