Green Madness: U.K. Alone in Banning New Petrol and Diesel Cars in 2030
As host of COP26, our Government wanted to be seen as “world leaders in reducing CO2 emissions”, and so before the meeting it announced the U.K. would ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in 2030. It hoped it could then persuade other countries to follow our lead. It completely failed and no other major country went along with this: Germany, Japan, Italy and China do not propose a ban until 2035, France and Spain do not propose a ban until 2040 and the USA and India are not proposing any ban at all.
It is not hard to see why other countries were so unenthusiastic to inflict this policy on their population. Electric cars are so expensive. For example, Nissan’s basic electric car, the Leaf, has a recommended retail price (RRP) of £26,995, whereas its equivalent petrol car, the Micra, has an RRP of £16,685. The cheapest Tesla is the Model 3, which has an RRP of £45,990 or more, depending on the version. The petrol equivalent is a BMW 3 series, which has an RRP of £29,990 or more, again depending on the version. The running costs of electric cars are lower – charging a battery is cheaper than filling a tank with petrol – but for the average U.K. motorist, who has an annual mileage of 7,400 miles, these lower running costs will never compensate for the very high purchase price.
The lower running cost of electric cars is in any case largely an artefact of Government fiscal policy, namely the enormous amount of tax on petrol. Most of the cost of a litre of petrol is tax, whereas there is only 5% VAT on electricity. These very high rates of tax on petrol mean that if motorists switch from petrol to electric then the Government will face a black hole in its finances. The Government therefore will need to find a way of taxing electric vehicles to make up for this lost revenue. A plan under discussion is to install tracking devices in cars such that the Government knows how many miles you are driving and can then charge you a “per mile road tax”. If this happens, the running costs of electric cars will rapidly increase.
There are also serious questions about how ‘green’ electric cars actually are. The mining and processing of the rare earth metals used in the batteries is particularly energy intensive. A recent study by Volvo found that the manufacture of electric cars generated much more CO2 emissions than the manufacture of an equivalent petrol car. According to this study, the average motorist in the U.K. would have to drive an electric car for 10 years before it breaks even in its total carbon footprint (manufacture plus driving) with the equivalent petrol car.
In just over seven years’ time most of the world will still have the freedom to choose whether to buy an electric car or a petrol car. But in Britain the Government will be forcing us to buy extremely expensive electric cars that do very little to reduce overall CO2 emissions. This is to say nothing of well-known problems with range and charge-time, and whether the grid can cope with so many motorists charging their vehicles. Why is the Government in such a rush? Why not allow more time for the technology to develop and hopefully become cheaper and more efficient, and the country to be better prepared? After all, Britain only produces 1% of global CO2 emissions. Three countries produce half of global CO2 emissions; China produces 29% and is not intending to ban petrol cars until 2035, whilst the USA produces 14% and India 7% and neither country is proposing any ban at all.
John Fernley is a retired scientist.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/01/electric-bus-catches-fire-after-battery-explosion/
Oh, tish, merely yet another rare, isolated one-off incident.
“These very high rates of tax on petrol mean that if motorists switch from petrol to electric then the Government will face a black hole in its finances. “
It won’t because money doesn’t stop at its first use.
What I don’t spend at the petrol station I will spend elsewhere, which is then stimulative for that business who will then pay tax on the extra income (via profit taxes, consumption taxes and PAYE taxes on the employees they pay from the increased income).
And so on down the spending chain.
Behavioural taxes redirect spending elsewhere in the economy. That’s their purpose. They change the distribution of tax collected not the total amount.
The best behavioural tax design taxes the ‘sin’ and subsidise the ‘virtue’ with the proceeds. That way the two disappear in parallel as there is a move from sin to virtue.
It will, because even if people spend all of the £26 bill the governemnt gets on fuel duty, they would only get circa 20% of that in tex. So, more like £5 bill.
Quite so: petrol/diesel must be the most tax-intensive item available.
How about the wage packet you paid Tax on last week?
Every penny you spend will be taxed, by the government, to the person/retailer/utility etc. you spent it with.
The Tax burden on the middle class (you) is around 50%. In other words, you get 50% of what you earn, as disposable income.
Spend that 50% with another middle class earner and they are taxed 50% on it.
Get the picture?
Goods are not the objective of Tax, people are.
Cigarettes (except once they’re banned in NZ).
I think the most taxable product is pure alcohol (ethanol in this case): £28.74 per litre, and if you pay it, there is VAT on top as well, so £38.49 tax per litre.
Once again, money doesn’t stop at its first use. The person receiving the remainder of the money spends what is left paying another 20%, then the next person another 20% and so on.
It’s like a stone skipping across a pond. The stone will always sink. The only question is how many hops it takes to do so.
Yes, but in the end the government is going to get less. Not all of it will be spent, and not all of it will be taxable.
Otherwise you could argue you could cut any tax, but get it back by another means.
Clearly this must have a limit, because in the end you’d have no taxes at all, so no tax take.
Also, it represents a shift from one group of taxpayers (car users) to another (eg food consumers).
Bwahahahahahah.
Stupid comment of the week award Fingal. You surpass yourself tonight.
That’s a terrific description.
But don’t bother attempting logic with fingal, It’s a lost cause.
I can’t see the government foregoing any of the money they currently raise from “motoring” I.e. anything to do with transport.
Whether it’s tolls, or some other ingenious way of extracting money, they’ll come up with a method.
They won’t forgo anything as I explained. It just moves elsewhere – possibly spread over a sequence of transactions.
Remember that my income is your spending – less tax – and your income is my spending – less tax.
BS, your analogy (the skimming stone) shows exactly why you’re wrong. For it to work the stone would skim forever.
Consider: I remove/lose fuel duty, but I do not replace the tax take with other taxes. You think that because people will still be spending the money other taxes will increase, thereby replacing the lost revenue.
Well then, remove all taxes and see the tax revenue stay the same. It obviously won’t happen. You have to increase one tax to make up for a reduction in another tax, unless the reduction in the second tax increases economic activity.
That or we’ll all be very fat as for some reason with extra disposable income we decide to start eating more meals a day..
Really?! I put any spare money I can squeeze into an ISA so that I may retire and never pay certain taxes again, less costs for me equals paying less taxes forever, sooner.
You’re rational, Paul B. Most aren’t and think that money will dissolve into thin air if it isn’t immediately spent on stuff.
Negative interest rates and taxes on savings, on the other hand are irrational, and the anti-saver policies have helped create a rotten culture of debt.
