Watching Panorama the other day, there was a report about the electric car, which - if successful - should cut carbon emissions immensely. In principle, it sounds like a good idea. The government is advocating this, and the report looked into the poor facilities available for owners of the electric car. Local councils don't have the recharge points needed (not enough, or none at all in many cases). On top of this, the electric car can't travel long distances on full charge - something that needs to be worked on before the scheme can become commercially viable.But if the electric car is deemed the saviour to our carbon emissions dilemma, surely the effect would be cancelled out by the huge increase in the amount of electricity the nation would be using? I mean, there's only so much CO2 reduction possible with this 'solution'. And the electricity companies (as well as increasing the cost of supplying electricity) try and lure us to give them business by telling us they are the best in terms of carbon emissions created by their input into the national grid. So, if we all switched electric companies to the lowest CO2 producer, and exchanged our cars for the electric car, would it really get us anywhere?
This is where I propose my contribution to reducing carbon emissions: public transport. As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the taxes we pay on fuel and in our air fares are supposedly meant to be pumped into 
improving the public transport system (rail and bus in particular). Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. In some ways I'm in a better position to judge on this, having experienced the efficiency of the French rail network. As well as being heavily subsidised by the French government, there are rarely any huge disruptions to timetables - except when they go on strike, but that's a whole different ball game. Forgetting the subsidy that our government could potentially provide (they may do already, I haven't looked into it enough to know if they do or not), if the extra taxes we as a nation are paying are going where they are supposedly intended to, surely we should have seen a vast improvement by now? Instead, we see rising train fares resulting in no chance of people leaving the car at home and travelling or commuting by train. Maybe this is where the subsidy could come in (if it doesn't already...) to try and influence the population of workers and travellers to abandon cars and planes in favour of trains and buses.
improving the public transport system (rail and bus in particular). Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. In some ways I'm in a better position to judge on this, having experienced the efficiency of the French rail network. As well as being heavily subsidised by the French government, there are rarely any huge disruptions to timetables - except when they go on strike, but that's a whole different ball game. Forgetting the subsidy that our government could potentially provide (they may do already, I haven't looked into it enough to know if they do or not), if the extra taxes we as a nation are paying are going where they are supposedly intended to, surely we should have seen a vast improvement by now? Instead, we see rising train fares resulting in no chance of people leaving the car at home and travelling or commuting by train. Maybe this is where the subsidy could come in (if it doesn't already...) to try and influence the population of workers and travellers to abandon cars and planes in favour of trains and buses.Do you agree with me? Am I looking at this from an angle which has already been exhausted? Or am I being biased because I've just bought a car and have the prospect of high petrol prices and traffic jams ahead of me? If I could wholeheartedly depend on the public transport system, I probably wouldn't have bothered with my new car. But given my experience particularly with the trains in this country, I refuse to take the risk of arriving at school an hour late because the bus was late. At least this way, I will be in control of my punctuality.
