That is Horrid. Sod the little cars bring out more supercars!

First…

I don’t see the point of this car, what can lotus think of that toyota and smart haven’t already? They may as well just improve the existing cars, or make some high performance electric elise

Why electric. Lotus why…?

Have you heard that aston martin are planning to sell a revamped toyota iq as an aston martin city car!?!? Have all the sports car firms gone mad!? We love them because they make amazing sports cars that everybody wants, so stop wasting your time with city cars and do what you do best!!

This can be a good car for it being RWD, and given the a petrol with a proper manual box. 660cc with roughly 50 – 60hp. The biggest problem for me with these cars is that why not come up with a cleverer packaging idea lowering the roof line down. Use less material by slimming the body of the car rather than make it look like a Van ovened. Think smart roadster but with better looks and a manual so that it makes it more exciting, or may be an Ariel Atom with some bodywork.

if they can make a profit out of it, then why shouldn’t they make the little car? the more money they can invest in developping new sportcars!

They’ll never bring that thing out, is only to draw attension to themselfs because is so ugly.
It looks like a CONSTIPATED HAMSTER!!!

Guys, relax. I do believe Mr. Master wrote they will not make it for real, that it is just a design exercise.

Nonetheless, I don’t like it either. To me, the iQ looks better and as agressive as a small city car can be. If the car makers want to improve on the iQ, they need to make a city car that’s cheaper. There’s not many iQ’s on the road because it’s so expensive.

As for that mini-Aston (Cygnet), it will only be available to people already owning an Aston, so it will be quite exclusive. And apart from looking good (you know it will), it’s also a clever way to meet average carbon-emission demands that will be imposed on car makers.

to me, electric cars is like what diesel is to Clarkson. only much much much worse. and Hybrid is somewhere below electric.

So….
Lotus are making a golfcart with a cabin?

Sod the car haven’t you noticed the Lotus head of design has the surname Car?! He was clearly made for the job. Now get back to work Mr. Car on the fast, light, super handling stuff.

I thought this was a design idea for Gordon Murray’s T25 microcar. Either way, I think it’s not so bad. Just remember that it’s not actually a Lotus, it wad just designed by their top design guy. So it’s the Russel Car City, er, car. The car by Car. The Russel cityCar.

Anyway, aesthetics is just one aspect of product design. The inner workings are the real genius, at least in this case. Cheap to build, easily adaptable and transportable, and cheap to buy.
But the best bit about it to my mind is that this would be a great platform for designers and modifiers alike because of that flexible chassis. You could have a city car, or a 1-seater flyweight MR electric supercar in the style of an Exige. Or a KTM X-Bow. Or a 21st Century take on the fantastically silly Suzuki MightyBoy (Google it). Oh, the possibilities…

People are crying “more supercars please!” yet refuse to buy them. You can’t expect them to churn out new ones and lose billions per design. That’s just immature of you.

Anyway, back to the point. I’m wondering if all car manufacturers secretly know that city cars are hot little cash cows. The Toyota IQ and Smart ForTwo have sold unbelievably well. Problem is, they also know that there’s almost no way of making an attractive city car. Combining practicality with the least amount of space humanly possible whilst still expecting at least two people to get in and out of it comfortably… even Lotus ended up reinventing the cardboard box.

Further to my point – maybe that could make for a good challenge next series? To see if the three presenters could make an existing city car good?

this car looks alright for a city car but nowhere near good enough for a lotus. and what is it with decent British car firms making shitty eco-boxes, first aston martin, now lotus what next a caterham super mini

Good grief. The car design reminds me of a Tata Nano. Please enough with the econo-box.

God in heaven, what is this? Lotus are a brand that makes sports cars and track day cars, and they all smell of glue even though they are handmade, imagine what this thing would smell like if it went into production

I wouldn’t even want to call it a Lotus…

stick the v6 from the ervora in it, take out the back seats, make it rear drive, beef up the wheel arches and tyres and it would still be rubbish.

You are all missing the point. Look at the number plate, it says Lotus Engineering, who work with every other manufacturer in the world. They can design and build this for someone else and as the article states, it is not a Lotus Car. A well written article on this appeared months ago on ae-plus.com. Makes interesting reading, particularly the battery setup.

Tom, thanx for pointing out “well written”… as for the plebs yelling SUPERCARRRRR.. get a life…
This is a cleverly designed clever little car and i truley hope it makes it to production. I’m sure, like the smart did, this too will catch on..Mikeado is right, the possibilities are endless and though the runaround would be the most common alternative the possibility of a variation might bring new, perhaps even radical ideas to us, the consumers. have a look at the smart brabus roadster..twin turbo, querky looks,f1 style 6 speed sequential gearbox, what a fun little car for shopping !!!

I’m over here in the states, and I have seen a few of these “gee-whizzes”. Not only are they hard on the eyes, there doesn’t seem to be enough of anything between the driver and the oversized Land Rover in the next lane. Am I the only one that thinks that’s a bit dangerous? Am I the only one who thinks that safety (not Volvo level safety, but some safety) is being sacrificed on the eco altar?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep this an idea… unlike a certain supercar manufacture.

funnylookinnut, the answer is a resounding yes. In the Videos section of this site and on YouTube, there are G-Wiz crash test vids to chill your soul. There are no positives to having a G-Wiz. None at all.

I see Lotus recieved the latest Pokemon game for the DS . . . Please dont get any more “ideas” and tell Aston to stop aswell !

The worrying thing is that Lotus are owned Proton. And aren’t their cars the perfect example of automotive brilliance?

lotus are crazy.i think the person who thought of this car sould be sacked by me a 10 year old

i think it looks cool and it is a change. at least you cant fit golf clups in it!!!

Doesn’t look very exciting, at least that picture doesn’t. Would take the IQ (If i had to choose a town car) in a heartbeat.

