Think The Big 2.8 have it rough with new federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards? The ex-chairman of Shell Oil is calling for the European Union to ban all cars that get less than 35mpg. Pistonheads reports that Sir Mark Moody-Stuart told the BBC that "nobody needs a car that does 10-15mpg." An Aston is OK, "but only if it did 50 – 60mpg." Sir Mark doesn't agree that increasing road and fuel taxes is a better way level the proverbial playing field; the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to pay their way out of their responsibility for climate change. Sir Mark did relent a bit on the subject of older cars. Under his "If I ruled the world" plan, sub-35 mpg motors would be allowed to "die off" as they're replaced by newer high-mileage vehicles. And if you think Sir Mark is just another sherry-addled Lord, keep in mind that the EU in general, the UK in specific and London in particular are doing everything they can to tax low mileage cars off the roads. Sir Mark's ban is simply the logical progression of an existing policy.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I’m very glad I don’t live there. Being able to see Top Gear live isn’t worth the rest of the crap you have to put up with.
I love the Shell commercial with all the Ferrari F1 cars racing around and transforming into the next progressive car. Especially the part where they are in Brazil at the beach, and you can hear the engine way off, and everyone stops to look…
Back on topic…I’m not surprised, really. I don’t think anyone hates cars more than the Europeans. Sad, really, considering the tradition.
I don’t think anyone hates cars more than the Europeans. Sad, really, considering the tradition.
a bit of a generalization there, no? just because they don’t always like the same cars yanks like, well, that doesn’t mean they hate them. and who do you think produces all those wonderful high-end cars that people lust for in the u.s. – you know, the bmws, mercedes and porches.
One of the pitfalls of freedom is that we are free to be irrational. No matter what kind of energy source we have today, be it oil, coal, natural gas or uranium – all will run out either in 100 years or 400 years. Given that, is it truly rational to burn coal so that Tokyo and NYC and Vegas can have those enormous light shows all night long? Is it rational to buy cars that get 10mpg just because we have the money? Rationality does not mean we hate cars. Perhaps the Europeans value conservation of limited, exhaustible resources over driving really hot cars?
I bet in Sir Moody-Stuart’s fleet of private vehicles, he doesn’t even own a 35 mpg car, along with that he lives in a big house (or two or three) and takes plenty of vacations on a private jet. It’s okay for him to live a privileged life, but not anyone outside of his class. I hate that elitist attitude as they wag their finger at how the little guy lives his life and what he drives.
Thankfully I drive a Jeep that averages 14 mpg!
I’m in sympathy with the idea of such a ban, but as–was it Virtual Insanity?–said in response to a different news item, this could backfire, with people hanging onto their guzzlers longer than they otherwise would. And also, as I’ve said before, there are plenty of other sources of greenhouse gases that are on par with, or worse than cars–big, poorly insulated houses, livestock… The market could do a much better job of reducing carbon emissions through the agency of a carbon tax. So, in reality, the ban is probably a stupid idea, since it might reassure people that something is being done about greenhouse emissions, when in reality that something wouldn’t be nearly as effective as a carbon tax.
In fact, while I’ve been a supporter of CAFE, I may have to rethink that. Why? Because CAFE lulls the general public into thinking something effective is being done about greenhouse emissions when in fact, CAFE is relatively ineffective compared to a carbon tax.
Why is wanting to preserve both energy and the environment for future generations considered “hating cars”. With the right research and technology I’m sure we could build a 35mpg car that is also fun to drive.
And to all those who equate driving a 14mpg SUV with “freedom” why not ask yourself the reverse question – “why do you hate future generations so much?”.
Gee, I wonder if his opinion would be different if he was still the Shell CEO.
I don’t think anyone hates cars more than the Europeans. Sad, really, considering the tradition.
a bit of a generalization there, no? just because they don’t always like the same cars yanks like, well, that doesn’t mean they hate them. and who do you think produces all those wonderful high-end cars that people lust for in the u.s. – you know, the bmws, mercedes and porches.
Not to mention that many Europeans love cheap thrills, i.e. driving the heck out of a compact B-class car as opposed to wallow in the middle lane of a highway, drinking a big gulp with one hand and texting on a cellphone with the other.
Let’s not generalize…many Europeans think Americans can’t drive and don’t like driving anyway, and this is just as incorrect as believing Europeans don’t like cars.
Even Ferrari has decided to go with lower HP but much higher efficiency. I think it’s a great decision, as they will come up with lighter, slicker cars that will remain just as iconic, in phase with the times.
I don’t think anyone hates cars more than the Europeans. Sad, really, considering the tradition.
Sweet Jesus, this is the same line of thinking that says anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy hates America and loves terrorists.
Hypothetically suggesting a ban on cars that get less than 35 mpg doesn’t equal a hatred of all cars.
Why is wanting to preserve both energy and the environment for future generations considered “hating cars”.
I dunno, maybe it has to do with the majority of legislation enacted and proposed that targets automobiles while ignoring all other sources of greenhouse gases.
You know, if you don’t own a car, and don’t think you will ever really need or want one, you are easy prey for the anti-car movement.
