The title is inexact at best, intentionally misleading at worst.

Some countries are sampled more than others: 1. UK - 2 cities 2. France - 2 cities 3. Germany - 2 cities 4. Italy - 2 cities 5. Spain - 2 cities 6. Poland - 2 cities 7. Belgium - 2 cities 8. Hungary - 1 cities

Other European countries(either from EU, or outside) are not mentioned. EU has 27 member countries, Europe has 50 countries according to Wikipedia has 50 countries.

>The title is inexact at best, intentionally misleading at worst.

And why should anyone be surprised at this?

The press no longer exists to deliver "the news". They are telling a story. Not necessarily the story, but it is certainly a story. Least common denominator pablum designed for engagement and not edification.

Actually it's always been that way; they just really don't even bother trying to disguise it or pretend any more :p

This is true, but as an example in Hungary Budapest and surroundings contribute about half of all taxes, but we don't have much saying in where the money is spent (mostly on football stadiums and supporting villages/cities that vote for Fidesz).

> Almost two-thirds of Europe’s city dwellers support a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030, according to a new YouGov poll.

European city dweller here. Yes, I want these cars gone. But I don't want them replaced by electric cars. I want most of them gone, no matter what kind of propulsion they use.

> The issue is the large number of people who rely on cars for work

Sooo sure. But the only reason most people need cars for work is because we just build car-friendly infrastructure and then all of a sudden we need cars.

Imagine if we just built mixed-use walkable neighborhoods and towns of medium density. Why would we need cars? Or at least why would we need so many?

It’s different in Europe to some extent, at least, since many Europeans have access to alternatives.

I read lots of comments like this that think the problem is centered around the cars. But the cars are the problem that need to be optimized away. We need subtractive thinking, not more more more. “How will they use their cars?” Should be more like “why would they need cars?”

> It’s different in Europe to some extent, at least, since many Europeans have access to alternatives.

There's a romantic idea that Europeans do not need cars but the reality is quite different.

It's true that people who live in central Paris, central London, or other large cities may not need cars but the majority of people outside these large cities do rely on cars. This is true in France, in the UK, and I suspect other countries as well. And, again, many professional and tradespeople need cars/vans.

This cannot change overnight. Realistically this probably won't change at all even if we do reduce the need for cars around town centres.

All I'm saying is that getting rid of ICE vehicles has to go hand in hand with availability of affordable EV (including vans, lorries, and utility vehicles). We can't just say "ICE are bad so let's just ban them".

I don't disagree with you - and I've traveled Europe and agree there is a lot of car use. My challenge is "replace ICE with EV" doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that we have to rely on cars at all, fuel source doesn't matter.

And we continue to perpetuate that reliance by continuing to build in car-first ways. You're definitely right, nothing will change overnight, but I don't think anything will change at all even with EVs.

When Elon Musk talks about self-driving taxis. I lose sleep. It's a nightmare scenario where everybody just lives in a box, gets an automatic box on wheels to come pick them up and then take them to other boxes and then all they do is interact on the Internet. Oh, and we still have to maintain all of these vehicles, the road infrastructure, etc. and we continue to destroy natural habitats so we can spread out instead of just living a little bit closer (you can still have a yard) and designing for people instead of cars.

Car == freedom. I can literally get up in the middle of the night and be at my parents house in 30 minutes.

With public transport I could barely make it in 3 hours.

Unfortunately I just can't get empathize much with this viewpoint. I mean it's fine if you want to own a car, but to the extent it means that we have to suck the planet dry of resources and live increasingly isolated lives to support car infrastructure - I just can't get on board with that. My tax dollars are being wasted over it.

Your viewpoint is ideological.If you believe in preserving planet earth then what you want is rationing resources.

And that inevitably leads to communism.

I believe saving the earth is impossible with that kind of strategy.There's 3BN of people that will want the same kind of living standards like the rich west and you dont have any right nor influence on what they will do.