The idea of the sports car compnay, such as Lotus making a small city car is not a bad idea, but instead of making the electric thing, which is just stupid, we already have G Wizzes, they should make a ‘hot hatchback’. considering that they already have a lot of experience making small fast cars, Elise, Elan, Europa ect, the outcome could be a really good car, if they made it a fast hatchback rather than a crappy electric thing.

oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

muito

This is one very, very clever design exercise for a four seater. Interesting to know what a two seater could look like

I think people on here should stop moaning about Sports car companies making small raod cars or city cars. Yes, they make amazing sports cars, but not everybody can afford them, and I’m guessing not everyone on here can. Car companies have to think of profit first then performance.

If it doesn’t make money, then it doesn’t make sense. And city cars make money, so they will make sense.

Well,in my opinion, that whole “Oh Noe, it’s no Supercar from Lotus”-Bullshit,is pretty nonsense.Selling 250 supercars, makes less money ,than selling 25 000 city cars. Plus,making more cars,means keeping many people busy too.(jobs)
If its necessary to make some money, a smart City-car makes absolute sense.because you build it with less or cheaper material(doesn t have to work at high-speed car chases,if average speed in a city is 21 mph.) what is essential, is clever interior design,(save room for as many passengers as possible,without sacrifying boot-space) and exterior design.(gotta look pretty, if you want to sell some of them).
What bothers me, is that whole “we want it to be electric” stuff.A frugal petrol engine for that car wouldn’t hurt.Its not a Performance-car.(well, maybe a two seater, with a coupe- like roofline could be) but that’s not the point.
The point is, i have never seen a parking lot with an electric plug, in a city. and no one will stay half an hour or even longer(read:hours),on a gas station, just to refill his car.Every Garage would need an”entertainment Lounge” to keep me there for such a long time.Plus, you d have to calculate this time into your commuting plans. simply unpractical. if you forget to refill your petrol car, its no biggie, in half an hour, you got at least enough petrol to get to the next garage.
If you forget to plug your G-whizz, you are doomed to death,without even sitting in it.All you can do, is call for a lorry, to transport it to the next compatible plug.And if you gotta pay for that, you pay for its congestion charge as well. Electric cars will be a viable option, if they can match a petrol car in range, and be refueled within 10 minutes, until then, I’ll pass on that option.

But if it had a petrol engine, i d buy that car, it looks nice, for what it is.Nice job, Lotus

Comment #12 is absolutely spot on. This concept looks awful – however its packaging is what it’s all about. Remember, this is for an article in Automotive Engineer. The best thing is it would be adaptable. So could people please stop with the ‘what’s the world coming to’ whining?

Have you met Russell Carr??? He’s the less talented brother of Alan Carr. No sense – what a load of ball ox

How is this car meant to be flat pack it has a wrap around bumper that would require a fairly serious level investment to pass any EU safety legislation and is at least 600x600x1600mm in volume if thats flat pack ikea might as well start supplying goods assembled. I hate this car – it’s so badly, so hideously missing the point that Lotus should sack this man NOW!!

If you want the best city cars, there’s no other place to look than in Japan with their “Kei” car category.

I would drive it right into a tree

i think it looks great and they’re plan is interesting. Hope they’ll actually build it!

@ comment42, I would do the same but I think the tree would win

Why buy a lotus that you can’t fit in when you can buy a Fiat 500, and if thats not ‘ECO’ Enough than buy the start-stop 500

This is like the new Aston Martin Cygnet car. Also, I agree with Barry (Comment 45)

i own a fiat panda and i think its perfect but any smaller and its a joke and car companies stop wasting time on electric and put the effort into hydrogen.

I dont think Lotus should make it. Coz it will ruin their image for the future cars.

it just looks like a bald man with an angry face.

I honestly didn’t think it was possbile to make a car that was totally unappealing to every human on the planet. Congratulations on proving me wrong there, Lotus

speaking as a car designer, I think it’s rather cute. I’d love for that to come into the market. It’ll show the “greenies” that supercar makers have the potential to build eco friendly city cars. It’ll do the car industry a lot of good.

I think this car is a good idea of what lotus can make but i think they have done it in a way that is unreal. They are just showing us this to tell us what they CAN design but they won’t actually produce this.

I agree with post 31 abot making it a hot-hatch. Cos that’s what Lotus does best: making light, fast sports cars.

BTW, I remember when Lotus pitched a 3-wheeler. I so wanted one.

its kind of like a smart car.the problem is its not like a normal lotus.there is hundereds of different car companys that are making hatchbacks.lotus should stick to coupes and saloons.theres to many hatchback companys now like voltswagen,renault,vauxha ll and many more.

what!? lotus making a SMALL CITY car! that’s like ferrari making a new version of the peel p50!

I believe the formula in building a good small city car is firstly character… it’s the connection – think original VW Bug, Fiat Topolino & 500, Citroen 2CV, Subaru 360 etc.

..soooo, If I say “city car”.. you say 2cv and beetle ?? Get real, it is afterall the 21st century we live in..well most of us..okay ..some of us anyway. City car’s got to be smart.. they’ve got the recepie, modern, funky, eco box.. this car gives off all the right signs for that category.. people will think ahaaa another one of those smart things..take a closer look and it’s actually a Lotus.. how cool is that ?!? The fact that it’s electric just speaks more for it.. plug and play.. we all want it.. give it an 80 mile range and what more does one need ?

..and if some of the tech. from say TESLA might find it’s way to it.. this could be a fun little concept..

assuming they’ll keep the tag under a 100k…

With a factory that has the capability to produce a minimum number of sports-cars, its impractical they would be producing large number of mass-selling cars… requiring an overhaul of an entire factory… but you guys are missing the point here! This is about heritage, class and exclusivity- British nonetheless. If Lotus has to die not being able to sell cars, let it die in piece and dignity. Once it makes a car like this, its no more Lotus… you might as well as rip its badge off and merge the factory with Proton or something- like Chevrolet did. And the reason most succeccful supercar companies- Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Aston Martin – are owned by bigger mother companies. Steady flow of cash and security. And Lotus happens to be owned by Proton. So why not make that a Proton CityCar? Can’t imagine the quality getting any worse than a hand-built, stripped-down, Spartan… something.

