Government rules for new EV sales

[nicholsong]

"Under a rule to be introduced in January, carmakers will be required to ensure that at least 22 per cent of their new sales in the UK are of emission-free models, rising each year to reach 80 per cent by 2030."

I cannot understand how the government can mandate that sales must be achieved, since a contract for sale is between two willing parties and manufacturers cannot force motorists to buy.

The government could require the manufacturers to produce the cars but cannot force the public to buy them, well not in a democracy.

 

[GJH]

The UK government can mandate whatever it likes so long as the law allows it to do so. Presumably it's a similar situation in other countries which already have a ZEV mandate (e.g. the USA, the EU and China).

The mandate does not force purchases but imposes penalties if the targets are not met. That should progressively reduce the number of non-ZEV vehicles available so that those who wish to purchase a new vehicle are less able to (or forced to if people wish to use that term) buy a non-ZEV over time.

Thinking about it, though, that seems more sensible to reduce availability of non-ZEV over time than have a sudden cliff edge in 2030.

As regards "forcing" the public, sometimes some elements of the public need that to make them look beyond their own selfish short-term interests.

 

[chesterfield hooligan]

Then make the government buy the surplus job done their rules let them pay (us).

 

[Wh05apk]

Manufacturers may decide to slash the price if evs to avoid paying fines for not hitting targets?

 

[MichaelT]

Then make the government buy the surplus job done their rules let them pay (us).

I think you forgot that the government money is your money paid for in taxes, its not free.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chesterfield hooligan]

That's why I put us in brackets.

 

[Coolcats]

"Under a rule to be introduced in January, carmakers will be required to ensure that at least 22 per cent of their new sales in the UK are of emission-free models, rising each year to reach 80 per cent by 2030."

I cannot understand how the government can mandate that sales must be achieved, since a contract for sale is between two willing parties and manufacturers cannot force motorists to buy.

The government could require the manufacturers to produce the cars but cannot force the public to buy them, well not in a democracy.

Like all these things a government puts a framework in place. Take heat pumps they have been held up as what every home must have despite them not being suitable. David Cameron squashed support for solar panels for homes is an example yet the inffuencail power industries are planting them in fields instead of roofs.

All technology is politically shaped

 

[Guigsy]

"Under a rule to be introduced in January, carmakers will be required to ensure that at least 22 per cent of their new sales in the UK are of emission-free models, rising each year to reach 80 per cent by 2030."

I cannot understand how the government can mandate that sales must be achieved, since a contract for sale is between two willing parties and manufacturers cannot force motorists to buy.

The government could require the manufacturers to produce the cars but cannot force the public to buy them, well not in a democracy.

It's easy. They'll just make the ICE cars so expensive that you'll have no choice.

Something like this is already in force. Large manufacturers have to decrease the emissions of their average car each year.

 

[Figaro]

As regards "forcing" the public, sometimes some elements of the public need that to make them look beyond their own selfish short-term interests.

Really ?

A great many people just want a car to take them from A to B at the most reasonable cost possible

 

[Gromett]

If they are not already selling X% of Ev's then they can increase the price of ICE and use that to subsides EV. The level of the subsidy can be finely balanced to just achieve the government mandate.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Really ?

A great many people just want a car to take them from A to B at the most reasonable cost possible

But fail to take into account the whole picture. For instance looking at the initial cost but ignoring the ongoing cost of dealing with the effects of their purchase.

 

[Gromett]

The other alternative is that manufactures ration sales of ICE cars in the UK to meet this limit. Then if this is so low, they just pull out of the UK market.

I personally think this is a STUPID, DUMB and counter productive bit of legislation that should be dropped.

The ban on new ICE sales in 2030 I can fully support, although I would have used 2035 to match the EU. But all this extra crap like this and the ULEZ are counter productive and punishing.

 

[LesW]

But fail to take into account the whole picture. For instance looking at the initial cost but ignoring the ongoing cost of dealing with the effects of their purchase.

Sorry.. but if someone can't afford something, they can't afford something..

 

[GJH]

Sorry.. but if someone can't afford something, they can't afford something..

I remember my Mum telling me a tale about her Dad. He realised that he couldn't afford to smoke and feed his family so he gave up smoking that day and never smoked again - i.e. he found his own solution rather than expecting somebody else to find one for him.

