I wrote the other day that the war against cars was not going to stop with those powered by the internal combustion engine. Electric vehicles certainly have fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than traditional cars do, but they are by no means squeaky clean.
As I noted, “cars have long been resented by a certain type of authoritarian for the untidiness they create, for the space they take up, and for the autonomy they offer.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that for some climate fundamentalists, part of the endgame (we can talk about what we will be allowed to eat later) is, I argued:
packing people into more-densely populated cities and moving them around in public transport, although the need for the latter will, of course, be reduced by the fact that these marvelous metropoles will be more “walkable.”
So, I was not altogether surprised to read Allysia Finley’s recent piece in the Wall Street Journal about “a new report from the University of California, Davis and ‘a network of academics and policy experts’ called the Climate and Community Project.”
Finley:
The report offers an honest look at the vast personal, environmental and economic sacrifices needed to meet the left’s net-zero climate goals. Progressives’ dirty little secret is that everyone will have to make do with much less—fewer cars, smaller houses and yards, and a significantly lower standard of living.
Indeed. And why many of them want this has, at its core, little to do with the climate and much more to do with a philosophical and psychological objection to a vision of human flourishing rooted in individual liberty and material progress. Instead they would prefer to see a society that is regimented, constrained, and collectivist. That such a society would also need a cadre of the enlightened to run it has not, I suspect, escaped the notice of some of them.
The report concludes that the auto sector’s “current dominant strategy,” which involves replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs without decreasing car ownership and use, “is likely incompatible” with climate activists’ goal to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times. Instead, the report recommends government policies that promote walking, cycling and mass transit.
Governments, the report says, could reduce “financial subsidies for private vehicles,” such as on-street and free parking. They could also impose charges on pickup trucks and SUVs (including electric ones) and build more bike lanes. Urbanites who suspect the expansion of bike lanes in their cities is intended to force people to stop driving aren’t wrong.
But what about suburbanites who need cars to get around? Reducing “car dependency” will require “densifying low-density suburbs while allowing more people to live in existing high-density urban spaces,” the report says. Translation: Force more people to live in shoe-box apartments in cities by making suburbs denser and less appealing.
All this may sound crazy, but it isn’t a fringe view on the left. A Natural Resources Defense Council report last year on lithium mining also concluded that the government needs “to reduce long-term dependency on single-passenger vehicles.” The Inflation Reduction Act included billions of dollars to promote bicycling and so-called livable neighborhoods.
California’s Democratic Legislature last year even passed a bill creating a $1,000 tax credit (originally proposed at $7,500) for households that don’t own cars. “We can invest in the future by providing financial incentives for Californians to transition from vehicles to more sustainable options,” state Sen. Anthony Portantino said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, citing its budget cost, but he said he supported “approaches to incentivize a transition from vehicles to more sustainable transportation.” Eliminating cars—not only gasoline-powered ones—is the left’s ultimate goal. This is why progressives have mobilized against nearly every mineral mining project in the U.S.
Finley argues that “progressives’ ultimate goal is to reduce consumption — and living standards — because they believe humans are a menace to the Earth”.
I’m not so sure. Some may genuinely believe that we are a menace to this planet. For others, however, the underlying motive, beyond (in some cases) the fondness for pointless asceticism that has been a characteristic of countless religions or quasi-religions over the millennia, is power. The current approach to climate change is rapidly developing into a highly effective instrument of social, political, and economic control: There are plenty of people, it seems, willing to wield it.