It's very similar to what we have done during this pandemic with lockdowns.It just did not work and prolonged the inevitable.

>Ok that's fine, but then I may as well use as much resources as possible because fuck it?

I grew up in the 70's with constant shrieking about "peak oil" and how we are all doomed. And 40 years later we have access to not only more oil but other forms of energy as well. Your obsessing about the planet not being big enough is freaking ludicrous yet after decades of such sentiments being THOROUGHLY beaten down by the real world, people like you cling to them like some intellectual security blanket.

I believe far more strongly in humans working independently, yet together, in solving tough problems. A 2,000 pound machine may be too expensive for you. Luckily it's not for me. Indeed I have three. And the world still exists, humming along quite happily.

And what makes this a practical reality despite your being convinced it's impossible? Capitalism. You mention it, yet apparently really don't appreciate it's true power. Capitalism single handedly spawned and lifted the vast majority of the world out of death and existence far worse than what we call poverty today that was the norm for 98% in a mere few hundred years - reversing literally thousands of years of oligarchies that dominated human existence until just a few generations ago. My paternal grandmother witnessed the change from horse power and candles to flying through the air in jets in her lifetime. Is it perfect? Nope - no system is. And yes, there are parts of the world where there is still substantial room for improvement - but laying that only at the feet of capitalism is moronically naive. The sad thing is, I fear most people today aren't going to really appreciate where we were until it's gone - and it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to put things back once lost then try to just keep them now.

>You complain about communism yet are happy with the government subsidizing unnecessary jobs and construction projects, propping up industries that would otherwise die, and using tools like minimum parking requirements and building new roads to do it.

A few public works projects are pretty far from fu*ing Communism. Good god what the hell passes for "education" these days if you can even consider yourself rational in making such a casual comparison.

Hostile much? Jeez. Grab a coffee dude.

> I grew up in the 70's with constant shrieking about "peak oil" and how we are all doomed.

Well long-term we'll definitely run out of easy to get oil and have to create synthetics of some sort. But the oil is irrelevant. The infrastructure itself is the problem - designed for cars such that cars become necessary for people to function. That's a problem. It's not only a problem simply from an overall resource usage perspective or from a maintenance perspective, but it adversely affects those who are poor or maybe can't drive. The entire society is built such that you have to go buy a car in order to function. I don't see the reason or point in that. Walk down the street. Americans are fat asses anyway.

> A 2,000 pound machine may be too expensive for you. Luckily it's not for me

Very selfish attitude. If you want to buy a car that's fine - I'm suggesting we stop relying on it like some sort of prosthetic. For what it's worth my wife and I have a car. We actually recently sold one and condensed down to two so we can do some other things instead. But idk maybe I'm just too poor.

> And what makes this a practical reality despite your being convinced it's impossible? Capitalism. ...

No idea where you're going with this rant. Maybe you think I'm attacking capitalism? That's silly. I'm a big time free-market capitalist. I love it. I hate communists, actually - at least as government policy.

> A few public works projects are pretty far from fuing Communism.

You missed the point (and from your apparent attitude here maybe that's intentional) - but it wasn't to suggest that public works are communism, it's to suggest that public policy* is at play here - not free-market capitalism. It's public policy that allocates money for roads, or creates zoning rules (government - not the market). So to suggest that building differently or more thoughtfully is communism but people driving cars around on public roads is capitalism is, well, tastefully ironic.

Me saying "we shouldn't have as many cars, stop building dumb roads" isn't any more communist than you say "we need more roads and I have 3 cars". I really don't know where this communism stuff is coming from.

I understand your viewpoint but you dont understand mine.And you probably never will.It's not your fault and I wont call you out on arrogance or ignorance or anything like that.It's impossible to re-live the experience.

You see I was born to an Eastern European country to a poor family.It was not anything like the US centric media portrays it to be.Definitely not africa or super exaggerated levels of poverty.

But we have not had the means to acquire wealth.My family did not have the opportunity to do so.My parents nor my grandparents or my grand-grand parents had that opportunity.

