Source:
"Shifting to electric vehicles will still leave the UK with serious transport problems, a report has said.
The IPPR think tank said emissions will fall, but the number of cars on the road will continue to grow.
It foresaw a 28% increase in car ownership by 2050, leading to more jams and harm to the economy.
But the government said it had plans to make transport greener and it was committed to offering people a range of travel options.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said in March that car use must shrink.
The IPPR said Mr Shapps’ long-awaited Transport Decarbonisation Strategy should harmonise with this by committing to peak car ownership by 2030.
Unless there is a change in policy, car ownership is expected to be driven up by a growing economy and increasing population.
The IPPR said failure to tackle this will have negative effects on:
Health: Walking and cycling (when practical) are healthier than sitting in a car.
Resources: An ever-expanding car fleet drains raw materials and energy.
Urban space: Fewer cars would mean more trees, play space, and room for walkers and cyclists.
Congestion: Traffic jams damage the economy and lead to demand for more and bigger roads.
Inequality: Allowing current trends to continue will widen the social divide between those who own cars and those who don’t.
But the IPPR said that a £27bn roads programme benefits drivers and that its citizens’ juries on environmental issues show the public are more radical than ministers.
Its South Wales Valleys citizens’ jury said: “Electric cars are only part of the answer;
we also need fewer car trips overall,
so a move to electric vehicles must only happen in combination with public transport improvements and a reduction in journeys.”
The IPPR’s proposals to achieve the UK’s low-carbon transition fairly include a national guarantee to make it possible to live a good life without needing to own a car.
It says this should include seven-day public transport for all areas, and the principle that everyday needs should be accessible within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip.
The report says ministers should introduce a "help-to-move scheme" with grants and loans to help people buy cycles, electric scooters, e-bikes or electric vehicles where they need them.
Luke Murphy, head of the IPPR Environmental Justice Commission, said:
“The imperative for urgent action [in cutting CO2] creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place a new approach to how we all travel.
“The government’s current preferred strategy places an overwhelming focus on the shift to electric vehicles. Such an approach will not deliver for people or planet. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57570010
This shows that the climate agenda has never been about the climate, but has been aimed at controlling our lives.
The ability of ordinary people to go where they like, do what they like, when they like is anathema to these people.
How dare Joe Public go on holiday in his car or have a day out in the countryside.
You will note the reference to “citizens’ juries”, but since when were a group of people handpicked by the left wing IPPR a substitute for democracy?
If the public want a £27bn roads programme, they have the chance to vote for it at the polls.
And how will all of this be enforced?
There are the usual demands for a mass expansion of public transport.
But apart from being unaffordable, it would have little effect, as people don’t want to give up the convenience and freedom, which their cars provide.
As I have surmised before, we will end up being priced off the roads, particularly with road charging heading our way.
They let the cat out of the bag with this statement:
The IPPR’s proposals to achieve the UK’s low-carbon transition fairly include a national guarantee to make it possible to live a good life without needing to own a car.
It says this should include seven-day public transport for all areas, and the principle that everyday needs should be accessible within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip.
In other words, they want to turn COVID lockdowns into climate ones, by keeping us trapped in our own local area.
Steve Gooding from the RAC Foundation sums it up when he says:
“The challenge for government is that we’re not just going to have to think about how we travel,
but when, where and even whether we continue to travel in the ways that had become the norm pre-Covid.
“That means changing our lifestyles, which could be better for us all in the round, but might not seem immediately attractive.”
Changing our lifestyles, whether we like it or not."
Unless there is a change in policy, car ownership is expected to be driven up by a growing economy and increasing population.
The IPPR said failure to tackle this will have negative effects on:
Health: Walking and cycling (when practical) are healthier than sitting in a car.
Resources: An ever-expanding car fleet drains raw materials and energy.
Urban space: Fewer cars would mean more trees, play space, and room for walkers and cyclists.
Congestion: Traffic jams damage the economy and lead to demand for more and bigger roads.
Inequality: Allowing current trends to continue will widen the social divide between those who own cars and those who don’t.
But the IPPR said that a £27bn roads programme benefits drivers and that its citizens’ juries on environmental issues show the public are more radical than ministers.
Its South Wales Valleys citizens’ jury said: “Electric cars are only part of the answer;
we also need fewer car trips overall,
so a move to electric vehicles must only happen in combination with public transport improvements and a reduction in journeys.”
The IPPR’s proposals to achieve the UK’s low-carbon transition fairly include a national guarantee to make it possible to live a good life without needing to own a car.
It says this should include seven-day public transport for all areas, and the principle that everyday needs should be accessible within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip.
The report says ministers should introduce a "help-to-move scheme" with grants and loans to help people buy cycles, electric scooters, e-bikes or electric vehicles where they need them.
Luke Murphy, head of the IPPR Environmental Justice Commission, said:
“The imperative for urgent action [in cutting CO2] creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place a new approach to how we all travel.
“The government’s current preferred strategy places an overwhelming focus on the shift to electric vehicles. Such an approach will not deliver for people or planet. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57570010
This shows that the climate agenda has never been about the climate, but has been aimed at controlling our lives.
The ability of ordinary people to go where they like, do what they like, when they like is anathema to these people.
How dare Joe Public go on holiday in his car or have a day out in the countryside.
You will note the reference to “citizens’ juries”, but since when were a group of people handpicked by the left wing IPPR a substitute for democracy?
If the public want a £27bn roads programme, they have the chance to vote for it at the polls.
And how will all of this be enforced?
There are the usual demands for a mass expansion of public transport.
But apart from being unaffordable, it would have little effect, as people don’t want to give up the convenience and freedom, which their cars provide.
As I have surmised before, we will end up being priced off the roads, particularly with road charging heading our way.
They let the cat out of the bag with this statement:
The IPPR’s proposals to achieve the UK’s low-carbon transition fairly include a national guarantee to make it possible to live a good life without needing to own a car.
It says this should include seven-day public transport for all areas, and the principle that everyday needs should be accessible within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip.
In other words, they want to turn COVID lockdowns into climate ones, by keeping us trapped in our own local area.
Steve Gooding from the RAC Foundation sums it up when he says:
“The challenge for government is that we’re not just going to have to think about how we travel,
but when, where and even whether we continue to travel in the ways that had become the norm pre-Covid.
“That means changing our lifestyles, which could be better for us all in the round, but might not seem immediately attractive.”
Changing our lifestyles, whether we like it or not."