Dear Mr Lotus / Designer for lotus

Think of a new idea, fine, but think of a good new idea, no you didnt.
Your cars have not really changed. Elise and exige, yes i like. Europa? Useless
Bring back the lotus 7 and make more sales than caterham, put more power in the evora, say like 400hp, then create an exige like version with 450 and some cutting edge tech and strip it.

Thank me when your selling loads of cars and youve survived the Credit crunch,

yours sincerely

Lloydy

Oh Great ! another smugmobile !Lool.

Why would Lotas make such a hiddious, small, o point of it at all car?

Problems!:Dlool

There is a move towards environmentally-friendly solutions from many car manufacturers, pushed by diminishing oil reserves, climate change, economic situations and a variety of other reasons and excuses. Ultimately, this car and those like it are likely to sell in greater numbers in the future; sticking a Lotus badge on the front may bring it some brand kudos but, as has been pointed out, it need not be a Lotus.
I agree that electric isn’t necessarily the right direction, but whatever powertrain is chosen I hope this is made and that Lotus makes a sizable profit from doing so. The income should help them stay alive as a company. I want to see their next generation of performance cars, even if they make other cars that some find ‘less appealing’.

It looks like an angry pokemon gone bad…

oh no oh no oh no! Woe is the world!

Next jaguar, ferrari and morgans will have a little mini city car rock pod thing!
AAAAAAAAAAAH!

To plebeian… so why did they bring back original theme Fiat 500, Mini and Bug ( which got character right, but the basic mechanicals wrong )… and are now selling quite well

If all the supercar manufacturers are making small city cars, why don’t the likes of Smart & Co. start producing supercars. How about a Mad Smart crossbow with a 3.6 litre V8 anyone?

i drove this car round the track i finish in 1 minute and 48 seconds

you didnt drive the car round the track in 1min 48 .why do people even say that.if it was 1min 48 it would be the slowest car round the track its obviously gonna be faster than the db5 or the overfinch.

lotus should try a hatchback because if its a success then theyll make other hatches.

I liked the aston version of the iQ/fortwo but this is way too far

This car is very ugly, wrong motor and not that good looking.

Interesting answer to the Aston-toyota IQ.
Of course it’s electric, since the Tesla is based on a Lotus… (insert obvious stuff here).
They could label it as “Tesla” though, it would be cool enough, I almost want one with a “from citycar to kart” changeable outfit.

….possibly optioning “007″ multiple number plates and a miniature power plant in a stylish aluminium suitcase with leather finishes colourmatched to the car’s interior, thanks.

what do they call it the lotus fouriq

hold on is it true that this thing is eletric if so what is its top speed and if it can even get to how long will it take and im pretty sure it will be the slowest lotus in the world

“If all the supercar manufacturers are making small city cars, why don’t the likes of Smart & Co. start producing supercars.”

they do exist, but they’re called AMG Mercedes

“im pretty sure it will be the slowest lotus in the world”.
Welll…. IF it’s possible to pull the body off and have a “ktm-atom” kartish configuration, it is highly possible to beat quite many “dressed up” old lotuses.

Seems OK for the folks that are into small cars. But I have another idea for Lotus, if they would intend to make cars of this size; simply try to be different than the competition. Instead of trying hard to maximize utility and economy (fuel) spoils the fun – the competitors are on the spoiling track already. Why not make it a 3-seater with the driver in the middle, and two symbolic seats behind the driver, and have some fun with it. Stick a very small MC-engine at the back with some start/stop-tech. To make it look cool, they could make the V-twin visible through wire mesh. Handeling; who cares? You’re not going to a track anyway.

@jamesmayjr.. non of the cars you mentiones qualifiy as city cars… think about what you’re actually proposing.. that the 500, the “new” bug and mini are in the same category as the smart, the proton, the iq, the aygo, the g-wizz ect.. I think not

and nherogo.. I think we all have ideas for lotus.. the good thing is, they also have ideas for themselves… a high-reving mc engine in a 3 seater sports microcar isn’t gonna cut it.. think pros and cons.. yes different and fun(ny) but insurance, practicality, feminine appeal (lets face it real men don’t drive smarts…) well they all go down the drain don;t you agree ?

That is the most ugly and most stupid car ever.

Why haven’t top gear tested the aero ssc ultimate tt…. it would be unbelievable it’s so powerful and stunningly good-looking!

its a nano sport!

Yea, “Mongoose”. They already do. it’s called the Tesla!

I thought that the last show of the series 2nd August 2009 was the funiest ever with the V W advert, But the ending was heart breaking with the Aston and the Brian Eno music in the background. I’ve shed a few tears!!!!
Please keep it light hearted.

everyone knows that Clarkson is a clown,but how could you guys let him show that before 9:00pm suicide is not funny!

From Tom age 8

83.. you obviousley didn’t get it did you ? ..should’ve gone to bed after the collgate ads.. don’t you have parents ??? jerry, age 12

Alot of talk on sites about last nights show being the last ever!In a country of political correctness gone insane and being told you can and can’t do this(i was asked in a supermarket recently while purchasing a bottle of red wine by a 17 year old check out boy “who was going to drink the wine”!!!myself(male 45 years old) or my 12 year old daughter) i can’t print the reply. Top Gear is a funny light hearted oasis of adventures with comedy/slapstick thrown in,the show is complemented by 3 presenters who have a genuine love for their subject which shows in the energy and emphusiasm they portray .I hear alot about JC having a ego which would put Elvis in the shade, so what .Showing us the best cars in the world needs someone to revel and enjoy these machines and portray them in an exciting manner ,in a over the top ,witty, full of emphusiasm and yes in an egotistically way.
I think all 3 presenters love what they are doing(who wouldn’t,)and it shows in the chemistry between them.Long live TG ,keep the great adventures/challengers coming,there’s to much reality tripe and be the next cr-p factor winner .It always amazes me the humorless straight laced bigots who complain and moan about the content of shows ,who demand shows should be axed because they don’t like them,well there’s alot of people who do like them and we also have a say to (admittedly not for long in this country).If you don’t like something do something which has a instant result TURN IT OVER.