You on the other hand were born to a country with excess.Excess abundance of resources and wealth.

You have seen that excess yourself and it tainted you.It made you realize that you could live more sustainably.

You see I was born to such country were "sustainable" was the default mode of living.

You cant demand austerity from your experience of excess.

I don't understand your argument. I grew up and realized the United States was doing something really dumb, but since I grew up in that environment I can't want things to be different?

You're having a strong reaction to this concept of sustainability. Austerity will come one way or another. Probably better to design and plan for it and build nice neighborhoods where you are not dependent on a large expense than not.

Anyway, what's so austere about walking to the grocery store nearby instead of driving a mile down the road? Why build so that you have to drive a car instead of making it optional?

Btw it would be awesome to buy you a beer if we ever met - nothing personal here. :)

Nah you can want things to be different but the change can come at much higher cost than you can imagine.I am often thinking about this sustainable way of living and I always come to conclusion that we cant.

I am not sure how possible it is to retrofit adequate infrastructure into american cities but even then you will inevitably have to raise standards.Most people that want to stay in suburbs prefer it because of ... well a lot of reasons.

Apartment dwellers usually have an issue with noise coming from their neighbors and there does not seem to be a solution to this problem without raising costs astronomically.

I am not sure austerity will come...at least not for you ;-) in the US or other "resource rich" anglo countries.

>Anyway, what's so austere about walking to the grocery store nearby instead of driving a mile down the road? Why build so that you have to drive a car instead of making it optional?

I dont like to drive. I own a cheap car and use it to get from point A to point B in reasonable time.It gives me freedom no public transport can. I just dont trust the government to be there for me (it never was and I dont think it ever will be).

I'd rather support technical solution than ideological.

>Btw it would be awesome to buy you a beer if we ever met - nothing personal here. :)

I would gladly take it. I am a huge beer nerd.

I can literally call a cab in the middle of the night and be at your parents' house in 30 minutes. That doesn't mean the average person needs to (or should) own a car.

Surely there is some compromise.

Diesel is far worse than petrol for local pollution for example. So let's ban diesel in the city, then as electric becomes more viable, we can finally ban petrol as well.

We shouldn't have sympathy for things that actively harm people's health. Society shouldn't favor an individual over the harm they do to many more people. A white diesel van driving around all day, idling in front of schools and parks, has significant negative impact on others.

It's similar to how coal fueled power plants used to exist in the middle of dense cities. Coal worker unions objected to them being closed down, but the health interests of millions of residents fortunately prevailed in most cases.

> We shouldn't have sympathy for things that actively harm people's health.

This is besides the point and no-one has suggested that.

Politically, economically, and socially, we cannot take livelihoods away from people. If ICE vehicles are no longer acceptable then there has to be a viable alternative for everyone, not only for city-dwellers or people who don't need cars/vans.

I mentioned the yellow vests in France because the protests were triggered by exactly this lack of consideration for people who live outside of central Paris: The government wanted to slap extra taxes on petrol and diesel (which are already heavily taxed) without any way around them for people who currently have no choice.

Some countries, e.g. the UK, have already said they'll ban new ICE vehicles from 2030, so we're hopefully going to see a drastic change in manufacturers' offering but governments have also to plan and ensure that affordable alternatives hit the market by then in order to avoid both economic disruption and social unrest (which both come with a significant political price).

That's indeed the compromise I suggested in my previous comment.

What else can be done?

In order to reach climate change targets we must reduce car dependency. How can we do this without nudging people away from cars? And how can we nudge them without taxes?

When people live miles from supermarkets and offices and public transport is not a viable option, which is actually the case for most people outside large cities (and even for some large cities), we are not going to be able to nudge people away from cars, this is simply not realistic. It's not realistic either to suggest that we can just rebuild everything so that cars aren't needed. We can try to build so that car are less needed but that's a very slow process.

