True, today's mantra is that removing cars will solve every possible environmental issue for all eternity
Whilst cars do cause significant problems (and not just from emissions, but also land use and roast safety aspects too) they do have benefits. They also aren't the only issue when it comes to warming the planet, as other gases (other than CO2) are more potent when it comes to warming.
That said, those other gases breakdown more rapidly than CO2 - so whilst stopping emitting them would be very good in the much shorter term we can't just get on as we always have with our CO2 emissions.
The frustrating thing is that if a bit more change had been made even 30 years ago and a bit more progress each year since then the issue would have been very much reduced. 50 years ago would have been even better.
As I've said before the changes, if we'd started longer ago, could have been smaller and wouldn't have been noticeable to the majority of people and would have still driven the economy forwards.
For example better institution in new buildings would have meant less need for gas, allowing our balance of payments to be more towards our favour, as we could have exported more North Sea gas and would have needed to import lease crude oil. It would have also meant that fewer government grants for cavity wall insulation would have been needed (if say the requirement was to have some wall and better roof insulation from 1980 onwards).
Not only that but the cost to households would have been reduced, meaning more money within the economy. It may not have been much each month, but it could have added up quite nicely. For example (at today's value) an extra £8 off your energy bill is £96 which you could spend on other things (yes it's still not much when your mortgage bill is £1,200 per month or £14,400 per year, if not more - but it would still make things just that tiny little bit easier).
Likewise an earlier shift from coal to gas would have seen emissions reduce. Whilst solar panels being a requirement for new buildings from 2000 would have left us with far more solar capability than we currently have (and a lot more people with reduced bills currently due to generating their own electricity).
More electrification of railway lines, would likely to have resulted in a higher use of rail, not least due to there likely being longer trains. For example electrification to allow (what's now) XC services between the South Coast and Manchester to be run by electric traction could have seen those services being run by EMU, (maybe even the 390's being duel voltage) which would have meant significant extra capacity over parts of the core XC network. Fill in electrification to allow Edinburgh to Birmingham too (and the MML - remembering we've got 50 years in which to make these changes) and that's quite a deal changer for diesel intercity use (and likely train length)
Pair that with retaining more bus routes and the building of cycle infrastructure alongside new roads from 1990 onwards, and car use growth could have been less pronounced.
None of this would have had a significant impact on us personally, and in many cases there would have been benefits (such as lower energy bills if we lived in a "new" building which had solar panels from after 2000, or reduced traffic congestion as there would have been less need for others to own cars).
The big stumbling block, it would have required those in charge to have been willing to change their world view. For example, thinking "whilst cars may be very useful, and even the future and aspirational, is there really going to be the space to facilitate everyone having cars and what about those who either don't wish to use a car or those for some it's not currently adorable or an option (such as those under 20 yet to pass their driving tests).". Rather than "cars are aspirational and the future, how can we make it better for cars" (almost at the expense of all other options).
