Not much in this article really. Starts out with claiming that progressives didn't like pollution, and thus became anti science. Doesn't elaborate. Drops the thread entirely, and continues with a couple different arguments.
First that subsidizing demand with constrained supply just increases prices. Fair enough. Second argument is that there are too many veto points in the building/producing pipeline. Probably also fair.
But that's really the whole Abundance argument, and the article alludes to that book repeatedly. I can't tell if this was supposed to be its own original argument, or just a description of the Abundance arguments. I bet there are better synopses of the Abundance arguments than this article though.
Revoking drivers licenses would probably be more appropriate than seizing vehicles. The upside to that is revoking licenses, I'd wager, is a whole lot cheaper than installing and monitoring speed trackers.
So long as the person with the speeding problem is paying for that I guess it's acceptable. But then we have yet another example of people without much money getting a raw deal. Means testing? Everything gets complicated when it gets to the implementation details.