Unfortunately, there are lots of those people living in Europe. There are also a lot of people who only occasionally use a car that think anyone who needs/wants a car more than them should sacrifice on their behalf.
I have a bit of a problem with Sir Idiot’s strategy to get rid of “guzzlers”. Heard of a little place called Cuba? They are STILL driving fifties detroit cars down there. Ban bigger cars, and people who want them will just keep them on the road forever. Sorry champ. Could it be your next plan is to then ban their parts supply? And when that fails, you will just come for their cars I suppose. With guns?
Hey it might work, if you disarmed the population.
Hahahaha goodness I love that what people regard as typical American attitudes have come out in full throttle in just 13 comments. Seriously, that cracks me up.
Jon Paul, BuckD and etc I agree with what you’re saying guys… I get you.
That being said, as an American, I share the sentiment that individual liberty is sacred… even if it leads to people doing irrational stupid things with that liberty. Thus, my support for a ban of gas-guzzling vehicles is lukewarm at best.
(U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! Ha! Sorry… couldn’t resist.)
Lastly, I wouldn’t be so dismissive of European policies… as Americans we may find them restrictive but they are really quite progressive. Notice that the average European has a higher standard of living and is happier than the average American yet their rate of consumption is far far less. They’re onto something there no?
Landcrusher,
I think Cuba is the wrong example. It’s a very special case. They’ve kept all those ’50s cacheros (Cuban term of endearment that literally translates to jalopies) because it was that or Ladas and their ilk after US imports ended cold turkey in ’59. It has almost nothing to do with size, although there is a differential there, too. In terms of cachet, the cacheros have it, the Ladas don’t.
Moreover, for most Cubans, buying a new car is beyond the budget, and there aren’t too many used cars for sale. A lot of Cubans own cars only because a cachero got handed down.
But I do agree that if buying big new cars is banned, a lot of people will keep the old ones going. But not with the zeal that Cubans keep the cacheros going. (Frankly, I worry that if we ever resume trade with Cuba, most of the cacheros will get bought up and exported.)
And as I said before, I think the ban is stupid, at least unless there’s a general carbon tax first. So, policywise for the EU, I’m probably in agreement with Landcrusher.
If more Euros than Americans hate cars, its because they are much more crowded, and at the same time have better public transit. If we get that crowded, which we will unless the govt institutes a population stabilization policy, we’ll probably have a lot more people hating cars, but we’ll never be able to have the quality public transit that exists in Europe, outside of Manhattan and maybe a few other cities. Most of the US population explosion is due to mass immigration. We’re growing by roughly the equivalent of four New Jerseys a decade.
David,
Your points about Cuba are true, but as you say, it is proof that people can keep cars going for a long time. Governments love to ignore, or pretend to ignore things like that when they make laws to try to solve problems. If they did that ban in the US today, my Landcruiser would start appreciating tomorrow. It would likely be kept running for another 100 years unless the government did something to force it out of it’s owner’s hands.
I agree with your next post completely. It’s similar to what I said. It came to mind that it’s like the whole NIMBY thing. The less you need or want a car, the more you are likely to go along with anti car policies. Today my car, tomorrow your art, coffee, literature, or whatever small luxury you like (toilet paper). The anti-car people should remember that. They like to think they are non-conformists, but in reality they are pushing a conform or die philosophy.
oh dear…he’s been sniffing a bit too much of his own product….
Ever wonder why a nice set of golf clubs costs $1500? why a nice bicycle costs $1500? why a nice pair of skis and poles costs $1500? why a nice camera costs $1500? There is a certain amount of money in an average budget for recreation and unnecessary spending. If you take away gas guzzlers, people will spend the same fuel money wasting energy elsewhere–maybe bringing back joyriding and sunday drives. just for fun, i hope that forcing people into fuel-efficient cars leads to cheaper driving and therefore more people on the roads. i hope everyone hoping for this kind of regulation chokes in traffic.
I drive a fuel-efficient sub compact hatch (tiny turbo four)…and i burn 100 gallons of gas a month. people have complimented me on my environmentally-friendly choice of vehicle while berating the short-commute hummer owner burning 50 gallons a month. who needs the wrist-slap here?
Pick up your regulations, take your busybody friends, and get the heck out of government.
Landcrusher,
The Cubans do an amazing job keeping those cars running. There is one mechanic in Cuba who specializes in making rings for I forget which model ’50s American car. I recently saw an NPR documentary (someone loaned it to me) from the early ’00s. Its like Brigadoon. A living museum.
David
Jeremy Clarkson did a Motorworld episode on Cuba in the early 1990s. I doubt anyone will try to import those museum pieces. They are sometimes BEYOND worn out (not all of them I’m sure).
They showed one family making a new rear fender for an late 40s/early 50s car from the roof of a Caddy by beating it out on the curb! Looked like it fit pretty well too.
I can only imagine how bad those cars must be now 15 years after that Motorworld episode.
I agree with the poster above, take away the gas guzzlers and people will find new ways to pollute or spend their cash. I am a VW Cabrio daily driver and feel certain that if the majority of cars were sub-compacts like mine, we’d be driving faster or further and consuming just as much fuel. Whatever the truth I would welcome more small cars on the roads though.