What I don’t spend on road fuel I may decide to save or perhaps more likely I will have to spend it on hardly taxed but much higher priced food. Your assumptions seem much more like wishful thinking.
Yawn.
And which school of economics did you attend?
Rishi’s perchance?
Tax junk food and subsidise whole food? If they must tax food that is surely the obvious way (if one can agree what constitutes junk food).
Nothing like being a World Leader in an insane Alice’s Wonderland. No surprise the UK has some of the harshest gun laws for the public, whilst the useless, disconnected politicians shoot us, first in one foot, then the other. Knaves and dunces, every one.
I was wholly opposed to guns in the UK, even to the point of routinely arming cops, and I was a cop.
About 5 years ago I read the American constitution, well some of it, it’s a long, complicated document.
I realised then why Americans enshrine gun ownership in the constitution, and it’s not for self defence, which is what I had been indoctrinated with.
Gun ownership is the last defence to government tyranny.
I now believe every citizen in a western democracy should seize the right to their own armed defence against tyrannical governments.
If this isn’t becoming clear to people now we are in real trouble.
I am pleased to hear someone say this, and especially an ex police officer. I have had this view for a number of years, and I too was inspired by the constitution not the self-defence argument (although this too has its place).
As constitutionalists in the colonies remind us, the second amendment is there to ensure they stick to the first amendment 😉
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, as they say.
It’s great to hear from two police officers who weren’t fat lazy pigs chalking off “easy wins” and attacking motorists for no reason
Thank you. You can be assured I never “chalked off easy wins” by attacking motorists. I took great delight, however, in finding untaxed cars (in my day we had tax disks) and reporting their owners for using the roads you paid for and they didn’t. I also took great delight in chasing stolen cars driven by little turds who thought it would be fun to steal your car, which you had bought and paid for and they hadn’t. I also enjoyed nicking people who burgled houses just like yours. I have convicted murderers, rapist’s and child molesters. I have also had the gruesome task of cutting down from trees, those unfortunate enough to believe that taking their own lives was a solution to their problems. I have cradled the bloodied heads of dying car crash victims in my arms during the last minutes of their life. I have returned home covered in blood from stab victims and watched youngsters die from drug and alcohol overdoses. And I was completely helpless. I attended the sudden death of a schoolboy two years my junior, from my school, after he inhaled hairspray with his head in a plastic bag, whilst in the bath,… Read more »
I have a cousin who was a police officer. He was and is highly intelligent, compassionate, reasonable and fair.
He is also very shrewd about people and their motivations. There are things you learn in that job that you don’t learn elsewhere.
Thank you for yours, sir. You’re a poet, to boot.
Well said Sir. A nice counterbalance to a Met traffic cop I knew who would bring home folding money proffered to him inside the old cardboard driving licence by motorists he’d stopped. My father.
An old-style copper …… like my late father who did 30 years in the Met (50s-80s). Thank you for your service.
What’s really interesting about my comment is that it got 29 upticks. I find that both surprising and reassuring.
Not really. At the moment your comments suggest you are on the pop.
Agreed.
The US constitution, all amendments included, contains fewer than 8000 words. It would fit in under 30 tweets.
Why did Soviet policemen always walk around in threes?
One could read. One could write. The other was to keep an eye on those two dangerous intellectuals.
It’s not the number of words in the American constitution that are complicated, it’s the implications they convey that raise questions and arguments.
People like you, on the left, are inclined reduce most things to a binary solution. The rest of us at least attempt to analyse things beyond their most basic components.
How many socialist does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None of them, they turn everything to the left.
All the same, their constitution, I would tentatively suggest, is a site better than the EU “constitution”.
Electric cars have their role, but what the government should be putting far more effort into is a shift into walking/cycling/other electric vehicles/public transport. This would cut not just emissions, but traffic too. We need an urban redesign.
No use if you live in a rural town or village – and how does one visit far-distant relatives?
The priority for now is urban. Hugely bigger rewards for a smaller investment
Where do we get our farm goods from you clown, city allotments?
Lukewarm, I’m going to say this only once, so you can go back and delete all your nonsense.
I’m not saying to eliminate cars, but to supplement them with other forms of transport which will, for some uses, be preferable for consumers.
Isn’t that what already happens, Fingal? I mean, I can cycle wherever I like (despite the dangerous cycle “infrastructure” which has sprung up randomly here there and everywhere).
Some areas are better than others, but overall the cycling networks are woeful. Only very accomplished cyclists will attempt it. In my own town, about 2% of central journeys are made by bike. (In other words, so few that they can’t really measure it.) With a proper traffic-separated network this could realistically be expected to rise above 30%. Exceptional towns can reach 50%.
Needless to say, this is a benefit to car drivers as well as everyone else. Electric bikes extend the possible user-base to a wide section of the population.
Like many towns, we suffer here from a slow strangulation of traffic. Parking is a particular problem which send people mad. To fix this, we simply have to reduce the number of car journeys.
Quantify them, for the second time of asking you dumb moron.
You can’t, so take your moronic opinions and find a sympathetic communist blog you can post them on.
I’m sorry, but your question does not meet the minimum standard of intelligence to be answered.
Wasn’t there a story recently that red diesel had been banned for some purposes? That won’t go down well (another “stealth” tax?).
As it happens, I think that high rise hydroponic farms in and around cities could be quite a good idea. I heard that some city restaurants do something of the sort for their herbs (in New York)? I think you can grow vegetables with artificial light just by flashing the light on once every few seconds (and then there’s mushrooms of course).
What a lovely idea.
Cover the planet in millions of acres of photovoltaic panels to provide enough energy for flashing LED lights (I know the example you’re referring to) to grow lettuces in climate controlled factories, that could have been grown on the land covered by the solar panels.
Do you people not yet understand that socialists governments cause a problem with crazy ideas, then solve the problem they caused in the first place with even crazier ideas?
“Build a wind turbine, that’s a really smart way of generating electricity”
“How do we build the next wind turbine”
“We use the electricity from the first turbine to do that”
“How do we do that whilst providing electricity for consumers as well?”
“Build another wind turbine”
“How do we do that whilst providing electricity for consumers as well?”
“Build another wind turb…………………..
Jesus. Why are some people so stupid?!
Which people?
I think the idea of this was so that restaurants could have extra fresh ingredients. Anyway, my interest in the story was in relation to false claims that there are not enough resources to support a growing population, that we must follow the genocidal agenda of the UN and climate alarmists. My point is that there are plenty of resources if they are managed properly.
