Andrew Stuttaford writes for National Review Online about bad news for drivers in the United States and across the pond.

There cannot be much doubt that the switch to electric vehicles is part of a wider war against cars.

In a recent Capital Letter, I wrote this:

Running not far beneath the push for EVs is a campaign against the ownership of any kind of car, as evidenced by congestion charges, innovations such as low traffic neighborhoods, and all the rest. Cars are seen as urban clutter, obstacles to a quieter, more orderly and (to those who share this vision) more aesthetically pleasing city, where travel is either collective or (Cycle lanes! Pedestrianized streets!) healthy, and where ideally, residents, comfortable in their fifteen-minute cities, just don’t move around too much. Translated into the real world, the implementation of such a vision could mean economic and social disaster, especially for those without the financial resources to cope, but central planning is what it is.

That Capital Letter was focused on Mark Mills’ report on EVs for the Manhattan Institute. When it comes to broader opposition to the idea of the car itself, here’s what Mills had to say:

“As stated in the IEA net zero goal: … the number of global households without a car needs to rise from 45% today to 70% by 2050, reversing a century-long trend of rising ownership…

“As usual, California regulators are ahead of the proverbial curve in admitting that the state’s emissions goals will require citizens of that state—on top of being forced into EVs—to drive 25% fewer miles than they did 30 years ago.”

As I noted:

Mills believes that the war against cars is about more than the climate, noting that, “car culture is viewed in many environmental circles as inherently toxic and unnatural.” In his view, “It would be reasonable to reach the conclusion that, put simply, they’re coming for your cars.”

Not unrelated to all this is the campaign in London against older cars.