In view of the Global Warming, should vehicle ownership & usage be restricted to one per family everywhere?

Question

Exclude the truckers whose lives depend on it in your calculation. Don't forget to include everyone else and that include politicians who go round in three or four cars to most of their engagements.

And if you think this question is reasonable, show by interest..

Answer 1

Instituting such a law would be the first step in a facist regime, and it would lead to things that are potentially worse than global warming for a lot of people.

Also - there would always be someone who finds a way around this catch (who is to say for example, that a politician's livelihood depends less on multiple vehicles than a trucker?) and this would widen the gap between haves and have nots, which would just create a whole new set of problems without actually solving anything.

Answer 2

it's not the politicians that's the problem,

its everyone that's the problem

when you have one car...

that still makes upp

for about a lot of cars in the world

not many people have 2 or 3 cars

so a few hundered more wouldn't matter

but the politicians

who go around in stretch limos

are really annoying

7-6 mILES A GALLON

!!!!!

Answer 3

Mmmmm - nope. Where I live - in the middle of no-where has no public transport. I travel in one direction, other half the other. So not a good idea. Having said that I do have a low emissions car and road tax is only £35 for the year.

Politicians should lead by example- when they start walking 10 miles to work I will do the same. Until then I will keep driving.

Answer 4

I think we should promote electric cars.  And to power those cars we should build more nuclear power plants.

Answer 5

i think this would be going to far. perhaps just taxing oil would be far easier.

Answer 6

yea y not i meen it won't do much harm

Answer 7

To reduce vehicle emissions I would not encourage a law of this type. A better law would be to allow only one car at a time on the road (based on the day of the week).

A better solution would be to eliminate one lane of traffic on every road with two or more lanes and convert that lane to "public transportation only". This would allow people to still drive their cars if they need to but it would make public transportation more desirable and faster than private cars.

Once public transportation is accepted as a better solution, the local governments can then tax the living daylights out of gasoline (while giving the public transportation full amnesty from the tax). People will no longer be spending all of their money on cars, cars insurance, gas, car maintenance and those types of things. A monthly bus/rail/subway pass is all you will need. Quality of life will improve and global warming will have one less component adding to its whole.

Answer 8

If you agree to transportation by Fire, you're one of the billions who belong to a criminal orgainized mafia destined to destroy the Earth.  The U.S. knows it is mainly at fault for our obvious path to destruction.  If we had good people in Government they would long ago have heeded  water, land and atmospheric warnings.  We would have then been in a postion to delegate proper and non-poluting technologies and our money would be the best on Earth.  Currently Norway is the top country in the enviornmental field.   I don't care if everyone went back to horse and buggy.  They should be allowed to choose their destiny.  Not regulated from birth to be behind the wheel of Fire cars.

Answer 9

I have 3 cars.

A Diesel estate, A nice old Merc and a 205 Gti, I cant drive all of them at the same time?

Your also forgetting that if a major volcano erupts it will spew more greenhouse gases in 12 hours than 100 years of car use (based on the year 2000`s car usage) There are at least 12 active Volcanoes in Iceland alone.

Its not car use thats causing it.

Answer 10

Ah yes, using the excuse of "global warming" to force others to live as you see best.

Just make sure the police who enforce your morals laws wear brown shirts for effect.

Answer 11

Its not like that how many vehicles are there it was how frequent they are using and for what distance they were using see in the grown coutries and in the growing coutries where the people are somehow as better standard of living the frequency of usage is veryhigh even to the nextstreet within the 100ft they use vehicle this can be reduced even up to 1KM.

Answer 12

Sorry to burst your bubble but cars do not cause global warming. WE have contributed very little to the slight temp. increase.

It sounds to me that you want some kind of fascist state that regulates our every behavior based on some poorly worked out theory that WE  are responsible for warming the earth. Here is a long list of scientists and (links to their work), that should throw a wrench into the popular theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_...

Answer 13

I'd start selling cows as a form of transportation.