You people are “which people”. Fantasists. Suggesting crazy ideas that make no sense whatsoever in the real world. The idea you refer to is force growing lettuces: “30,000 heads of lettuce per day, or 10 million heads annually, using a growing technique that’s almost entirely automated.” It’s hydroponic farming, in other words force growing plants with nutrients instead of soil. https://qz.com/493542/japan-is-building-a-giant-robotic-lettuce-factory/ A nice idea in principle, when the article highlights that there is very limited agricultural land in Japan and a suitable abandoned factory can be repurposed. The problem is, even LED lights require power, and all those nutrients have to come from somewhere. I was at a joint international consulate convention in London some years ago. I got talking to a charming Japanese lady who represented her country in the UK. We got to discussing some Japanese cultural anomalies and she told me that no self respecting Japanese citizen would be seen dead carrying luggage. If they are going for a holiday in the UK, for example, they have their luggage picked up from their home and transported directly to their flight. If they are playing golf, they have their golf clubs picked up and transported to their golf… Read more »
All those nutrients have to come from somewhere.
Yes – hence the rock dust idea which you apparently dismissed out of hand over concerns about labour costs.
My basic point is that human ingenuity can solve most problems. This or that idea may or may not be appropriate in a given situation – but we should not worry about climate doomsday alarmism – for example. Ways will be found of dealing with these things, without having to go to the bother of making us all poorer and less free, as the likes of the IPCC are proposing.
What rock dust idea?
I would say ‘many problems’ rather than most.
We agree on climate alarmism. The solution is, in my opinion, to ignore something we can do nothing about, no matter how much money we throw at it.
We don’t, however, have a problem producing lettuces. Japan does, but that’s their issue.
We can adapt to climate change when the time comes, as we have done many times before, without the technology we have now. We also agree on that.
Righto. Being able to solve most problems would indeed be remarkable when I think about it. I posted on the rock dust in the daily roundup comments above, for what it’s worth.
And I note the stuff which you did in the police. I wish I’d done even half that stuff. Nuff said.
When we are poorer and less free, will we be less ingenious? I wonder.
Necessity is the mother of invention. I remember a counterintuitive story that North Korea had the most dynamic economy in the world – because people had to be inventive to survive!
Oh mushrooms. I had some once in Amsterdam – firkin hell.
Magic!
I remember a university where there was a rumour that they were growing wild near by…
Liberty caps: they grow everywhere in the UK.
You realize we’re all about to become hunters and gatherers?
Yes, there is that to be said for being a cat…
Will the coming crisis really be that bad then?
Quantify them.
Or go for a Sunday drive?
I’ve always assumed that electric bicycles would be quite useful in that tregard, but never got round to getting one. I suppose one could keep one’s car and use the “e-bikes” for some trips. And btw are Stevenage (a new town as I understand designed to include footpaths and cycle paths) and all those dutch towns designed around bicycle use really so bad (though admittedly most places aren’t like Holland)?
‘..an urban redesign…”
I am reminded of the old story of the newly qualified and fresh out of university engineer. He saw all the different standards in use, the ones his lecturer didn’t tell him about, and exclaimed,
“This is crazy! Eighteen competing standards? We need a new standard to replace them all!”
And then there were nineteen competing standards.
I left home for University life because my mother and father were idiots and I couldn’t wait to get out the house.
When I returned home I couldn’t believe how much they had learned in the three years I was away.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/global-parliament-mayors-and-abolition-el
This excellent piece will explain urban re-design.
The link you posted is broken. Here is the correct link.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/global-parliament-mayors-and-abolition-electorate
I apologise. I’m not very good with this IT stuff.
You’re gonna have a real problem with the gender crap then…..🤣
Not at all. I could lose most on here with discussions of “gender crap.”
Fingal, as stupid as ever. Lets all walk goods from ports to the shops. Lets all transport sofa’s, TV’s and groceries around the country on bicycles. Cars are multi purpose essentials for commuting, going to see granny, doing the monthly shop, taking rubbish to the tip, ferrying cub scouts about, going on family holidays, doing business, allowing midwives and carers to spend time with patients rather than travelling to them etc. They get doctors, nurses, architects, MP’s, businessmen, firemen and policemen to work every day. They allow tourists to explore and spend money in far flung locations. They are essential for rural life, not just a luxury. What you get suckered by is the concept that city dwellers are the only people on the planet and that single occupancy commuting is the only car travel conducted. If pollution is the metric by which EV’s are judged, they have no role whatsoever in society, as demonstrated by Volvo in a recent study. If you loony, green, socialist fanatics had two brain cells to rub together you would understand that, whilst it might be good to have EV’s in city centres, don’t impose the useless things on the rest of us because… Read more »
Cars mean freedom for normal people and some cannot stand that idea. In this country you can drive just about anywhere whenever you like. That sticks in their throat, that freedom.
Movement and speech trouble tyrants, which is why they try to restrict both.
The ridiculous, inane absurdities of wokery have one purpose, and it’s not inclusion. It’s to make us watch what we say.
If we are trained to be anxious about the correct words for the most simple facts of life (man/woman), we are less likely to create genuine trouble for the authorities. Our minds will be too befuddled.
ff we are confined to our homes (or can be on the most feeble of pretexts), or restricted to moving only along agreed lines of transportation laid out for us for the economic purposes of others, we are less likely to be able to move for our own purposes – in the end, even to have the idea of moving for our own purposes.
It also means prosperity for the masses, without which the elite cannot survive.
If we are all poor, where does Geoff Bezos’ income come from?
No answer, came the loud reply!
What are you, ten years old? It is LESS government we want in our lives, not more.
If people want to walk, cycle or do cartwheels nothing is stopping them. This isn’t North Korea. Leave people in peace.
An odd thing to say.
The construction of a viable cycle network does not infringe on personal freedom any more than the construction of a road network does.
If we build cycle paths, will cyclists get the fuck off the roads they don’t pay for?
They don’t pay for the cycle paths. Why are they entitled to them?
The health benefits of cycling, and cyclists are tax payers too. And it takes cars off other roads (except when it’s raining). At a guess…
Cyclists do not pay road tax or insurance. They are not registered so if they cause a crash and cycle off no one knows who they are.
This is a real big problem in city centres.
As for health benefits, great for the few who take cycling seriously but there’s not many that do.
It takes several miles of cycling to work off a mars bar. Most people are just kidding themselves.
The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers.
