In an era where information is accessible and critical thinking is more widespread than ever, public policy cannot rely solely on authority — it must rely on logic, transparency, and respect for the people it governs. Citizens today are not merely subjects of law, but evaluators of it. In this context, policies that reflect the mindset of “ban what you can’t manage” do not represent strength — they represent failure of governance.
A particularly revealing case is the growing trend in some urban regions to enforce bans on gasoline-powered vehicles, often under the banner of environmental responsibility. While reducing emissions is a noble and urgent goal, doing so through sudden bans, in the absence of accessible alternatives, may cause more harm than good.
Green Policy or Greenwashing?
Electric vehicles (EVs) have a legitimate role in sustainable urban mobility — but only when supported by the right ecosystem:
- Sufficient charging infrastructure
- A stable and affordable energy supply
- Public transport networks that serve the majority
- Financial support for lower-income individuals to transition
Without these, EV promotion becomes greenwashing by regulation — a symbolic gesture to appear progressive, rather than a solution grounded in reality.
In many regions, the electric grid is already strained. Urban planning does not accommodate mass charging. Public transport remains underdeveloped. For working-class individuals, gasoline vehicles are not just transportation — they are livelihood tools. In such cases, banning gas-powered transport without real alternatives translates into exclusion, not progress.
The Trap of Copy-Paste Policy
Supporters of these bans often cite Scandinavian countries, select European cities, or parts of North America as success stories. But these examples are often taken out of context.
Those countries typically have:
- Higher GDP per capita
- Smaller, more manageable populations
- Strong existing infrastructure
- A decade or more of coordinated green transition planning
Imitating these models without mirroring the groundwork that enabled them is not policy innovation — it’s policy mimicry. And mimicry without context leads to disruption, not transformation.
Social Backlash: A Warning Ignored
Forcing transitions without readiness leads to social and emotional fatigue. People feel coerced. They lose autonomy. They begin associating green policies not with hope or innovation — but with restriction and inequality.
This discontent doesn’t always manifest in protests. Sometimes, it expresses itself in quieter but more damaging ways:
- Public distrust in new technologies
- Reluctance to invest in EVs, even when incentives are offered
- Amplification of rumors, like “EVs are fire hazards” or “electricity is unstable”
- Emotional hostility toward anything perceived as “imposed from above”
In such environments, even the soft whir of an electric motor can provoke frustration — not because of the machine, but because of the feeling of being forced to adapt without choice.
Banning as a Substitute for Governance
The “ban what you can’t manage” mentality often arises when governments:
- Cannot regulate emissions effectively
- Cannot enforce vehicle inspections
- Fail to upgrade public transit or urban design
- Do not invest in equitable financial support
Rather than addressing these root issues, policymakers issue blanket prohibitions, hoping to appear decisive. But this approach is reactive, not strategic.
Prohibition without preparation is not leadership — it is deflection.
The Role of Consent in Modern Policy
In contemporary societies, consent is the foundation of legitimacy. Policies must not only be technically correct; they must be socially adoptable.
Citizens are more likely to accept change when:
- They are given time to adapt
- They understand the reasoning behind the shift
- The new system works in practice, not just on paper
- They are part of the conversation, not just subjects of command
Policy success does not come from enforcement alone — it comes from earned trust.
A Final Word
The path toward sustainability cannot be paved by mandates alone. Environmental progress requires thoughtful transitions, not theatrical ones. It requires leaders who don’t just measure carbon, but also measure public readiness, economic disparities, and technological feasibility.
A society will not become greener because it was forced to. It becomes greener because its people were invited into a vision they believed in.
Let’s move away from the temptation to ban as a first resort.
Let’s invest in what it takes to govern well — not just to look green.
Let’s remember:
Sustainability without consent is instability in disguise.