Economic and environmental solutions can co-exist. Reducing traffic jams will reduce wasted time, fuel consumption and GHG.

Reducing obesity would reduce (junk) food consumption, food cost par capita, sickness, health care and GHG while increasing productivity, profits and government revenues.

Reducing highway speed to 100 kph would reduce fuel consumption, reduce vehicle wear and breakdown, reduce accidents, reduce health care cost, reduce oil imports and reduce GHG.

Many other easy to apply measures are real win-win.

How can I respect an organization that says;
"Nevertheless, this experiment constitutes a great breakthrough in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - and a great example for neighbouring megalopolises.."

"Great breakthrough"?

@HarveyD:

I agree with what you write, except for the reducing highway speed. The reduction in accidents would be very small, compared to the time lost at going only at 100kph.
I vote for adaptive speed limits: when no one is on the highway: limit at 180kph, a little traffic: 130kph, normal traffic: 110kph, heavy traffic: as low as it needs to be to keep the traffic flowing.

But please don't decide every ten years to reduce speed limits by 10kph, we'll end up going at 20kph and boring ourselves to death!

"...But let there be no mistake, the reasons behind this plan are not at all environmental… they’re economic!"

This skews dangerously close to an imperialist point of view!

How do economic reasons and plans become or relate to imperialism?

You don't know that western imperialism is responsible for market economies the world over? Miss the Cultural Revolution? /sarc off

I forgot.