If all cars go electric and we don’t replace fuel tax with something else, drivers will pay nothing (and many already do).
The cheapest way by far to improve the road network and reduce traffic for drivers is to build a walking and cycling network.
Yes it does you dumb freak. It means the imposition of government legislation to build cycle networks within existing road networks designed specifically for cars, rightly or wrongly.
The congestion in London’s road networks are a direct consequence of traffic calming methods, shutting rat runs caused by those traffic calming networks, building cycle lanes that are rarely used, and shutting more rat runs caused by building cycle lanes.
Your dumb, ideological concepts are ruining motor transport, not cars.
It is an observable phenomenon that cycle lanes in London are barely used. It’s also an observed phenomenon that when its raining cycle lanes are almost completely abandoned.
It’s also well known that a builder will charge £1,000 a day to work in London, £250 of which is devoted to congestion/clean air charges and parking fines.
I can hire a builder on the outskirts of London for £250 per day.
Communists like you cause problems by legislating, then cause more problems with legislation to solve the problems you caused, than you had in the first place.
All roads are already built on the basis on government legislation.
The cheapest way by far to reduce ballooning traffic on roads is to enable a switch to other forms of transport.
In terms of roads and parking areas, cars already take a massive share of available land. It’s tremendously inefficient.
Oh, it must be spring.
Pitch that line in a lashing November gale.
The private car is the biggest vehicle of personal freedom invented. If you own your own private car then you a free to get in it whenever you want and drive literally anywhere on land (within reason!) that takes your fancy. When the car is gone, either through the cost of electric cars pricing motorists off the road or government legislating them out of the hands of ordinary people, egged on by halfwits such as yourself, then people will find their movement severely restricted. This is the real reason why governments and in particular the left have a visceral hatred of the private car.
Readers may be interested in how car use is controlled in Singapore:
How car use is controlled in the UK:
1) anyone can take a driving test, so long as they can afford the price, and if they pass they get a driving licence;
2) Buy a Ferrari, the most powerful one available.
3) Put ‘L’ plates on said Ferrari and hire a driving instructor.
4) Pass test in Ferrari and drive away from the test centre unsupervised.
5) Means of any control over the number of ill trained, certified driver allowed to use UK roads driving Ferrari’s?
None!
No “certificates of entitlement” or any other restriction required.
Singapore has a strict supply and demand quota. Can’t afford it? Do what Fingal suggests and get a bike.
The laws of supply and demand are strictly adhered to. And it works.
All very interesting, but I’m not suggesting getting rid of cars.
My cunning plan for world domination is coming together nicely.
On the eve of 2029/2030 I shall take delivery of my brand new, 500BHP, V6 SUV and choke all the snowflake EV drivers with my fumes.
I will be the new ruler of the free world. Anyone foolish enough to oppose me will be lined up against a wall and subjected to a blip on my throttle.
That goes for you too Klaus. Your private jet fumes are but a budgie fart in comparison to a gas guzzler, to which I shall add some Castrol R1 to further torture you before you expire (only really sad, and very old petrol heads will understand that bit).
Victory is in the palm of my hand.
Mwaaaahahahah.
😉
I’m not saying that lass is pretty but she sure as hell makes Greta look like the sinner that she is.
Can I be your deputy? Would require a V8 SUV though!
Granted.
I will still have the diesel mondy. 250k by then. Cat useless. DPF f***ed but i’ll just get it mapped out and crack on. Be like driving a steam engine around with the clouds of smoke. Cyclists beware.
Targets.Ther3cto be missed, fudged, lied about, shunted aside, forgotten.
Memo just in case: buy new petrol car in 2029.
Of course, they do not really want us to drive e-cars. What they really want is that us plebs desist driving full-stop.
That is the aim. The eco crap has nothing to do with health or saving the planet but everything about control and caging the slaves.
If you have to travel it will be public transport only and then only with a chip in your arm.
Work (if we require and let you); consume (the diet and goods we have selected); be silent (or speak in the confused inanities we approve) and still (unless we have approved your movements); die.
This does not have to be the plan of any sort of cabal, It’s the inevitable programmatic tendency of those with too much wealth and power, and a phenomenal appetite for even more.
You nailed it as usual AE.👍
Exactly. As e-cars become the only option, the price of the raw materials will sky-rocket. Only the very well off will be able to afford them. Even if those on more modest incomes were able to afford them, the grid would be unable to cope with the demand, particularly if more reliable sources of energy are overlooked in favour of so-called renewables.
Think about what you have said.
If the general population is confined to walking and bikes, personal income, and therefore tax, will fall off a cliff.
The income required to buy goods will be non existent, so how do governments and billionaires maintain their wealth. They don’t.
The NHS, welfare state, infrastructure, the great reset, Gates’ ‘vaccines’ everything – absolutely relies on personal income.
EV’s can’t survive as the resources to make them will become ever more scarcer as government edicts to buy them increase.
Their cost will skyrocket, productivity will decline and the means to buy them will recede.
Tax receipts will rapidly fall.
Our government knows all this. We are going through a ‘hoax’ moment in time. I suspect our government may be playing the greens for suckers.
Raise their expectations, increase the unpopular frenzy of green protest’s etc., let them inconvenience the public until the public squeals. Then dash them like a Greek plate, to the floor.
Not even a government can possibly be as stupid as ours appears to be right now over green policy. We have one single green politician in the whole country for Christ’s sake!
I like the Machiavellian nature of your thinking, Red. I can tell you were a cop 😉
You won’t be buying anything, we have been informed, we’ll ‘own nothing and be happy’
We will overthrow the idiots, own everything and be far happier.
Why do people parrott the shite? Where’s the fight?!
Fight is missing at the moment. If our dozy brothers and sisters don’t wake up we are firked.
Just insert depopulation into your argument and you have your answer.
No plebs! Just patricians and slaves.
Cannot see it happening myself. Bunter will be gone by then and there will be 2 GE’s before 2030. There could well be a true conservative government by then after loosing so many seats and a hung parliament.
There’s only one GE (2024) that can have any real effect on this mad scheme. By 2029, or a few years earlier all car manufacturers in the U.K. will’ve spent billions of pounds converting their production lines to make EV’s and won’t want to convert back to producing petrol or diesel models. Therefore they will become vocal supporters of the 2030 ban. The window for stopping this insane idea is shorter than a lot of people realise.
Manufacturers are doing lot’s of EV marketing, which is cheap, but they are hedging their bets on EV’s.