Ugh, how many people need to point out that this ISN’T A LOTUS?!

It was DESIGNED by ONE OF THEIR GUYS. There are NO PLANS to produce it, it was just an EXCERCISE for a MAGAZINE!

Some people are saying: “why bother with electric cars? Why not put all the effort into developing hydrogen-powered cars?’.

Well, i’m no economist but i’d imagine that the government can’t wait to charge electrifying amounts at charging-points and thinking up new electric-car taxes as I type – petrol prices will be remembered fondly in comparison!

To be honnest I am not surprised, I may be wrong but isn’t there a rule coming from brussels that all car manufacures must make low emisions cars to off set the high perfomance ones , hence Smart is still here for Merc, BMW is toying with the Issetta concept (sp?) and the Cygnet by AM, to name but a few. in the next few years i would expect to see a ferrai 500, Bugatti fox , etc etc.

if this works and lotus surrvives bankrupcy again lol then they can make there own engine and a new car for it, which would just be brill!!

Just another small city car! Another smart car? Please don’t do it!

Hmmm… i wonder where they got that idea from (cough cough smart cough cough! )
I don’t know….. it’s not so bad in a cross – eyed upside – down kind of way!

Come on Lotus, don’t give up on Britain – you’re about the only British company that isn’t s*** in the world!

All Top Gear episodes! (Only 99 MB)

http://tiny.cc/topgear99m b

THIS WAS JUST A CONCEPT DESIGN EXERCISE for Automotive Engineer Magazine! IT’S NOT GOING INTO PRODUCTION AS A LOTUS!

Lotus do produce some environmentally friendly cars though. All their production models are very light, have excellent low CO2 emissions and excellent mpg fuel economy. and….

they make the eco-Elise http://tr.im/vq6G and the Exige 270 Tri-Fuel http://tr.im/vq9u and the Exige 265E Biofuel http://tr.im/vqaQ and of course the awesome Tesla Roadster!!!

Oh wow… up there somebody mentioned a “tiny morgan” in horror… now THAT would be so gross it could actually be a great car

Hmm… the great electric ‘red herring’ – how does most of the world generate its electricity? Quite like the car though – hope they do more of these city cars with soft tops, however. Traded in my TT roadster for something much more sensible and the only tiny car with cabrio was Smart. I put all my preconceptions to one side and I now own one – it’s fab! Only 166 bhp less than the audi, but still manages to surprise most at the lights in a 5 yard sprint….

I PREEFER 1 TANK ON V2 TO JEREMMY

Referring to Dave’s comment, I agree that our horrible country has become a politically correct nightmare, but rumours of Top Gear coming to an end!!!!!
Don’t you dare pull it BBC, DONT YOU DARE, DONT YOU DARE, DONT YOU DARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clarification please, end any rumours!!!!!!

ALL THE MONEY THE BBC GETS FROM SELLING TOP GEAR AROUND THE WORLD SHOULD MEAN THEYA RE ABLE TO MAKE MORE EPISODES AND BETTER ONES TOP GEAR PUT IT ON ALL THE TIME

poland factually correct,one eyed jock factually correct,whats the problem with the sad gits,want your kids growing up on pc b**lsh*t tell the truth jezza and f*** em all

I think Dave’s (85) comments are right on!As far as ending TG its been the usual scare mongering and its as safe as houses,come on the most watched show on Sundays TV !!!!!

Can’t Lotus invest in something that will actually please someone other than Arnold Schwarznegger?

u have a nice car

This car would be alright if they had stuck a proper engine in it dare I say maybe a 1.6 petrol or a small diesel, but instead with the electric motor they have made it pointless. It may be a Lotus but this one is going to handle like lead.

Lotus make brilliant cars like the exige and theyve made an absolute pigs ear out of this new little thing. I absolutely hate it! It looks like the rear end of Gordon Brown!

Wasze żarty związane z krajem Polskim sa beznadziejne.A ty Clarkson odwal się od naszego kraju bo nasz kraj jest 100 razy lepszy od waszej nudnej Anglii.Wiecie co róbcie sobie takie glupie żarty z waszego kraju i odwalcie się od Polski. Przyjedzcie do Polski i zobaczcie jaki to piękny kraj.Wasze zarty sa do dupy.

Wiecie co przestańcie robic glupie zarty z Polski.A ty Clarksoon odwal sie od Polski bo to jest duzo piekniesjszy kraj od waszej nudnej Anglii.Rosja ma duzo lepszego Top Geara od was.Przyjedzcie do Polski i zobaczcie jaki to piekny kraj

absolutly rubbish car i think limited boot space i think you would have to maintane a eating diet just to be able to fit in for the time that youre stuck with that thing.plus i don’t think that that thing is accident proof not the structure but for my dignaty aswel cause ill have an ulsur if i was to be seen in that thing by one of my friends. thank you from youre dude from south africa

If Lotus actually put this into production, it will finish the company of completely.

i wat you test new proton exora….i challenge you

why bother as if people will buy it!! the only decent cars in tht area are the smart car and the 500! Lotus are ruining their image by making this….. lets pray they see sense and dont!!

…I’m missing the part about image loss so many of you seem pointing out.

…whatever…

also ’cause I’ve read somewhere that it’s
“A rough idea, rather than anything they actually plan to do.
Cue a collective sigh of relief. Lotus Head of Design Russell Car was asked to improve on the Toyota iQ and Smart ForTwo by a design magazine.” (top gear’s Foreman blog, it means in front of you, folks)

at the end of the day its a good thing cos if lotus did make it they would get a load of money which inturn they could spend on sports cars

I wish companies like Lotus, perhaps even Aston or Bristol, were able to offer a serious, UK built, hot hatch rival so that I don’t have don’t have to look at the usual golf, audi, bmw suspects. That Golf is so costly for a hatch anyway that maybe the up market UK firms could consider the idea. I assume they haven’t already because it’s probably not feasible – just wishful thinking on my part.