 

[Sandancers]

The UK government can mandate whatever it likes so long as the law allows it to do so. Presumably it's a similar situation in other countries which already have a ZEV mandate (e.g. the USA, the EU and China).

I think the Gov. should introduce the same rules to cover Motorhomes, OK there are no battery powered MHs yet, but by the same principles expressed in some of the comments above then the Manufactures would be forced to develop EV MHs.

Except of course that it wouldn't work.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Figaro]

I remember my Mum telling me a tale about her Dad. He realised that he couldn't afford to smoke and feed his family so he gave up smoking that day and never smoked again - i.e. he found his own solution rather than expecting somebody else to find one for him.

But would he have been willing or able to pay 50% more for his food to meet a government imposed directive on sustainability ?

And how do you think that would have made him feel ? Angry, I expect so.

 

[GJH]

But would he have been willing or able to pay 50% more for his food to meet a government imposed directive on sustainability ?

And how do you think that would have made him feel ? Angry, I expect so.

Food is a necessity not a luxury like a purchase of a brand new car.
Even governments from the UK Tory and Labour parties are not stupid enough to impose such price rises on necessities.

 

[LesW]

I remember my Mum telling me a tale about her Dad. He realised that he couldn't afford to smoke and feed his family so he gave up smoking that day and never smoked again - i.e. he found his own solution rather than expecting somebody else to find one for him.

Clearly this going way above your understanding.

I know of people, some very old friends, that work in 'normal' paid jobs, that struggle a bit with day to day living costs, who own cars that cost around £3-4,000.

These are perfectly good cars with many years of usage left in them.

There is no way, currently, that they could afford a similar battery car.

 

[SpeedyDux]

The UK government can mandate whatever it likes so long as the law allows it to do so. Presumably it's a similar situation in other countries which already have a ZEV mandate (e.g. the USA, the EU and China).

The mandate does not force purchases but imposes penalties if the targets are not met. That should progressively reduce the number of non-ZEV vehicles available so that those who wish to purchase a new vehicle are less able to (or forced to if people wish to use that term) buy a non-ZEV over time.

Thinking about it, though, that seems more sensible to reduce availability of non-ZEV over time than have a sudden cliff edge in 2030.

As regards "forcing" the public, sometimes some elements of the public need that to make them look beyond their own selfish short-term interests.

Who pays such penalties? Ultimately the customer, because the manufacturers will add the cost to the price of both BEVs and ICE cars and vans.

In effect it become a new eco-tax. In turn that will have the effect of reducing the number of new cars sold in the UK. You can't force a customer to buy an EV.

 

[GJH]

Clearly this going way above your understanding.

I know of people, some very old friends, that work in 'normal' paid jobs, that struggle a bit with day to day living costs, who own cars that cost around £3-4,000.

These are perfectly good cars with many years of usage left in them.

There is no way, currently, that they could afford a similar battery car.

Though related, that is a different point.
The subject of the OP was about new cars available for purchase, not continued use of existing ICE vehicles.

It will be many years beyond 2030 before all ICE cars are off the road so anyone who can not afford to buy brand new will have the alternative choice to buy used - just as they do now.

Not above my understanding at all.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

Manufacturers may decide to slash the price if evs to avoid paying fines for not hitting targets?

Manufacturers sell the vehicles to dealers. All they need to do is what they do now with sales flow & allow a margin for dealers to register ev's as demonstrators. manufacturers will always meet any requirements merely by altering the figures to what is needed. Or if it was me running a manufacturer I'd be selling ev's to myself to maintain the quota % .Many ways to skin a cat

 

[SpeedyDux]

If they are not already selling X% of Ev's then they can increase the price of ICE and use that to subsides EV. The level of the subsidy can be finely balanced to just achieve the government mandate.

Hardly a free market. EVs and ICEs each have their merits so customers ought to be able to choose without the government rigging the car market.

Let natural progression determine the extent to which EVs become a replacement for ICEs. Sod the government's mandate. How about a referendum - then we shall see if this is what the majority would want.

Otherwise the only democratic choice would be to kick them out at the next GE. That seems increasingly likely.

 

[Guigsy]

Clearly this going way above your understanding.

I know of people, some very old friends, that work in 'normal' paid jobs, that struggle a bit with day to day living costs, who own cars that cost around £3-4,000.

These are perfectly good cars with many years of usage left in them.