Take that to the bank.
They were hedging their bets … then they saw the insane costs.
The numbers of customers for EV’s will be very small simply based on cost.
The push to EV’s has bugger all to do with climate. The agenda is the reset and that means confining populations to towns and cities.
Shanghai is the current advertorial.
I entirely agree with your sentiment other than “a true conservative government”. That’s long gone. Boris had the chance to move back to that, but didn’t. If we want a ‘conservative’ government we must all seek out, vote for, or stand as a Libertarian candidate. Look at the passage of time. Classic liberals (to the right of conservatives) were ousted by the labour party. Libertarians were unreasonably right wing, opposing state intervention of any description. They have now moved into the space of classic liberals/conservatives of old. They support continuance of a reformed NHS and welfare society. Russia is accused of being a repressive state, but their income tax is a flat 14%, including a free, basic health service. Private health care is cheap. A friend paid £100 to have a broken ankle taken care of. You are looking at £1,000 minimum in the UK to treat a broken ankle privately. Russia is no oasis of western values, but it doesn’t squeeze its populace until the pips squeak. It is also representative of a nation that places responsibility for the individual, on the individual. Perhaps Libertarian values are worth considering. You can look up Libertarian party UK. And short of… Read more »
I too subscribe to this. Essentially anti-big government. Classical liberal basically.
Also a move towards localism. The absurdity of, say, living in Newcastle but sending money to London for your council to beg them for some of it back is nonsensical.
But a basic return to individual responsibility and resilience is a good start.
The concept of localism is fine, but ludicrous. I think every state in the US is probably larger than the UK, their localism is for the state, not the fed.
How do they manage to govern an entire state without subdivisional localism?
A single central government in the UK is sufficient. Whether it should be in London is another matter entirely. But when you consider our geographic situation, localism is absurd.
Agreed. The other problem with localism is that it produces another layer of bureaucracy such as local mayors churning out more pointless regulation and paid for by us.
Agree entirely.
Too many politicians feeling they have to justify their existence. There’s a house with seven different parking restrictions outside it – and three more outside the next three houses (so ten for four houses). Honestly, I’d like to know what these people get up to. At the risk of upsetting anarchists, let’s have a government minister for reducing legislation.
Governments do one thing very well. They cause problems, then propose solutions to problems, which cause problems, to which they offer solutions…..
It’s hardly anarchy to say, fuck that.
Whilst I have some sympathy for Mark Steyn’s small state approach (“I quite like there to be a road at the end of my drive”…) I suspect it’s not going to happen any time soon. Gradual change to the current system (the basis of conservatism) might be the best bet in the circumstances. Anyway, we could certainly do with getting rid of some of the the daft ministers (“Women And Equalities”?!!).
(Btw, I solved a parking problem once myself, at no cost to anyone, with my idea copied by a number of other people, before the local government weighed in with their bureaucratic sledgehammer of restrictions and fines and wardens, so I see what you mean).
Tarmacadam roads were built in the USA long before Income Tax was introduced.
This whole idea of public services is a fallacy. Public ownership of utilities is a recipe for under performance and corruption. The evidence is a matter of history.
There is corruption in private ownership, but rarely under performance. Indeed, corruption is usually induced when government gets close to commerce.
‘Who would build the roads?’
‘WE would!’
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/trading-liberty-for-safety?s=r
To be fair, the Birmingham toll motorway is probably the best road in Britain.
The roads around Birmingham are dystopian and feel like hell on Earth. SMART motorways are clearly evil and designed by Godless folk
I understand the concept of taxing people’s income would have been shocking in the past. When is “tax freedom day” these days? June? July? It’s ridiculous. And you can bet that tax freedom day won’t be made a bank holiday any time soon.
Perhaps it’s the devolution of power, not its localisation, that matters. Which decisions can be left to the individual, and which cannot?
Just for starters, let’s leave mask-wearing and the taking of any form of “medication” up to the individual.
As for issues of the production, distribution and exchange of goods – many of those can be handled as well or better locally, by those who are not “officials”.
Not gone well in Scotland or Wales.
The UK Independence Party (I think) were pushing for a second referendum on the Welsh Assembly, presumably after growing tired of Welsh politicians pushing for a second referendum on the (rather less close) vote to leave the EU.
Not to other governments!
I think the Aberdonians might have their own views about being run from Edinburgh rather than their own city…
Let’s face it, Boris Johnson is a communist authoritarian at heart.
I think the world has been dragged left, not just Boris. Venture too far out the ‘consensus’ envelope and he becomes unelectable.
I’m beginning to wonder if anyone could possibly be as stupid as he appears to be.
I’m kind of leaning toward a general theory of, give the left enough rope and they will hang themselves.
Biden is doing an extremely good job of that as a leftist in power.
Boris may well just have to give the lefty loonies enough rope by encouraging the idiots to hang themselves.
I sincerely don’t believe anyone, not even Boris, other than the left themselves, could be idiotic enough to impose what’s being imposed on the country without having some sort of cunning plan.
Boris may be Baldrick of course.
Sadly, I just don’t think Boris is clever enough for what you suggest. That leaves only 2 possible conclusions either :-
a) he and other politicians like him are completely stupid or
b) they are deliberately sabotaging western society.
I do agree with you, but UK politics is desperately complicated and obtuse. PM’s are controlled, as they should be, by parliament, which knows its duty is to the common man.
Our system is actually designed rather well, we just shouldn’t expect too much of it too soon.
Thatcher’s 1980’s policies didn’t manifest themselves until well into the 2000’s.
What are you smokin’ Red?
See the Boris Johnson UN 2019 speech I posted above. He is working for the people rolling out the SMART CITIES dystopian nightmare designed in Israel made in China hell on Earth world these pieces of Davos slime have got teed up for us, where the scum get to swicth your freedom on and offf depending on whether or not you obey their tyrannous evil warped Antichrist vision of the world. Supported by the Church Of England of course
PM speech to the UN General Assembly: 24 September 2019Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke to the UN General Assembly in New York. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-24-september-2019 Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, faithful late night audience. It is customary for the British Prime Minister to come to this United Nations and pledge to advance our values and defend our rules, the rules of a peaceful world. From protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf To persevering in the vital task of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East. And of course I am proud to do all of these things. But no-one can ignore a gathering force that is reshaping the future of every member of this Assembly. There has been nothing like it in history When I think of the great scientific revolutions of the past – print, the steam engine, aviation, the atomic age – I think of new tools that we acquired but over which we – the human race – had the advantage, Which we controlled. That is not necessarily the case in the digital age. You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal… Read more »
There is excellent work being done in the EU, the Commonwealth, and of course the UN, which has a vital role in ensuring that no country is excluded from the wondrous benefits of this technology, and the industrial revolution it is bringing about. But we must be still more ambitious. We need to find the right balance between freedom and control; between innovation and regulation; between private enterprise and government oversight. We must insist that the ethical judgements inherent in the design of new technology are transparent to all. And we must make our voices heard more loudly in the standards bodies that write the rules. Above all, we need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology. So – here’s the good news – I invite you next year to a summit in London, a wonderful city, where by the way it is not raining 94 per cent of the time, and where at one stage – when I was Mayor of London – we discovered that we had more Michelin starred restaurants even than Paris. The French somehow rapidly recovered – by a process… Read more »
Why don’t you fuck off to Russia then?
