There cannot be much doubt that the switch to electric vehicles is part of a wider war against cars.
In a recent Capital Letter, I wrote this:
Running not far beneath the push for EVs is a campaign against the ownership of any kind of car, as evidenced by congestion charges, innovations such as low traffic neighborhoods, and all the rest. Cars are seen as urban clutter, obstacles to a quieter, more orderly and (to those who share this vision) more aesthetically pleasing city, where travel is either collective or (Cycle lanes! Pedestrianized streets!) healthy, and where ideally, residents, comfortable in their fifteen-minute cities, just don’t move around too much. Translated into the real world, the implementation of such a vision could mean economic and social disaster, especially for those without the financial resources to cope, but central planning is what it is.
That Capital Letter was focused on Mark Mills’s report on EVs for the Manhattan Institute. When it comes to broader opposition to the idea of the car itself, here’s what Mills had to say:
As stated in the IEA net zero goal [I discussed this goal in last week’s Capital Letter]: the number of global households without a car needs to rise from 45% today to 70% by 2050, reversing a century-long trend of rising ownership…
As usual, California regulators are ahead of the proverbial curve in admitting that the state’s emissions goals will require citizens of that state—on top of being forced into EVs—to drive 25% fewer miles than they did 30 years ago.
As I noted:
Mills believes that the war against cars is about more than the climate, noting that, “car culture is viewed in many environmental circles as inherently toxic and unnatural.” In his view, “It would be reasonable to reach the conclusion that, put simply, they’re coming for your cars.”
Not unrelated to all this is the campaign in London against older cars. London’s Labour mayor is planning to expand London’s Ultra-low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) from inner London to outer parts of the city.
ULEZ?
Ross Clark writing in the Spectator:
From the end of next month, anyone driving a non-compliant vehicle – which in practice means most diesel cars sold before 2015 and petrol cars sold before 2005 – is liable to pay a daily charge of £12.50. If they fail to do this, and are caught on a network of number-plate recognition cameras, they are liable to pay a fine of £180. Taking fees and fines together, Ulez raised £224 million last year – a figure which will almost certainly rocket upon expansion to the whole of London.
Clark discusses a recent report by Imperial College showing that ULEZ has done very little for the environment. This only underlines its real role as part of a wider offensive against motorists.
Clark:
It is not just London and Ulez: low emission zones, low traffic neighbourhoods and parking, bus lane and box junction fines are proliferating across the country. Birmingham has had a low emission zone since 2021, Bristol since November. Glasgow began enforcing its zone last month. Cambridge is planning a £5 a day congestion fee, while Oxford and Canterbury will soon limit motorists from driving between one area of their city and another…
While the banning of petrol and diesel cars tends to steal headlines, it is less understood that part of the plan for net zero involves the outright reduction in use of road transport. In its Sixth Carbon Budget, the government’s Climate Change Committee writes: ‘Effective demand-side policy is also essential — we identify significant opportunities, and advantages, to reducing travel demand, but this will not happen without firm policies.’ In its net-zero strategy for 2021, the government sets an ambition for half of all journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2030. Given that in 2021, 57 per cent of such journeys in England were by car, 32 per cent walking, 2 per cent by bicycle, 4 per cent by bus and 3 per cent by train, this envisages quite a change.
Indeed . . .
Interestingly, opposition to ULEZ expansion was one reason that the Conservatives recently managed to eke out a victory in a special election in a formerly safe seat. Boris Johnson (who had previously been MP for that constituency) celebrated that victory, and he has indeed opposed the expansion of ULEZ. Nevertheless, who originally laid out the pathway to ULEZ (albeit for central London only) when he was mayor?
Boris Johnson.
Oh.
The Conservatives are far behind Labour in the polls, and a general election is due around the end of next year. Scaling back on their greenery, notably the ban on the sale of new internal-combustion-engine cars from 2030 (Johnson advanced the date from 2040 to 2030 as part of his “green revolution”), might be one way for the Conservatives to avoid disaster, but as a fairly conventional party of Europe’s center-left, it won’t be easy for them to reverse course. One senior Tory today described the 2030 ban as immoveable.
But stories such as this should encourage them to think again:
Clark:
Until May’s local elections, the Conservatives were proposing to introduce a traffic scheme in Canterbury which would split the city into zones, with large fines for residents who drove from one zone to another. Council leader Ben Fitter-Harding, who had championed the scheme, lost his seat as a result.
Early signs of voter discontent in the U.K., Germany, and the Netherlands suggest that, sooner or later, net zero is going to mean major political trouble for governments that continue in their efforts to advance towards it, at least at their current pace.
Americans watching the goings-on in Europe should not imagine that they will be able to dodge the war against cars. And those who think they will be able to stick with “traditional” autos even as federal and state mandates make it difficult or impossible to buy new internal-combustion vehicles should pay attention to the way in which pollution mandates are being used in London to penalize drivers for driving the “wrong” kind of cars.