My problem with the UK model is that it requires mass surveillance of the population. My preferred solution is to make better electric cars. We don't force people to use cars instead of horses, after all.
I absolutely agree with your preference for developing better EVs in greater numbers. We do need serious improvements in car charging infrastructure, including in apartment parking. Yes, the UK direction requires more surveillance. They have already bought off on a LOT more surveillance than we have. If their pollution control were implemented here, I think we would implement it such that records of behavior are not maintained. Such a system doesn't rely on recording behavior - only on identifying entrance of vehicles that are outside the pollution limits and issuing charges. We do the same with intersection surveillance - we surveil for breaking laws and issue tickets for that, but we don't record where cars go.
I'm not in favour of intersection surveillance either. I tend to think all money spent on speeding cameras should be spent on physical police instead. Cameras are not a huge problem at the moment because it takes a lot of expensive labour to monitor them. The AI future is going to change this pretty soon, letting the state automatically fine you for all sorts of things. It's near absolute power. And absolute power corrupts. Why? To marginally reduce speeding rates? There are other methods that aren't nearly as invasive or totalitarian. I would rather a complete, immediate ban on ICE vehicles than the UK direction. We are moving toward our own brave new world at an accelerating rate. Look at Shanghai for a preview of the shape of things to come. The future of totalitarianism is not putting people against the wall, it's mass surveillance and propaganda. We should take a stand against it while it's still possible to prevent.
I don't understand the "absolute power" idea. The fines one gets from surveillance cameras has to come with actual evidence, including photography. I'm not sure I see the difference that comes with paying for an officer to be present. We also have tickets issued by air traffic surveillance. I'm definitely in favor of more officers, which has to include better training and better compensation for the officers. There is certainly reason to be concerned about AI in general, but drawing lines against security surveillance isn't an easy question, I think. I'm not very in favor of putting up limits to law enforcement without there being serious reasons. I don't
???? They dont. Their air quality is much better and have no need to conform to the poorer air quality of most major cities.
I support this in principle and theory, but not how it is inevitably going to be applied. It makes sense for some very high-density areas like around London, maybe the centers of several other big cities. But it is going to be ridiculous with many smaller cities trying to implement the policy, basically just trying to punish people who do not drive the right cars and make their life more difficult.
CAFE standards apply to manufacturers. So, they are in effect throughout the USA. Remember that I pointed to UK, as they manage to have different emissions standards for high density locations where the locals want it. As I remember, you didn't like that idea for some reason.
No, it is trivially easy for places that are fine with the pollution they have. UK allows cities to make up their own minds. (As I understand it.) So, today there ARE such standards in London, but NOT in Manchester. Manchester is considering to implement the UK system for their city.