Answer 14

With today's road crises in England yes I think car ownership should be limited to one per family, of course this is not practical in every case due to work commitments but there could be a means test put into place for this. If public transport provided a better service there would be a better argument. What might be a better solution is people working in their own areas instead of commuting. I think politicians travel in separate vehicles in case of attack, if one car gets attacked only one VIP gets killed. Maybe people should remember when there was a time when people couldn't afford cars and they walked, maybe if cars were not status symbols this would help. Use of bicycle should be encouraged too.

Answer 15

In some cases, one vehicle can't be considered a reasonable option. If a family has for kids, a minivan is handy, but a smaller car would be more fuel efficient and less polluting, for a shopping trip without the kids.

Going overboard with regulations is never the answer. Common sense should always prevail.

Answer 16

You're idea would wreak the economy.  It would also be unjust as large families would be penalized while single persons would be rewarded.

We would be better off with laws which require use of zero emission vehicles.

On the other hand, maybe global warming will fade away as the earth cools:

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx...

Answer 17

dear god no.  there's 4 of us in my family, and we've got a car each (i'm moving out soon, but that's besides the point).  the house at the top of a steep hill, a mile from the nearest public transport.  To go anywhere, you have to drive, or get someone to drive you.  Or its a half hour walk down, and 40 minutes back up - the walk up is something reserved for olympic athletes and the clinically insane.  it's cheaper for me to drive than it is for me to commute.  what i don't spend on parking and public transport, i spend on petrol - it's about half the cost.

when they improve public transport - ie make it run on time, run more of it, give people more space so we're not crammed in like sardines and can actually sit down, and slash the ticket prices - THEN i will leave my car at home.

a one day travelcard for london at peak hours for zones 1-6 is now £13.80.  You can also expect to pay that much in parking per week.  That's more than £80 a week in travelling costs.  I have a car which is taxed and insured all year round anyway, takes less time to get to work, and costs me about £30 a week in petrol.  Bit of a no brainer really......

but lets look at this in perspective.  we've got 4 cars between 4 adults, for convenience.  I work in south london, my brother works in surrey (about the same distance in opposite directions - not like we can lift share!).  my dad works from home, so his commute to work consists of a flight of stairs to his office.  my mum works one day a week at a place 1 mile up the road (so in the summer she happily walks there and back), and she has a low emissions 2 seater car.  so the bulk of the driving is me and my brother.  the 4 cars simply means that all 4 of us have the flexibility to get from A-B according to our lives - if we had 1 car between the 4 of us, that would mean one parent having to drop off both me and my brother to two separate train stations at two separate times, and then come and pick both of us up separately in the evenings.  to drop me off and pick me up every day, there and back twice is 4 miles.  to factor in my brother is another 4 miles.  and that's before either of us have even got on a train.  8 miles a day just in lifts isn't practical!

Answer 18

There is no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that reducing the number of cars will have any effect on global warming. Why don't we just decide that people should'nt drive at all? Or heat their houses? If we continue on this slippery slope before you know only the people who fit the "green" ideal will be allowed to make laws - I think we know where that will lead for the rest of us.

Answer 19

It's not the number of cars that's the problem its how often they are used.

Public transport needs to be cheaper because it works out better to buy a car, insure it and pay fuel than catch a train.

Why one per family, they would go out together in one car for trips anyway, its the single people you need to worry about as they rarely make economical use for their cars.

Answer 20

Truthfully, I think the answer is in car-pooling myself. even if you only carpool with one other person, you still keep one more car off the road that day.

Schools should promote and help start a partnership program for students in the same neighborhood (which shouldn't be hard) That way, less kids are taking the school buses which seem to provide quite a bit of pollution.

Kids living within a certain radius should be encouraged to talk to their parents about group riding. Of course, never allow a child to bike alone.

Which could also encourage a SAHM or SAHD to bike ride to the school with the child, then ride off to pick up some small items at the grocery store.

Most grocery stores already promote re-use of the shopping bags or the use of canvas shopping bags. Maybe someone could talk grocers into implementing a special savers club for bike riding shoppers or walking shoppers.

Colleges should provide a small savings for students living in a certain radius of the campus and the same for walkers and bike riders. The same for car-pooling.

Workplaces should promote car-pooling as well.

You really have the right idea, but with 2 working people in the home, sometimes it is just not possible.

Thanks for letting me share my opinion Hon!