# FILE NAME: 00001818.soc
# TITLE: Should the government restrict car-ownership in large cities to tackle pollution? [678f4d78fb23d8ef9d68625e5e5b5c9f]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Pollution is a major environmental problem and we should not restrain ourselves from any tool available in the fight to improve air quality and reduce emissions. However, the blanket restriction of car ownership in all large cities would not be an effective method of combatting pollution because: - Our public transport systems are not good enough, especially in the suburbs. - Restricting car ownership will benefit only those who can afford to purchase an electric vehicle. - If car-ownership is restricted in cities, those who are affected will be forced to commute in and out of city centers using the already-crowded public transport network. - Restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. Rather than using car ownership as the tool to restrict emissions, the government should look to instead: - Reduce the number of cars on the road by increasing the congestion charge in city centers and creating more pedestrian-friendly urban areas. - Improve public transport systems, especially in the suburbs. - Encourage the use of more eco-friendly vehicles by offering tax incentives to buyers. - Establish a scheme whereby the more electric miles driven, the lower one’s tax liability.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While cars cause pollution and therefore it is essential to reduce emissions as much as possible, we do not believe that restricting car ownership in large cities is the most effective way of doing so. There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate solution, some of which are: - public transport systems are not always good, especially in the suburbs, meaning people will have no choice but to use their car, - limiting ownership will only benefit those who can afford the high price of electric vehicles, - limiting ownership could lead to more people using the already over-crowded public transport systems, and - restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. If we wish to improve air quality and reduce emissions, we must first consider other possible solutions, such as: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - developing and improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We all agree that reducing pollution is essential, but do not believe that banning car ownership is the way to achieve this. Other methods of reducing emissions must be considered first, for example improving public transport systems and giving tax breaks to those who drive less.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cars are a major cause of air pollution, so we must all do our part to reduce emissions as much as possible. In large cities we believe the most effective way of doing so is by: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax.
2: 1,2,4,3
1: 2,1,3,4
1: 4,1,2,3
1: 2,1,4,3