So they have made a very small box,with a motor and wheels?Electric too?Where are the super cars?

excuse me but a smart car not good looking enough for you people . . . wake up to reality . . . majority of us who can afford a car can’t afford the supercar that are churning out this days . . . supercars although they are magnificent indeed are out of touch & favor in this day & age coz they are only kept in a garage & only taken out to show that the owner still has a penis . . . fuel efficient cars are the IN thing & not those gas guzzling mastodon that we see around . . . they are just for people with an inferiority complex . . . stop feeding the egos of these idiots coz they are rubbish drivers anyway . . .

i say lotus keep working on a city car . . . they have an association with toyota who provide engines for their present lineup . . . they can produce a samll city car & then put a smaller hybrid engine or a better more fuel efficient petrol engine then let’s see them sell like hot cakes . . .

Ive just been reading TGs new magazine out this month and as other readers will know lotus have just made the evora why not make a electric or diesel evora? instead of this scrap metal.

Horrible. Completely horrible. For a Lotus. Were the designers drunk or were they bored? Prefer Aston Martin Cygnet concept.

What’s Copenhagen?

The capital of Denmark, but you knew that. Commentators are billing the international negotiations in Copenhagen this December (officially known as COP15) as “the most important meeting mankind has ever had”.

COP15 is the culmination of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, and it is supposed to produce a binding global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by enough to prevent ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’ in the climate.

In practice, most countries agree that this means limiting global temperature rise to below 2˚C above pre-industrial temperatures. Above 2 degrees, it is believed that frightening feedback mechanisms in the climate system will kick in, causing warming to accelerate to a runaway pace that humanity will no longer be able to prevent by simply reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. Pretty near every country in the world has signed up to the UNFCCC – which is a good start.

The UNFCCC’s greatest achievement to date has been the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These targets amount to an average of five per cent cuts against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. What happens after 2012 is what must be decided at COP15 in Copenhagen this year.

Many scientists now believe that it is too late to achieve the primary UNFCCC goal. As Professor John Holdren, now President Obama’s science adviser, put it way back in 2006: “We have already passed the stage of dangerous climate change. The task now is to prevent catastrophic climate change.”

Unfortunately the increasingly grim news from the scientific community has not meant that the world’s political leaders have knuckled down to work harder on reducing emissions. Far from it; worldwide emissions have been rising faster than even the worst-case scenarios predicted by the global authority on climate change, the IPCC. Meanwhile, we are almost no closer to reaching a deal at Copenhagen than we were 4 years ago when Kyoto came into force.

At present, the very highest aspirations of any rich nation at COP15 would, if realised in full, give us a 50% chance of avoiding crossing the 2˚C threshold to runaway warming; yet we are very unlikely to achieve even this best-case scenario at Copenhagen.

Most observers agree that the outcome at Copenhagen – and hence, perhaps, the future of civilization – will ultimately be determined by what the USA and China can manage to commit to between them. But the truth is every nation has a crucial role to play in the negotiations, from the powerhouses of the G8 richest economies to the poor, low-lying countries of AOSIS, the Alliance of Small Island States. Nothing less than a comprehensive global deal that is as strong as the science demands will do. All of humanity must agree a way to work together to avert this disaster – or else.

The international politics of climate change, and the relative positions of the world’s nations – both with regard to one another and to the absolute targets dictated by the climate science – are fiendishly difficult to follow and understand. Even the delegations themselves can have a hard time keeping up.

IT GAVE ME NIGHT MARES THINKING LOTUS MIGHT MAKE THIS SCRAP METAL I WOULD GET A BASE BALL BAT AND SMASH IT UP TO SMITHERINES AND SMASH IT UP MORE!

We don’t need to see our options for responding to climate change as a narrow repertoire of lifestyle choices (lightbulbs etc) or lobbying the powerful to make changes on our behalf. We can change the world ourselves, starting with our own communities.

Consumerism prefers to imagine society as an atomised sea of separate individuals all pursuing their own ends – a bleak and soulless every-man-for-himself vision that is a big part of the reason why we are in the mess we’re in.

But there are different ways to imagine society. I prefer to see society as the joint product of everyone who chooses to actively participate in it – otherwise known as citizenship.

The drastic changes needed to decarbonise our society will require something more than mere tweaking of our individual shopping habits. We currently live in a world that punishes sustainability and rewards high-carbon behaviours. Changing our consumption choices won’t fix the problem; we have to change the conditions in which those choices are made – and that means changing the world around us.
Luckily lots of people have spotted all this as a brilliant way to move forwards and have got cracking already. From the Transition Towns movement to the Low Carbon Communities network, good people are getting together all over and starting the great work of rebuilding our society from the bottom up. Find out who’s doing what in your neighbourhood, and if nobody’s doing much, then maybe it’s time to get something started…

Less is more! The same way low fat, low carbon too will sell. Mr. Weird-beard is on the move roaming the public footpaths on your property seeking out the ideal spot for his next town. Drinking the local ale, spreading his ideas of conform or else.. be prepared : climatescience.blogspot.c om.. the other side of the coin…

