But since you ask:

Cars are not a subject but an object, a tool to me.

"Suspecting" that I "dislike" this tool does not sound like a coherent argument to me.

Yes, I hate cars when being outside them, because they are a major obstruction and source of pollution, noise and overshooting environmental damage.

I hate their artifical abundance, for which I am forced to pay.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the hypothetical banana car and why you care about my feelings.

Seems like an ideological argument to me.

Do EVs grow on trees?

I agree that global warming is only the tip of the iceberg of the damage we do.

And yes, EVs are marginally better for the nearby environment compared to CEVs. They don't solve the larger problem though and they still impose huge resource costs.

Subsidizing EVs (again) is putting more fuel into the fire.

In my country, there are and were already so many subsidies and benefits for buying a new car, it isn't funny anymore.

It's always being justified by the newer cars ostensively being better for the environment.

Even before there were affordable EVs, the government paid people bonuses to buy a new car and trash/sell the previous one with this justification.

As a person with a license, but without a car: this is disgusting and reminds me of 1984. One of the many subsidies for buying cars in Germany was called "Umweltprämie" (environment bonus). As early as 2009.

It was basically a tax-funded bonus for trashing and buying cars to fund the industry.

That being said, cars of course are only one particularly obvious example of insane policies.

Rising average weight of cars around proofs that people do not care about saving environment. Safety first?

But I wouldn't blame consumers for buying what manufacturers make. Individual never has significant impact on environment as corporations does.

So first we need to stop with hypocrisy to make people believe in narration of helping our future.

How you can manage to construe that as a bad thing is baffling.

To use your analogy it's like attacking someone who wants to stop the arsonist while the firefighters do their job instead of building a new water reservoir.

Pure, unadulterated feel-good-ism.

I'm not going to say either of the arguments in your two posts are wrong (or right), but they're not terribly internally self consistent.

(Full disclosure, I ride a motorcycle that uses more fuel than a friend's late model Honda Jazz, so I'm not much of a tree-hugging greenie - but I certainly don't find it "despicable" that people who choose to buy "zero-emission" cars get a big subsidy because the government wants to encourage both the consumers and the industry who build them. If the governemnt decided there was a public health reason to subsidize "outdoor activity", would your boat and dirtbike ownership suddenly make _you_ "despicable"?)

Manufacturing cars requires a tremendous amount of energy and natural resources. Everything we manufacture and consume punishes the earth.

Myself, I've decided to eschew driving. Our perceived dependence on automobiles is insane. The roads are insane. No car is going to make me cool. I want no part of it.

That also doesn’t address the reasoning behind this decision: cars are a major health risk and entail significant quality of life reduction. Taxing negative externalities is a textbook way to shrink them, and your sunk cost in car ownership doesn’t have any effect of the costs to the communities you drive through.

Even so, the goal shouldn't be fewer cars but less miles driven.

The kind of antagonistic approach you prescribe rarely leads to good policy.

What is safest. Regulating new cars to expensive safety standards, and make them unaffordable for the masses or being more conservative about such standards and allow affordable cars to exist?

European govermentes have chosen the first option. In the meantime, the car average age keep increasing. Much safer, indeed.

The end goal is to have much less cars on the road, not conspiracy, but an actual statement. And of course, the cars to get rid of are not those of the wealthy.

Also, even Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling can lead to other massive negative externalities by significantly increasing the cost of new cars (see my link above). Then consumers are less likely to purchase newer cars that, all else being equal, tend to be safer. So we have more deaths.

So, again, even if you're right about these "massive negative externalities," presumably meaning environmental effects, does that justify killing your fellow citizens by dooming the less affluent to drive older, less-safe cars?

Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city).

EDIT: typos

Also we talk about lack of parking places at cities and again... We produce bigger cars.

Obviously its just a game for some.