Interesting points here.
"jjad" mentions "efficiency". Here is a laugh for you : I have a friend whose wife runs a "hybrid" (electric/diesel). It does 47 miles per gallon. My 23-year old diesel Peugeot 405 1.9 LXTD does 51 miles per gallon. But according to her, the newer car must be more efficient "because it is a hybrid".
The conclusion that we should all continue to drive old cars is an obvious one — but possibly (based on the above example) those with no brains are generally the last to see any given no-brainer. I would not be surprised if older cars eventually begin to rise somewhat in resale value following the new, more draconian, U.K. MOT rules (particularly as regards tougher emissions rules for newer vehicles). There is so much that can expensively go wrong with a new car that surely the general public are going to realise, in the end, that older cars are worth keeping running. Especially those over 40 years old!
Next point : "edwin" mentions wind electricity > hydrogen > fuel cells. If we take it that the same electricity is used to make hydrogen as is to charge an electric car battery, then the fuel cell route involves three extra processes (electrolysis, storage and distribution/refuelling), each of which, given that no process can run at 100% efficiency — Second Law of Thermodynamics again — puts the fuel-cell route at an energetic disadvantage. To take "JdeW" ’s point again, it is a question of what the total carbon penalty is in manufacturing a fuel cell car, including the apportioned cost of the distribution infrastructure. I’d guess there is not much in it, in which case, all other things being equal, if I had to make a choice I personally would go for straight battery power, which (given that I already have mains electricity in my house) would entail no extra distribution facilities other than an adaptor plug.
One point that "edwin" does not mention is : what happens to the other by-product of electrolysis of water (oxygen)? Is it simply released back into the atmosphere as a waste product (> implicit loss of efficiency in the process) or compressed and sold for industrial use? If the latter. how does the price compare with normal commercially produced oxygen gas, most of which is which is made by large-scale distillation? I’d guess that electrolysis is the more expensive process.
Third point : "jjad" ’s point that public transport is more expensive than a car. The U.K. Inland Revenue reckon that the overall cost of running a car is GBP £0.45 per mile. So if I drove to London and back (250 mile return trip) this would cost 250 x £0.45 - £GBP 112.50. Cost by direct train from my local station, GBP £90 (peak hour train), £56 (off-peak getting in at 0947). So train is cheaper (as well as quicker). The fallacy here is using the cost of fuel (alone) as a basis for discussion. Of course car would be cheaper IF (and only if) there were more than one occupant. But apparently the average car occupancy rate in Europe for a long-distance trip is only 1.8 occupants per vehicle, meaning that my off-peak train is looking cheaper anyway (£56 x 1.8 = £100.80, vs. £112.50 for car).
I think we need to keep off politics here, which are simply a matter of opinion, not fact. Ultimately, facts (genuine facts) are all that matter as they are the only things that sway decisions.