the worst thing about cars is that they are like castles or villas by the sea: luxury goods invented for the exclusive pleasure of a very rich minority, and which in conception and nature were never intended for the people. Unlike the vacuum cleaner, the radio, or the bicycle, which retain their use value when everyone has one, the car, like a villa by the sea, is only desirable and useful insofar as the masses don’t have one. That is how in both conception and original purpose the car is a luxury good. And the essence of luxury is that it cannot be democratised. If everyone can have luxury, no one gets any advantages from it. On the contrary, everyone diddles, cheats, and frustrates everyone else, and is diddled, cheated, and frustrated in return.
This is pretty much common knowledge in the case of the seaside villas. No politico has yet dared to claim that to democratise the right to vacation would mean a villa with private beach for every family. Everyone understands that if each of 13 or 14 million families were to use only 10 meters of the coast, it would take 140,000km of beach in order for all of them to have their share! To give everyone his or her share would be to cut up the beaches in such little strips-or to squeeze the villas so tightly together-that their use value would be nil and their advantage over a hotel complex would disappear. In short, democratisation of access to the beaches point to only one solution-the collectivist one. And this solution is necessarily at war with the luxury of the private beach, which is a privilege that a small minority takes as their right at the expense of all.
Now, why is it that what is perfectly obvious in the case of the beaches is not generally acknowledged to be the case for transportation? Like the beach house, doesn’t a car occupy scarce space? Doesn’t it deprive the others who use the roads (pedestrians, cyclists, streetcar and bus drivers)? Doesn’t it lose its use value when everyone uses his or her own? And yet there are plenty of politicians who insist that every family has the right to at least one car and that it’s up to the “government” to make it possible for everyone to park conveniently, drive easily in the city, and go on holiday at the same time as everyone else, going 70 mph on the roads to vacation spots.
The monstrousness of this demagogic nonsense is immediately apparent, and yet even the left doesn’t disdain resorting to it. Why is the car treated like a sacred cow? Why, unlike other “privative” goods, isn’t it recognised as an antisocial luxury? The answer should be sought in the following two aspects of driving:
1. Mass motoring effects an absolute triumph of bourgeois ideology on the level of daily life. It gives and supports in everyone the illusion that each individual can seek his or her own benefit at the expense of everyone else. Take the cruel and aggressive selfishness of the driver who at any moment is figuratively killing the “others,” who appear merely as physical obstacles to his or her own speed. This aggressive and competitive selfishness marks the arrival of universally bourgeois behaviour, and has come into being since driving has become commonplace. (”You’ll never have socialism with that kind of people,” an East German friend told me, upset by the spectacle of Paris traffic).
2. The automobile is the paradoxical example of a luxury object that has been devalued by its own spread. But this practical devaluation has not yet been followed by an ideological devaluation. The myth of the pleasure and benefit of the car persists, though if mass transportation were widespread its superiority would be striking. The persistence of this myth is easily explained. The spread of the private car has displaced mass transportation and altered city planning and housing in such a way that it transfers to the car functions which its own spread has made necessary. An ideological (”cultural”) revolution would be needed to break this circle. Obviously this is not to be expected from the ruling class (either right or left).
Let us look more closely now at these two points.
When the car was invented, it was to provide a few of the very rich with a completely unprecedented privilege: that of travelling much faster than everyone else. No one up to then had ever dreamt of it. The speed of all coaches was essentially the same, whether you were rich or poor. The carriages of the rich didn’t go any faster than the carts of the peasants, and trains carried everyone at the same speed (they didn’t begin to have different speeds until they began to compete with the automobile and the aeroplane). Thus, until the turn of the century, the elite did not travel at a different speed from the people. The motorcar was going to change all that. For the first time class differences were to be extended to speed and to the means of transportation.
This means of transportation at first seemed unattainable to the masses – it was so different from ordinary means. There was no comparison between the motorcar and the others: the cart, the train, the bicycle, or the horse-car. Exceptional beings went out in self-propelled vehicles that weighed at least a ton and whose extremely complicated mechanical organs were as mysterious as they were hidden from view. For one important aspect of the automobile myth is that for the first time people were riding in private vehicles whose operating mechanisms were completely unknown to them and whose maintenance and feeding they had to entrust to specialists. Here is the paradox of the automobile: it appears to confer on its owners limitless freedom, allowing them to travel when and where they choose at a speed equal to or greater than that of the train. But actually, this seeming independence has for its underside a radical dependency. Unlike the horse rider, the wagon driver, or the cyclist, the motorist was going to depend for the fuel supply, as well as for the smallest kind of repair, on dealers and specialists in engines, lubrication, and ignition, and on the interchangeability of parts. Unlike all previous owners of a means of locomotion, the motorist’s relationship to his or her vehicle was to be that of user and consumer-and not owner and master. This vehicle, in other words, would oblige the owner to consume and use a host of commercial services and industrial products that could only be provided by some third party. The apparent independence of the automobile owner was only concealing the actual radical dependency.
The oil magnates were the first to perceive the prize that could be extracted from the wide distribution of the motorcar. If people could be induced to travel in cars, they could be sold the fuel necessary to move them. For the first time in history, people would become dependent for their locomotion on a commercial source of energy. There would be as many customers for the oil industry as there were motorists-and since there would be as many motorists as there were families, the entire population would become the oil merchants’ customers. The dream of every capitalist was about to come true. Everyone was going to depend for their daily needs on a commodity that a single industry held as a monopoly.
All that was left was to get the population to drive cars. Little persuasion would be needed. It would be enough to get the price of a car down by using mass production and the assembly line. People would fall all over themselves to buy it. They fell over themselves all right, without noticing they were being led by the nose. What, in fact, did the automobile industry offer them? Just this: “From now on, like the nobility and the bourgeoisie, you too will have the privilege of driving faster than everybody else. In a motorcar society the privilege of the elite is made available to you.”
People rushed to buy cars until, as the working class began to buy them as well, defrauded motorists realised they had been had. They had been promised a bourgeois privilege, they had gone into debt to acquire it, and now they saw that everyone else could also get one. What good is a privilege if everyone can have it? It’s a fool’s game. Worse, it pits everyone against everyone else. General paralysis is brought on by a general clash. For when everyone claims the right to drive at the privileged speed of the bourgeoisie, everything comes to a halt, and the speed of city traffic plummets-in Boston as in Paris, Rome, or London-to below that of the horsecar; at rush hours the average speed on the open road falls below the speed of a bicyclist.
Nothing helps. All the solutions have been tried. They all end up making things worse. No matter if they increase the number of city expressways, beltways, elevated crossways, 16- lane highways, and toll roads, the result is always the same. The more roads there are in service, the more cars clog them, and city traffic becomes more paralysingly congested. As long as there are cities, the problem will remain unsolved. No matter how wide and fast a superhighway is, the speed at which vehicles can come off it to enter the city cannot be greater than the average speed on the city streets. As long as the average speed in Paris is 10 to 20 kmh, depending on the time of day, no one will be able to get off the beltways and autoroutes around and into the capital at more than 10 to 20 kmh.
The same is true for all cities. It is impossible to drive at more than an average of 20 kmh in the tangled network of streets, avenues, and boulevards that characterise the traditional cities. The introduction of faster vehicles inevitably disrupts city traffic, causing bottlenecks-and finally complete paralysis.