The only realistic option is to have affordable EVs ASAP that fit all needs because people aren't giving up cars. With the current policy schedule we have about 10 years for this to happen.

Of course, EVs have their own issues, both environmentally and in term of impact on electricity grids, so this is not that simple, either.

How do you think we got to this state? It didn't happen overnight. Society used to be orientated around walkable neighbours. Sprawl is a relatively recent development and a product of auto-mobilism. I don't think it would be impossible to walk things back.

This started during the industrial revolution when factories started to need a large workforce and then it continued with offices that also require a large workforce.

When people could not really commute you had company towns so that people could live right next to work, and also be controlled by their employer.

I don't think people want to live in company housing, surrounded by company employees, they also tend to change jobs more often, with both spouses working (so likely 2 different employers).

"Auto-mobilism" is not going anywhere as long as this is the case and I don't see any indication that it is changing. Remote work can help reduce the need for commuting but it won't make it disappear.

You are assuming that commutes are only possible by private car. Sure some of them are, but it would be preferable if commutes were by foot, bike, train, bus... and private car a distant last. This has been achieved in a few places in the world, most of them in Europe.

You get the outcomes you build for, when it comes to transport infrastructure.

I don't assume anything.

I have explained that in practice it's not possible for people to live within walking distance from their work. Cycling extends the range but it's still not enough, and not always practical. Public transport is not always viable either because not practical and economical, and people actually don't like to have to rely on public transport for everything unless perhaps (and again) when they live in the centre of large cities.

All of this holds true including in Europe.

> people actually don't like to have to rely on public transport for everything

I'm not advocating complete removal of private cars, but people need to be able to build daily routines that do not require them.

For example, you might live in a village or suburban town, walk to the station and get the train to nearest city where you walk to work. You still have a car for weekends and random errands.

Even within a car dependent lifestyle, car usage can be reduced. This was possible with old style "high streets" where you could drive there, park once, visit a number of shops and businesses then drive home. Now, you travel between a few big box stores much further out of town.

> Diesel is far worse than petrol for local pollution for example. So let's ban diesel in the city, then as electric becomes more viable, we can finally ban petrol as well.

This is less true than it used to be unfortunately. Most manufacturers have moved to Gasoline Direct Injection engines for efficiency reasons, but GDI engines produce a lot more particulates than regular gasoline engines, although not quite as many as diesel.

Title is a bit misleading:

"Almost two-thirds of Europe’s city dwellers support a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030, according to a new YouGov poll."

I imagine electric vehicles are better suited to European cities than most places thanks to higher population density, so electric vans and the like will be just fine in the vast majority of cases.

From a quick search the 2018 Nissan e-NV200 has a range of 174 miles which I would hazard guess is more than enough range for most tradesmen daily runs (for European Geography, the range is probably not distance friendly for US/Canada sort of scenario).

European here.

Owning a car means freedom.Public transport is slavery. Being at the mercy of the government was highlighted during this pandemic when governments enforced rules to limit mobility.

I'd rather sit in traffic not wearing FFP2 and be able to visit my parents in another city whenever I want than rely on ineffective and unreliable public transport.

It's interesting because you have people in the US that keep touting the public transit system in Europe. What reliability challenges have you seen?

1) Strikes

These are in some countries more common than you can imagine

2) Safety and Comfort

Full of smelly,weird people

3) Reliability

Sitting in a car in winter/hot summer during a car accident is much more enjoyable experience than waiting outside in the cold/hot until they fix the train/bus.

4) Does not go where I want to go / When I want to go

Public transport is usually useless at night or during public holidays.

5) Subject to stupid politics

For example during this pandemic in my country they demand FFP2 and having COVID-19 test.It's ridiculous.Uncomfortable and expensive. None of that bullshit when you own a car.

6) Useless for spontaneous leisure activities

I can take the car to go for a short trip / weekend getaway without much planning.It's fast and easy to do. If I had to use public transport I would need to plan for it and could not go / leave whenever.