ICE is a dead end technology. Aside from pollution and climate impacts, it is a fundamentally limited resource and long term will continue to increase in price.
It's only 'dead' when the reources are limited enough that alternatives price it out of existence. That's not the case yet and won't be for a long time, unless of course 'the authorities' intervene and make it so by bumping up taxes even more and subsidising other tech even more.
Of course, as most if not all of the other tech is unaffordable or impractical for about 80% of car drivers, presumably you're advocating for the rich to heavily subsidise it only for the less well off (I don't mean just the poor), or would you like society to regress to the 1920s and 30s wher only the well-heeled owned cars and the rest had to put up with poor public transport and low social mobility and living conditions?
The way we live will not remain unchanged indefinitely - not just personal transport, but the impact of technology (internet, social media etc), jobs, family size, growing populations etc.
In 1950 there were ~2.0m private cars - now ~34m. Huge growth. Current levels may be unsustainable, and reduce.
It might help that we didn't invite or allow to stay so many illegals to start with. And 'may' be unsustainable is not 'will be', so why impoverish most people except the well-heeled, or is that your aim?
Ownership may be replaced by short term rental and autonomous vehicles. Investment in public transport may reduce demand. Online services reduce transport need. Social and job demands evolve.
Uncomfortable though it may be there is no absolute human right attached to car ownership. If you can afford it, fine. If not find another solution.
Why do I get the impression you'll be able to 'afford it'? Like with many other proposed social 'changes' on the horizon, those proposing them rarely have to endure such (often harsh) changes because they are well off to be able to afford to avoid them or are in positions of power and influence to circumvent the new rules / laws.
This is no different to other things unaffordable to many or most - Caribbean holidays, private education, private healthcare, Michelin star restaurants etc etc.
The difference is that expensive holidays, pricta healthcare, fancy restuarants aren't cruicial to everyday life (though decent healthcare is). Being socially mobile by owning a car so you can go to or do work without spening half your day travelling and waiting for buses and trains make many jobs viable.
I certainly coudn't do my former job as an engineer without one, and most firms didn't offer company cars unless you were a higher-up. Even when I was working and on a reasonable salary, there's no way I could afford to buy a new EV, and because I live in a flat but would';ve needed to regularly charge it, that would make ownership (presumably of one that was 5+ years old) not viable, given the issues regarding charging I've spoken of many times.
Eelectric vehicles can be a solution to some people at the moment, but it's blindingly obvious that they aren't for the vast majority - and not just for financial reasons, and nor will they be for decades because of the sheer amount of technical and logistical hurdles to overcome.
They won't be by 2030, nor 2040 and probably not even by 2050, given it would likely require many homes (entire housing developments) to either be completely demolished and rebuilt or to have such extensive modifications that it would take decades to save up to pay for them. The security and safety aspects I've spoken of above are just one not in EVs' favour. As yet, no-one has come up with a solution.
I also strongly believe that the climate issues have been deliberately over-egged, especially where so many of the 'predictions' and 'models' have got it drastically wrong, but are used as 'exact guides' to what WILL happen rather than the worst case of what MIGHT, with little verifiable proof to back up said models.
|
