Since World War II we have been heavily dependent on the modern day transpotation: the car. Some say the car is an innovative and convienent method of transportation, while others say that it will be the end of the environment. As the evidence indicates, there are advantages to limiting car usage.

Dissenters of the idea claim to say that limiting car usage will negatively impact the car industry, but it doesn't. Limiting car usage doesn't mean that people will have to stop buying cars; it simply means that they will have to find a different method of transporation. Source 2 says that in Paris on certain days motorist, who had an odd or even license plate number, had to leave their cars at home and find an alternative method of transportation. Does the evidence demonstrate an impact to car companies? Did they have a financial deficit due to their lack of buyers? The answer is simple: no, because they didn't ban the use of cars. Also, car companies can well benefit from places that limit car usage but allow hybrid cars; this allows for an increase in revenue. Most car companies in today's society model hybrid cars that run on primarily electricity and gas. In Paris, they made exceptions "for plug-in cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers (Source 2)". These exceptions actually promote the buying of hybrid cars! This will boost the economic profit of the car companies, not damage it. Limiting car usage does not affect car companies, but instead supports it.

The limitation of car usage betters the environment. Cars emit greenhouse gases in the atmosphere faster than they can be removed. This causes health problems in living organisms and pollution of ecosystems. Cars are liable for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in areas in the U.S. as Source 1 states. People are playing with the balance of nature and if its not fixed then humans are as good as dead; this is why the implementation of limiting car usage benefits people. The effects of this can be seen in Bogota, Colombia, whose goal is to reduce smog and promote alternative transporation (Source 3), and Paris, where intense smog covered the enitre city: "The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world.(Source 2)" The source explains that cold nights and warm days trapped in car emissions and after a few days of reducing car usage the air cleared up. This shows the effectiveness of the limiations of car usage.

The limiting of cars also boosts community wellness. The people who experienced this regulation had positive views on the matter and even on rainy days they participated! Bogota, Colombia has gone into its third year of banning cars and the turnouts of the pariticipation were large, with two other Colombian cities joining and municipal authorities from other countries to view the event (Source 3). The evidence show that limiting cars wasn't opposed by the people, in fact, other countries were wanting to get in on the action. This limiting of car usage really cuts down on traffic congestion and new community projects have been established to ease the transition to alternative transportation. Heidrun Walter, mentioned in Source 1, syas that when she had her car she always tense and stressed and is happy with the change. The source also mentions that the "swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor (Source 1)." This shows that the limitation of car usage greatly enchances the wellness of the community and promotes a safe and stress-free environment for the people.

In summation, the limitation of car usage doesn't negatively impact car companies, but instead increases hybrid car sale revenue, echances community wellness, betters the environment. The things that can be accomplished with this regulation only has benefits for everyone. With this in mind, why not implement this ideal in order to better the lives of not only this generation but the future leaders of the world?