Sadly Red your thinking is out of date. The political landscape you describe is gone forever. The reset is upon us and we have to face up to the destruction of the world we once knew.
It’s blood on the streets or slavery.
We could be subjected to the Labour/Scottish Nationalist coalition. Raynor as PM and Nippy as Deputy PM. Anyone going to ask why I keep voting Tory despite everything.?
Anyway, electric cars. Clearly the only right an proper time for electric vehicles is when the market says its ready for them. We have 150 years of IC Engines, which have become insanely efficient (half the fuel and a third the emissions) and with another 20 years of development will have a smaller and smaller impact still. Why are we throwing away all that and the industry to make and maintain them while their replacements are inefficient and expensive. It makes me laugh when people call them ‘sustainable’ How much Lithium and Cobalt do you think there is..?
How would a Labour/Scottish Nationalist coalition be any worse than life under comrade Johnson?
Seriously..?
Great comment. But you forgot one thing. Whilst our cars are more efficient than they ever were, they have also grown in size, weight and safety standards. I’m a Mini fan of old. I look at what was once considered a family car then, and look at what’s a family car now. The comparison is insane. Our more efficient cars are now moving around twice the weight they used to. My 2016, 1.2 Litre turbocharged Skoda Yeti had not dissimilar performance, internal space and luggage capacity to a 3.5 Litre Rover P6 of the 70’s. At 70mph motorway speeds it was returning about 40mpg. The Rover would be lucky to see 20mpg. The Rover would do 0-60mph in 16 seconds. The Skoda, around 10 seconds. My 2015 E class, diesel Mercedes estate was even more insane. With acres more space than a P6, it would cruise, fully loaded, on the motorway at 90mph and returning 40mpg+. It would do 0-60mph in around 8 seconds. The P6 had no catalytic converter or any other emission controls to restrict performance. Without them, Formula one cars of the 80’s were producing in excess of 1,500bhp from a turbocharged, 1,500cc, 4 cylinder, standard road… Read more »
Great car, fun memories of crusing around in a P6 3500 sport! The noise of the engine was fantastic 😊
Its pathetic, 1st with the vaccine rollout, 1st into Ukraine, now alone in banning petrol and diesel……. why the extremism on the world stage?
I wouldn’t worry. It’s a Boris promise so it doesn’t mean anything
Its called THE CITY OF LONDON. The people making these decisions at the top level are the controllers of THE CITY OF LONDON. They also have their stooges in UK politics making sure that they get their own way EVERY TIME.
Driverless Tesla crashes into $3.5M private jet at aviation trade show in Spokane, WA.
A friend:” People down the road from us have bought a Tesla.”
Me: “Have they got a second car?”
Him: “Oh yes, they’ve kept the Porsche.”
They want to cut down our mobility.
By “our mobility” I assume you mean the mobility of the less well off. If you can afford an EV and have a driveway on which to charge it you’ll be O.K.
If you have to use on street parking forget it. It’s often impossible to find a parking space within 50m of where I live, and sometimes not even on the same street. Am I expected to have up to 100m of extension cable and see the whole street crisscrossed with cables, or spend ages queueing up for a public charger? even assuming I could afford an EV in the first place.
My favourite subject of the moment.
Public chargers are the solution, or so we are told. In service stations.
When they are crowded, you are fucked.
Perhaps we’ll have overhead power lines lining streets with no off street parking, that brats can hand trainers from.
Sorry. To late to give a detailed description of my support for your comment.
Ah, the Top Gear solution, and going on the motorway will be like the dodgems!
Anyway, haven’t trolley buses been tried before?
Many electric chargers are often broken at motorway service stations. The ones working are woefully small in number. The 100 kW ones use electricity at the rate of 2000 UK homes. If you had all electric cars, no diesel or petrol a major services would need 2000 plus chargers working most of 24 hours per day, due to the charging time needed. (We can look at a large petrol station at busy periods – often 30 or more vehicles at pumps, but they only stop for 5 minutes. That’s 360/hour. If charging takes 6 times longer, around 30 minutes, you easily fill your 2000 chargers.)
So, you’ve created an equivalent city of 4 million homes in electricity use at ONE service station.
Sorry, wrong sums above and the edit button has disappeared
Many electric chargers are often broken at motorway service stations. The ones working are woefully small in number. The 100 kW ones use electricity at the rate of 200 UK homes. If you had all electric cars, no diesel or petrol a major services would need 2000 plus chargers working most of 24 hours per day, due to the charging time needed. (We can look at a large petrol station at busy periods – often 30 or more vehicles at pumps, but they only stop for 5 minutes. That’s 360/hour. If charging takes 6 times longer, around 30 minutes, you easily fill your 2000 chargers.)
So, you’ve created an equivalent city of 400,000 homes in electricity use at ONE service station.
Arrogant human nonsense. The planet will rid itself of us when it is ready. Like a dog shedding fleas.
Let’s hope GC was right.
Unfortunately, it isn’t. Over on the other side of the Irish Sea, the same agenda is being pushed by the Kermit party (green on the outside, red on the inside). Unless legislation is reversed, we will be in the same situation.
You have more pressing issues, friend.
LOL.
