25
votes
European Commission approves creation of an environmental zone in the city centre of Stockholm, where petrol and diesel cars will be banned entirely from 2025
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- EU Commission OKs Stockholm's new petrol, diesel car-free zone
- Published
- Apr 19 2024
- Word count
- 440 words
Since it applies to 20 blocks only, Id agree.
And if it had been a total ban of all petrol, diesel, and hybrid cars in the entirety of Stockholm, it would be decried as extremely unreasonable, too much of a change, and leaving people who rely on their cars unable to use them at all, destroying their livelihood.
It may be less than what is necessary from an environmental perspective, but at least it's a start of a ban, and could be used both to expand the zone in Stockholm over time, and as a precedent to implement similar bans in other cities or even the country as a whole.
After all, presuming the article is truthful and accurate
Agreed. That would just being taking an ideological decision to the next level. I support EVs (I own one) but that's just pushing it too far.
But how is this partial ban fair to those who cant afford an EV? Suddenly you're banished from part of your city because you cant drive the 'correct' type of vehicle? That seems patently unfair.
I would say it isn't categorically more unfair than any other restriction on car compliance. If you drive a car, it must have safety belts, and working lights, and the right type of tires for the road conditions, and so on.
Admittedly, it is fair to say that it is more expensive (if even feasible) to retrofit a car to be electric, but that is more an argument to have a slow phase-out, which I think this regulation can be described as. For context, it is about a 10 minute walk diagonally across the area according to google maps.
I think it is also extremely unfair to characterize it as you being "banished" from part of the city. You are allowed in it, just not your non-compliant car. If you cannot afford a car which is allowed to drive within this limited area, there is public transport available. I'm counting at least 7 sets of stops in or around it.
Those are safety restrictions, not ideological restrictions.
If it really only takes 10 minutes to walk across this entire area then it must be quite small. Which means that banning gas vehicles is not going to make ANY difference to the environment, this is being done purely to make an ideological point by inconveniencing anyone who drives a certain type of car. Its not going to save the world, the environment will not notice.
If I despise anything its people who use their fanaticism to force their values on others - that goes for religious zealots, multi level marketers, political activists and climate activists who push EVs as a panacea by forcing their choice on others. The whole push to ban gas/diesel is going to go VERY badly because EVs are just a small part of reducing GHG's - but they are not the end all and be all answer and they do some things quite poorly so forcing drivers to switch to them is only going to create a backlash.
Tire type restrictions also include bans against studded tires on certain roads to reduce particulates, which have a measurable harmful effect on humans, just as other emissions do.
It is also likely going to make a small but measurable difference in the specific area. Air pollution like carbon monoxide is higher near roads, presumably because of internal combustion engines. Remove or relocate those, and air pollution in the area is likely to be reduced.
Widening the zone will likely increase the effects, and can be done as more people have both the knowledge that such restrictions are coming and the time to phase over to non-ICE vehicles, and in conjunction with ensuring public transit is sufficiently available.
Does this include people who champion the right to use fossil fuel cars and force others to live with the emissions?
Buses use fossil fuels, trains use fossil fuels, ships use fossil fuels, planes use fossil fuels, semi trucks use fossil fuels. Heavy construction equipment for building roads, buildings, bridges, water/sewer, power infrastrucure use fossil fuels. A ban on fossil fuels means our modern world would literally come to a stop.
So yes, you and I are going to put up with some emissions because our world needs fossil fuels and very few are willing to forego all the conveniences of modern life that we enjoy because of them.
As of right now there is no way to replace all the work and transportation that is done with fossil fuels - there are a few things that work for specific circumstances, but the very practical reality is that gasoline/diesel contains a LOT more power for its mass than batteries - the mass-based energy density of batteries is in the range of 0.1 to 0.27 kWh/kg while gasoline is 13 kWh/kg, so 100x the power for the same mass. It will take an order of magnitude change in battery energy til we can reasonably switch away from fossil fuels.
Im not forcing fossil fuels on you or anyone. Its what we have and what works.
What fortune then that this is not the strawman of immediately banning all fossil fuels in our modern world. What fortune that it is also not the what-aboutism of saying "other things use fossil fuels so we should do nothing about cars". What fortune that it is in fact only a small step in an inevitably necessary transition for a sustainable future. A small step which you seem to argue is both too little and too much at the same time.
I think you will find substantial opposition to the blanket statement that it "works", given the effects of the emissions.
You're right, I probably will. But then not all of us believe the sky is falling as inexorably as some prognosticators tell us it is. And my argument about fossil fuels is that as much as some people want to change our world to work on a different energy system, we cant. There is no practical replacement that works. Not yet. And maybe not for another 50 years.
You've already mentioned your opposition to a ban on petrol and diesel cars that's more total than this one. What measures to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases would you support here?
I support EVs and hybrids. But I believe 100% in making them appealing and affordable (without subsidies) that they become the best choice not the forced choice. People will choose them when they make the most sense, regardless of their emissions, the market is not stupid.
I support reducing the use of carbon fuels by using solar power on homes, but again, by choice, not by force. I support using alternative use of heating particularly in rural areas with woodstoves, as we have for centuries. Yes they emit carbon but its the cycle of carbon capture and emission from trees that happens anyways as they either decay or burn. Solar hydronic heating works in some places too, as does passive heating.
I support lowering emission by using the most efficient use of carbon fuels if possible, so if a power plant is using coal then switching to natural gas is a huge reduction while still providing consistent available power. Solar and wind are helpful but they're not reliable enough for baseload power.
I support buying things locally and penalizing companies like Amazon and Alibaba with import duties for promote purchasing billions in goods from countries that are the biggest polluters. I also very much support the practice of buying everything second hand rather than new, which obviously flies in the face of a very captitalistic culture. I also support living 'small' by only living in the house/place you need, not the house that impresses your family. I think tiny homes are viable and should be promoted for adding to the backyards of typical suburban homes.
I DONT support our ridiculous and backward Carbon Tax in Canada.
Do you oppose a carbon tax categorically, or the particular Canadian implementation? A carbon tax is probably the most efficient way of pricing the negative externality of GHG emissions, and you have to control them in somehow (whether through taxes, subsidies, bans, or a combination).
I oppose it in Canada, can't say Ive given much thought to its use for the rest of the world.
Partly because as Canadians, we are already overtaxed (more than 50% of our income), partly because the implementation is illogical and unprovable ('you'll get back more than you pay' is the LPC war cry despite the Parliamentary Budget officer saying thats not accurate) and partly because I dont believe for a second that it will make a difference to the environment in a country that only emits 1.8% of the world's GHGs despite being massively big and cold - it's just a tax with a green name to justify it, but will it change anything? No, I dont believe it will. Canadians could all stop driving our gas cars tomorrow and the environment wouldn't notice because Canadian gas emissions are a drop in the ocean. It will just make our already expensive lives even more expensive. It's pointless and its doing far more to hurt Canadians than help them.
Contrary to the way North America has been built, cars are not the only way to get around, especially in the center of a European city.