If the car is to prevail, there’s still one solution: get rid of the cities. That is, string them out for hundreds of miles along enormous roads, making them into highway suburbs. That’s what’s been done in the United States. Ivan Illich sums up the effect in these startling figures: “The typical American devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours a week, or 4 hours a day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This includes the time spent behind the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the hours of work to pay for it and to pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, tickets, and taxes .Thus it takes this American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles (in the course of a year). Three and a half miles take him (or her) one hour. In countries that do not have a transportation industry, people travel at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage that they can go wherever they want and aren’t restricted to asphalt roads.”
It is true, Illich points out, that in non-industrialised countries travel uses only 3 to 8% of people’s free time (which comes to about two to six hours a week). Thus a person on foot covers as many miles in an hour devoted to travel as a person in a car, but devotes 5 to 10 times less time in travel. Moral: The more widespread fast vehicles are within a society, the more time – beyond a certain point- people will spend and lose on travel. It’s a mathematical fact.
The reason? We’ve just seen it: The cities and towns have been broken up into endless highway suburbs, for that was the only way to avoid traffic congestion in residential centres. But the underside of this solution is obvious: ultimately people can’t get around conveniently because they are far away from everything. To make room for the cars, distances have increased. People live far from their work, far from school, far from the supermarket – which then requires a second car so the shopping can be done and the children driven to school. Outings? Out of the question. Friends? There are the neighbours.. .and that’s it. In the final analysis, the car wastes more time than it saves and creates more distance than it overcomes. Of course, you can get yourself to work doing 60 mph, but that’s because you live 30 miles from your job and are willing to give half an hour to the last 6 miles. To sum it all up: “A good part of each day’s work goes to pay for the travel necessary to get to work.” (Ivan Illich).
Maybe you are saying, “But at least in this way you can escape the hell of the city once the workday is over.” There we are, now we know: “the city,” the great city which for generations was considered a marvel, the only place worth living, is now considered to be a “hell.” Everyone wants to escape from it, to live in the country. Why this reversal? For only one reason. The car has made the big city uninhabitable. It has made it stinking, noisy, suffocating, dusty, so congested that nobody wants to go out in the evening anymore. Thus, since cars have killed the city, we need faster cars to escape on superhighways to suburbs that are even farther away. What an impeccable circular argument: give us more cars so that we can escape the destruction caused by cars.
From being a luxury item and a sign of privilege, the car has thus become a vital necessity. You have to have one so as to escape from the urban hell of the cars. Capitalist industry has thus won the game: the superfluous has become necessary. There’s no longer any need to persuade people that they want a car; it’s necessity is a fact of life. It is true that one may have one’s doubts when watching the motorised escape along the exodus roads. Between 8 and 9:30 a.m., between 5:30 and 7 p.m., and on weekends for five and six hours the escape routes stretch out into bumper-to-bumper processions going (at best) the speed of a bicyclist and in a dense cloud of gasoline fumes. What remains of the car’s advantages? What is left when, inevitably, the top speed on the roads is limited to exactly the speed of the slowest car?
Fair enough. After killing the city, the car is killing the car. Having promised everyone they would be able to go faster, the automobile industry ends up with the unrelentingly predictable result that everyone has to go as slowly as the very slowest, at a speed determined by the simple laws of fluid dynamics. Worse: having been invented to allow its owner to go where he or she wishes, at the time and speed he or she wishes, the car becomes, of all vehicles, the most slavish, risky, undependable and uncomfortable. Even if you leave yourself an extravagant amount of time, you never know when the bottlenecks will let you get there. You are bound to the road as inexorably as the train to its rails. No more than the railway traveller can you stop on impulse, and like the train you must go at a speed decided by someone else. Summing up, the car has none of the advantages of the train and all of its disadvantages, plus some of its own: vibration, cramped space, the danger of accidents, the effort necessary to drive it.
And yet, you may say, people don’t take the train. Of course! How could they? Have you ever tried to go from Boston to New York by train? Or from Ivry to Treport? Or from Garches to Fountainebleau? Or Colombes to l’Isle-Adam? Have you tried on a summer Saturday or Sunday? Well, then, try it and good luck to you! You’ll observe that automobile capitalism has thought of everything. Just when the car is killing the car, it arranges for the alternatives to disappear, thus making the car compulsory. So first the capitalist state allowed the rail connections between the cities and the surrounding countryside to fall to pieces, and then it did away with them. The only ones that have been spared are the high-speed intercity connections that compete with the airlines for a bourgeois clientele. There’s progress for you!
The truth is, no one really has any choice. You aren’t free to have a car or not because the suburban world is designed to be a function of the car-and, more and more, so is the city world. That is why the ideal revolutionary solution, which is to do away with the car in favour of the bicycle, the streetcar, the bus, and the driverless taxi, is not even applicable any longer in the big commuter cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Trappes, or even Brussels, which are built by and for the automobile. These splintered cities are strung out along empty streets lined with identical developments; and their urban landscape (a desert) says, “These streets are made for driving as quickly as possible from work to home and vice versa. You go through here, you don’t live here. At the end of the workday everyone ought to stay at home, and anyone found on the street after nightfall should be considered suspect of plotting evil.” In some American cities the act of strolling in the streets at night is grounds for suspicion of a crime.
So, the jig is up? No, but the alternative to the car will have to be comprehensive. For in order for people to be able to give up their cars, it won’t be enough to offer them more comfortable mass transportation. They will have to be able to do without transportation altogether because they’ll feel at home in their neighbourhoods, their community. their human-sized cities, and they will take pleasure in walking from work to home-on foot, or if need be by bicycle. No means of fast transportation and escape will ever compensate for the vexation of living in an uninhabitable city in which no one feels at home or the irritation of only going into the city to work or, on the other hand, to be alone and sleep.
“People,” writes Illich, “will break the chains of overpowering transportation when they come once again to love as their own territory their own particular beat, and to dread getting too far away from it.” But in order to love “one’s territory” it must first of all be made liveable, and not trafficable. The neighbourhood or community must once again become a microcosm shaped by and for all human activities, where people can work, live, relax, learn, communicate, and knock about, and which they manage together as the place of their life in common. When someone asked him how people would spend their time after the revolution, when capitalist wastefulness had been done away with, Marcuse answered, “We will tear down the big cities and build new ones. That will keep us busy for a while.”
These new cities might be federations of communities (or neighbourhoods) surrounded by green belts whose citizens-and especially the schoolchildren-will spend several hours a week growing the fresh produce they need. To get around everyday they would be able to use all kinds of transportation adapted to a medium-sized town: municipal bicycles, trolleys or trolley-buses, electric taxis without drivers. For longer trips into the country, as well as for guests, a pool of communal automobiles would be available in neighbourhood garages. The car would no longer be a necessity. Everything will have changed: the world, life, people. And this will not have come about all by itself.
Meanwhile, what is to be done to get there? Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of labour, and to the way this compartmentalises the many dimensions of life. One place for work, another for “living,” a third for shopping, a fourth for learning, a fifth for entertainment. The way our space is arranged carries on the disintegration of people that begins with the division of labour in the factory. It cuts a person into slices, it cuts our time, our life, into separate slices so that in each one you are a passive consumer at the mercy of the merchants, so that it never occurs to you that work, culture, communication, pleasure, satisfaction of needs, and personal life can and should be one and the same thing: a unified life, sustained by the social fabric of the community.