@JohnFernley The basic premise is correct, “There are also serious questions about how ‘green’ electric cars actually are.” but this bit is partly wrong: “The mining and processing of the rare earth metals used in the batteries is particularly energy intensive.” It’s true, but REEs are used in wind turbines predominantly (Nd magnets etc.). Besides all the (lots-of-coal-used-to-manufacture) steel-mounted turbines, which are also highly “un-green”… The batteries of most EVs are actually made up of Nickel, Cobalt, Lithium, Graphite in varying amounts (first two highest, but maybe up to 500-800kg per vehicle in total!) and they are both energy intensive and can be highly environmentally polluting and socially problematic. Russia produces 30% of world Ni, and China is the processor of over 60% of all these metals and the others… not much environmental control there or worry about CO2 etc “A recent study by Volvo found that the manufacture of electric cars generated much more CO2 emissions than the manufacture of an equivalent petrol car. According to this study, the average motorist in the U.K. would have to drive an electric car for 10 years before it breaks even in its total carbon footprint (manufacture plus driving) with the equivalent petrol car.” Indeed, but of… Read more »
Excellent points (and yet another indication of why the policy towards Russia is stupid).
All these shenanigans have nothing to do with the protection of anybody’s wellbeing. They’re a distraction.
Of course, we should aim to avoid pollution (I mean, the actual honest-to-God pollution of genuinely dangerous substances), and a great deal has been done on that score.
But the moment we heard talk of “saving the planet”, we might have known that we were heading into the world of a quasi-religious cult: with its high priests, intolerance of others, disdain for economic facts, and general irrationality.
A friend of mine had to give up his old car which he rarely drove because although it took green fuel, it did not comply with a 2005 EU Directive that tfl voluntarily complies with. I might have considered buying an electric car one day before the Green madness took hold, now I will not do so on principle. I will get myself a windy ozone layer eroding Oxon and cart instead. It should take the bureaucrats a while to get around to legislating against such alternatives.
Yep, horse and cart is my plan, will also be handy for ploughing once they ban tractors. I mean, how is that going to work, a battery powered tractor??? Can see a huge market for old skills coming back.
There was a story about someone who went to a McDonald’s drive through on horseback. Apparently they refused to serve him!
I have wondered if some people would go back to carrier pigeons if the internet got too bad…
Oxen or Oxford? (Actually it could be a Morris Oxford…).
Opps! Ideally I would like to purchase a Morris Oxen.
As another angle on this article, the current situation revolving around Ukraine is revealing some incomprehensible priorities held by both the UK state and majority of its population. Apparently we are to be deeply worried about and expend vast amounts of time, money and energy on a (completely unsubstantiated) ‘threat’ of relatively tiny average temperature rises (ones which have recently mysteriously disappeared) taking place over the course of several decades. Sufficiently panicked, in fact that we should be willing to throw away pretty much all of the benefits that the fossil-fuel powered Industrial Revolution gifted us with in terms of massively improved longevity and general quality of life; specifically in the case highlighted by this article, the enormous benefits (in terms of travel freedom, mobility for the elderly, disabled, single parents, etc) provided by relatively cheap and reliable personal transport. When you strip away all the vastly funded Climate Change pseudo-science what you are left with is the gigantic hubris of humanity believing it can fully understand, much less control, the ever-changing and infinitely complex worldwide climate system. At the same time as this Chicken Little mass hysteria over a future non-event, the now hugely increased genuine and imminent threat… Read more »
From what I’ve seen, quite a lot of people would die rather slowly from a nuclear attack.
I think society in general has become more fearful (the snowflake generation?), which I see as in large part the result of attacks on the family and family life over a number of decades, though no doubt there are other factors.
Agree with both your points.
The sheer horror of nuclear war, especially for those who survive the initial explosions and fireballs, makes medieval painted depictions of hell look like gentle rural scenes.
Also about the excessively fearful nature of modern culture, eg terrors over the weather (‘Climate Change’), sugary foods, and, of course, a flu-like disease (COVID19).
It was the irony of this contemporary extreme concern for health and longevity coexisting with a complete lack of interest in the genuine existential threat posed by nuclear weapons that I was highlighting.
The breakdown of conventional family values is indeed relevant, and this is in turn a symptom of the general abandonment of spiritual beliefs (which can alleviate fear of death).
The modern eco-health movement is resolutely materialistic and atheistic.
Very good. Don’t forget the reset.
Thanks, and both individual states and supra-state organisations such as the WEF and UN are certainly heavily pushing the whole Green agenda using James Bond villain / 1984 type slogans as ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘Build Back Better’.
But I think it’s important to recognise that this is not being primarily imposed top down; the majority of people in the West have adopted environmentalism (and it’s Climate Change Book of Revelations) as a substitute religion for both Christianity and the now largely abandoned class-based version of Marxism.
Fair points .
Russia did the same for a while but now (under “new Hitler Putin”) they have, like several African countries, apparently become too Christian (well perhaps not according to Justin Welby – if you can count him as a Christian…).
Organised Christianity is a double-edged sword and can be used for harmful purposes (such as claims of divine support for a war) when the anti-violence teachings of Jesus himself are ignored.
Leo Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church for pointing out this glaring moral discrepancy in its vigorous support for Tsarist military endeavours, and his grave spinning is currently causing minor earthquakes near his Yasnya Polyana burial site.
Didn’t he believe in fatalism?
Tolstoy’s views changed somewhat as he grew older (mainly a firming up process rather than radical transformation) but as far as I am aware he always strongly believed in the duty of the individual to control their behaviour through their consciences, ie he believed in free will rather than fatalism. By middle age anyway he had developed a fully spiritual faith based on his earlier conventional (Russian Orthodox) Christianity, but rejecting any elements which contradicted ‘the law of love’ such as support for warfare and violence in general (he also became a vegetarian). As pointed out above for the heresy of actually agreeing with Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount he was formally ejected from the Orthodox Church (he had ceased attending in any case), and it is probable that he only escaped internment or worse by the Tsarist regime because he was by then one of the world’s most famous authors. He was also part of a very prominent ancient noble line with court connections, though he again renounced his title as Count Tolstoy in later life. The main area where I disagree with Leo Tolstoy was his espousal of a strict asceticism and proto-environmentalism – he advocated… Read more »
About 90% of people were fooled into believing there was a deadly pandemic.
Millions were tricked into taking ‘vaccines’ which are not true vaccines as they don’t work and are dangerous.
After decades of lies about man-made Climate Change, millions of half-wits have been scared into believing the lie that mankind has any significant impact upon atmospheric temperatures.
Pathetic, really, that so many are easily fooled and have no power of critical thinking.
From the moment that Margaret Thatcher launched the Climate Change pseudo-science and agenda onto the political public stage in 1988 (in part to try and justify her government’s wholesale destruction of UK heavy industry and coal mining) the British state and general green movement has expended vast amounts of time and energy in propagandising the ideology.
