End of Inefficiency

I have found a new person who I would like to meet, the list has grown quite long (one day I will write it down for all of you to see). He's name is Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, the name makes him sound like a English Noble, but I do not think he is. He has worked in the upper rings of power in Shell, HSBC and other companies. He is also the Chair of the Foundation of the Global Compact, which is a fairly progressive idea. These are not the reasons why I decided that I would love to meet him some day in the future. He is an environmentalist, and gave an interesting idea to BBC which they reported.
Sir Moody-Stuart stated that the EU should ban all inefficient cars. His idea is that you could buy any new car but it had to meet a minimum standard, which was suggested as 60 mpg. His ban would be focused on the car makers, not the consumers. Under his suggested system old cars would not be banded from being sold again. If the ban included cars already built any positive effects would be replaced by price of destroying all of the cars that currently do not follow the standards. Most of all I am impressed because he is not the standard 'environmentalist' if he even considers himself one. This article got me thinking about a few issues: what affects would this have on the car industry and would this really affect a change.

One of the major issues that I keep on reading and being force feed to pay attention to is how hard it is for car companies to make a profit. Have you ever wondered if the age of cars is over and some of them should just go under, I think this a lot. I am not against cars, I believe that many of our basic trips could be done using other modes of transportation (that is another whole blog). I think that the car companies would be able to set up to the task of making more fuel efficient vehicles. Sure it may hurt their profits, but it would hurt even harder when the price of oil becomes so expensive that people can not drive their inefficient cars. (the end of cheap oil is also another blog).
The need of the government to bail out car companies in North America, this happens in Ontario and people generally support it. Bailing out includes low development taxes and
government loans to build new plants. I know that many people are losing their jobs and that their livelihoods are being taken away. I do not believe the future of manufacturing in North America is based on building cars. The cars being build and bought today will not be in just in around 20 years because the cost is just too much.
The government should take all of the money that they are spending on car manufacturing and spend it on public transportation. There are many areas of North America that need their public transportation systems to be rebuilt. This would create jobs, not the same as a car manufacture, that would help certain areas survive and would be a more sustainable solution. If you look at the major cities of Canada none of them really has a good public transportation system, none of the major four have their airports connected by rail to the center city (Vancouver is changing). Airlines is another issue that I will talk about at some time.

Will banning inefficiency really affect change in the people's lifestyles. I think that this would have an impact in Europe rather than in Canada and the USA. Our lifestyle here is to decentralized and dispersed to make any other option other than driving valid. We as North Americans like our world spread out and will only take public transit if we want to. I have even seen this in some of my close friends who believe that we need to change our lifestyles to help fight climate change. The belief is we can travel by car to go everywhere when ever we want, I am going to make a effort to not drive anywhere (if I can). If people offer me a ride somewhere and I except it, I am no better than the person who drives every where. If I drive when I can then I am just a person who only takes the bus when I am unable to drive. I will break this rule if I am traveling with a group of people who all want to take a car (I do not want to be rude, I may not even go).
If you look at the other items that have been banned, light bulbs and CFCs are examples, the world kept on going and the economy did not collapse. I think that government is too scared not to take action on issues that may cause their country to have negative outcomes, in the short term.
I see in planning that many people only look at short term goals and forget about long term costs. A rapid transit system will not bring change in 5 or even 10 years, the change will occur over a long time as lifestyles change. An example of looking at short term gain and long term losses is the Shepard Subway Line in Toronto. The line was build for political reasons, in the wrong place. But it is built and the people of Toronto has to deal with it. Some people want to close it down because it does not have enough people traveling on it (the subway was a bad move). But to take it away you will never be able to change the lifestyles of the people who are living in the area. In time, 20 years, there will be higher density around the route and more people will take it. On the other hand they could change it to a Light Rail Transit system that takes less people and can be moved above ground for a longer route. I know that that does not directly deal with banning things.
An urban planning issues that is similar to banning is the taxes for driving in Downtown London. Most vehicles that go into the downtown area of London are highly taxed. This has greatly affected the use of cars in the downtown core, which was the goal. It has also raised funds for the local government. It has caused an increase in public transit use but the local government has been able to spend the money on new capital project, or they have not been completed yet. Yes that is tax and not an all out ban on cars.

Well that is some of my thoughts about cars in relation to Sir Moody-Stuart's thoughts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7225451.stm