..”they” ??? the “”government”"… ???? puhlease… you’re letting yourself down ! It’s all a conspiracy and we’re all targets.Beware lest you lose the subsatnce by grasping at the shadow…
hahahaha what a P-rick..

@ jolly roger – the only conspiracy theory I’m entertaining at the moment is that Clarkson’s been faffing about with the Stig’s programming and the truth about ducks was too much for him to handle

@ EARTH LOVER – Duck!

In all seriousness why do you confuse social responsibility with socialist politics in the case of climate change? In particular why bring such a political agenda to this site at this time?

I occasionally come back to older forums if I want to check on something, and so I’ve read your post. Steering clear of the politics there are a few factual errors, omissions and a lack of critique that need to be pointed out. Taking them in order …

Your East German friend. Germans do have a sense of humour; have you considered that your friend may have been quietly indicating to you the impossibility of creating of a utopia when such is predicated on changing the nature of humanity?

Cars weren’t invented for the purpose of providing a few of the very rich with faster transport. They were just invented. Owning or renting a car, motorcycle or indeed later an aeroplane was initially more of a hobby than a reliable means of transport.

Cars did not cause people to entrust themselves to specialists for the first time. Consider the pastures, grooms and vets needed to stable a horse. Consider the web of trade necessary to create and maintain a bicycle.

Car makers, oil barons, tramcars and cities in the US. Fair point. Unfettered greed.

Oil is versatile isn’t it? A wonderful energy vector. Don’t ever forget that less energy is used to move a single person by the most outrageous SUV or boys’ own hypercar than by a horse. Simple reason – you can’t switch a horse off at the end of a journey.

Trains – at least in the UK – got stamped on thanks to a report commissioned by a thoughoughly socialist mindset: very roughly the car was the future, therefore the UK no longer needed an expensive national railway infrastructure. Oops.

You say that Illich said that people “will break the chains of overpowering transportation when they come once again to love as their own territory their own particular beat, and to dread getting too far away from it.” I’ve never studied Illich so I’ll take your word for it. Loving one’s immediate territory is good, though unfortunately not possible for many on a global scale. Dread? He knows human nature then – the carrot and the stick – since from his language being ‘forced’ is to be replaced by love and fear. Take that perspective on migration and intermingling to its logical conclusions … I can name a couple of people who already have – Hitler and Stalin

Your vision of the future is interesting though – I believe – flawed. You say that we should not take things in isolation; ok – how do you propose to feed, water, house and clothe the six and a half billion people who would be living in the manner you have described? I suggest it can’t be done with today’s best technology; that in what you propose the planet could support perhaps one percent of humanity’s present population – therefore is this not in itself a bourgois vision?

I really do need to drink less red bull. Cheers.

hahaha

owch.. And I thought I was verbose

Interesting points there though. Personally I’d steer very clear from what sounds “’68 rhetoric” and keep the more down to earth part of the main topic.
I’d find blaming “the car” way over the top: people are less social than before, therefore tend to prefer personal transport to public one even when the city is clogged and smokey etc. etc. I’d love to say that big cities CAN be defined as “hell” by commuters.
Stellar rents and steep prices in general might contribute to this feeling as well but… above all, prohibitionism never led to anything good by itself, car prohibitionism wouldn’t.

Nice public transport means also almost empty trains on secondary lines that run without knowing how many passengers will be in, etc. etc… people’s mobility and lifestyle would need a serious reform towards the growing up process, true and agreed, but this would often mean renouincing to expand already existing cities to found new ones from scratch. Which can be cool… if there’s enough space.
I find it doubtful that any single solution to discomforts caused by sheer human pressure in wealthy areas could be made universal at the moment…
…Except “wealthy areas shouldn’t be greedy with other people’s resources (not to mention their eventual own)”. Which might mean -say- Kenya developing and offering livable modern cities at just a couple of hours of flight from ol’overbuilt Europe. ’cause I personally think that Europe’s tendency to continue rebuilding itself rather than whatching a bit out of our womby comfortable borders might be the modern problem in our new-western capitalistic system. No clue if it would be better of worse if we were less self centered and homey.

hmm, nice car.

http://dental-health-now. blogspot.com/

Definitely consider that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the internet the easiest thing to take into account of. I say to you, I certainly get irked whilst people think about concerns that they plainly don’t recognise about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the whole thing with no need side effect , other people could take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thanks

Excellent post. I used to be checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very useful info particularly the last section I maintain such info much. I was seeking this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.