This campaign has fully permeated the education system, with children indoctrinated into climate alarmism and general environmentalism from a very early age.
The green ideology also includes a strong ultra-health dimension (eat your organic carrots etc) which helps explain the overwhelming public support for ridiculously tyrannical coronavirus measures such as lockdowns.
“the gigantic hubris of humanity believing it can fully understand, much less control, the ever-changing and infinitely complex worldwide climate system ”
Exactly.
We’re at gas Mark 3. Can we turn it down to gas mark 2? FFS!
Could be a problem if we have to turn the heating up.
Of course climate bollox is all part of the scam.
CONTROL.
This is typical of the current government. A half baked ill thought through policy which inflicts unnecessary misery and cost on the general public.
Reset.
Some quick arithmetic shows that EVs are no cheaper to run if there was a taxation level playing field. In fact if you change up at service station, many of which charge north of 50p per kWh, they are more expensive than a ICE.
But the tax bias doesn’t stop on the energy costs. The government has reduced company car tax to 0% for EVs and even luxury car tax is waived for EVs over £40k (i.e. all Teslas).
How many covid bounce back loans funded all these new Teslas which suddenly appeared on UK roads in what was supposed to be a deep recession? Of course the taxpayer will end up paying for this too.
I explained this in 2021 to a friend who’d bought a 2nd hand elec van. He’d been recording how many miles per kWh (or kWh per 100 km) it achieved and thought it was much better than the previous diesel van. He was surprised when I told him it cost about the same (ex-tax).
RFK’s best-seller is back in stock at Blackwells …
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci-by-Robert-Francis-Kennedy/9781510766808
That Fauci book is brilliant.
It explains what has really been going on, which is very different from what the BBC and other mainstream media tell us.
…
Why use a tracking device to tot up mileage? Plain old petrol cars all have a mileometer which is checked and recorded at every MoT. Old tech, but it works.
As for petrol tax, Edwina “Egg production” Curry was recently raving on the radio abt how cheap it is tp run an electric car. How many years does it take as an MP to achieve such a level of naivety!
I imagine they’d want to combine the data with where you were, and when, so that they might charge you the road tolls accordingly?
The electric car technology is already very efficient. At sucking up government subsidies.
Vote Green … go green (as you see the cost of Johnson’s green madness)
The sale of new diesel and petrol cars will be banned in the UK from 2030, but that doesn’t mean you can’t buy one in another country and have it delivered here does it (or drive it back from that country)?
But it may mean that you cannot register it in the UK and that it will have to remain a foreign registered car.
Of the 444,871 cars currently on offer on Autotrader uk, 117,042 of them are priced under £10,000. (26%.)
Apply that 26% to the 33 million cars on British roads and that’s a lot of people engaging in minimal cost motoring.
Take into consideration those living in terraced housing or high-rise apartments and you have many millions of people for whom electric cars are impractical and/or, unaffordable.
This push towards electric cars has nothing to do with the environment, it’s all about removing car ownership from the grasp of ordinary working people under the pretense of protecting the climate.
Thank you for the numbers. It freaks the left out.
Correct and welcome.
You are quite right this electric car illusion is a huge con on the majority of people who have been sold the dream of a gleaming Tesla but for whom the reality will be standing in the rain waiting for the local driverless community uber-taxi which will not arrive because it has been vandalised.
There are currently 33 million registered petrol/diesel cars, how many electric cars is it possible to have on UK roads? how much electric charging capacity can we install? how many batteries can we re-cycle per annum, indeed can we re-cycle any? I think it is optimistic to think we can cope with 5 million electric cars on UK roads.
And for an electric car to be viable it needs to have a working battery worth £4000 or more and so it is hard to see the secondhand price of workable electric cars drop below £5000. Whereas at the moment I can buy a serviceable secondhand Ford Fiesta for £1500. This whole electric car business is hugely socially divisive, with great swathes of lower and middle income people no longer having the cheap travel freedom that diesel/petrol cars have provided.
I agree with you. I’ve been saying for a long time that the whole intention is to reserve (electric) car use for the “elite”.
Car use has given people the freedom to go where they want, when they want. You can live in one place and travel to work in another, you can have days out, pursue hobbies, do whatever you like. The car has given people that freedom.
But if you have to rely on buses or trains, it’s not nearly so easy. And bus fares are not cheap, either. If your day out was to take two children, your picnic, buckets and spades and the family dog on a bus, it would be stressful before you even start. Plus you would have to go and return when the bus went and came back. Not much freedom of choice for you….so maybe you’d just stay put.
That’s what TPTB want….the proles under control, not wandering about.
Most mornings, a part of my routine is to check how renewables are going on providing for the electric demand… today, all of the renewable supplies are providing 3.9% of demand.
It makes me proud to know that we, in this country, are at the forefront of this magnificent technology and, like those who govern us, I can’t think of a single thing that might go wrong. In fact, it is clear to me that we should ban the use of gas and other fossil fuels immediately, after all gas is only providing a piffling amount at 83.4%, it’s clear we can do without it…
Our money is being wisely spent, thank God for Boris and his Green agenda.
The UK will not ban petrol cars.
My understanding is that the UK will stop the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and will not issue any new registrations for diesel/petrol cars. This may be academic as the way things are going in the world there may not be any new petrol/diesel cars available by 2030.
The sale of petrol/electric hybrids could continue for a bit longer, but no manufacturer would invest in a new product unless there is a reasonable forecast of the market for a few years – say 8 to 10 years minimum. Entirely possible that the policy has a negative effect on continued development of engines, e.g. improved efficiency and so on.
Some manufacturers now only offer petrol hybrid models of some brands, with no diesel option – e.g. Toyota.
Time the government did a rapid U turn on this commitment that will see older, less clean and fuel efficient, petrol and diesel cars being kept for longer, and their price inflated as there will still be significant demand for them.
I think we need to be careful what we wish for, to stop old cars being kept on the road the Gov may simply tax them off the road or introduce new MOT rules which old cars cannot meet thus forcing them off the road.
The post below seems correct, the Gov want to stop the hoi-polloi from owning their own vehicles and enjoying the fantastic egalitarian travel freedom that petrol/diesel cars have provided
All based on the green nonsense which has been comprehensively disproved by real scientists. Unfortunately many, including Boris, see it as a means of control like they have never experienced before, like it, and welcome it.
I can’t find full Environmental Impact Studies for EVs or wind turbines. Has anyone got any links?