There is no way, currently, that they could afford a similar battery car.

Those are 10-15 year old cars. There are no equivalent EVs of that age yet. And ICE cars will still be available second hand after 2030. They'll be on the roads for many years to come.

 

[GJH]

Who pays such penalties? Ultimately the customer, because the manufacturers will add the cost to the price of both BEVs and ICE cars and vans.

In effect it become a new eco-tax. In turn that will have the effect of reducing the number of new cars sold in the UK. You can't force a customer to buy an EV.

Of course the customer pays the cost. There isn't anyone else to do so.
In the current situation with emissions, though, the cost has to be paid in some way.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Those are 10-15 year old cars. There are no equivalent EVs of that age yet. And ICE cars will still be available second hand after 2030. They'll be on the roads for many years to come.

We will need a Cuban-style backstreet cottage industry to support the older ICE cars after the manufacturers stop making spares, currently at around 10 years after the model is no longer in production.

I would bet that the government will try to stop this via regulations, higher taxes on road fuel, more stringent MOTs, and scrappage incentives.

The goal is to reduce overall car journeys by 60%. Even EV journeys.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Guigsy]

We will need a Cuban-style backstreet cottage industry to support the older ICE cars after the manufacturers stop making spares, currently at around 10 years after the model is no longer in production.

I would bet that the government will try to stop this via regulations, higher taxes on road fuel, more stringent MOTs, and scrappage incentives.

The goal is to reduce overall car journeys by 60%. Even EV journeys.

There's less parts in an EV than an ICE. Car models are lasting 8 years when a generation used to last 6 years. And there are increasing global rules about fixability. I don't think EVs will be any worse than ICE.

 

[Gromett]

The goal is to reduce overall car journeys by 60%. Even EV journeys.

Back to the conspiracy theories.
Wild claim
unnamed person or group
No evidence.

If you had said, "they are trying to reduce overall ICE car journeys" and stopped there you may have some kind of support to make that argument.

But a specific 60% and including EVs. Nope, sorry that is tinfoil hat land in my opinion.

 

[PaulyP]

The UK government can mandate whatever it likes so long as the law allows it to do so. Presumably it's a similar situation in other countries which already have a ZEV mandate (e.g. the USA, the EU and China).

The mandate does not force purchases but imposes penalties if the targets are not met. That should progressively reduce the number of non-ZEV vehicles available so that those who wish to purchase a new vehicle are less able to (or forced to if people wish to use that term) buy a non-ZEV over time.

Thinking about it, though, that seems more sensible to reduce availability of non-ZEV over time than have a sudden cliff edge in 2030.

As regards "forcing" the public, sometimes some elements of the public need that to make them look beyond their own selfish short-term interests.

If you mean selfish short term interests to include having a 2.8 diesel 4x4 then I’m guilty of owning/driving a vehicle that I like and have no intention of ever giving it up until the day I’m not fit to drive or I’ve died. This or any other government will not stop me and it’s about time they realise they are our servants not our bosses, they are there to do what we want.

 

[Gromett]

This or any other government will not stop me and it’s about time they realise they are our servants not our bosses, they are there to do what we want.

I understand your point. however, they are the servants of all of us and get elected on a manifesto and promises. If the majority want to ban your 2.8 4x4 diesel then it is incumbent on the government to do so.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying they should. Just making the point that they can do things you don't like if the majority wish for it.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Back to the conspiracy theories.
Wild claim
unnamed person or group
No evidence.

If you had said, "they are trying to reduce overall ICE car journeys" and stopped there you may have some kind of support to make that argument.

But a specific 60% and including EVs. Nope, sorry that is tinfoil hat land in my opinion.

It is implicit in the Net Zero strategy. That is not a conspiracy theory. The direction of travel in terms of reducing the percentage of car journeys (by compulsion aka consumer transformation) will become more and more apparent as the 2030 and 2050 deadlines approach.

What think tanks are saying about the need to reduce vehicle journeys to achieve climate change goals:

"The government’s ‘Road to Zero’ strategy failed to include any measures to reduce traffic, and
the CCC [Climate Change Committee, headed by Lord Deben] subsequently stated there is an
“urgent need for stronger policies to reduce growth
in demand for travel”88. Even if there is an early transition to an all-electric vehicle fleet, and
effective action to reduce emissions from conventional vehicles, it is highly likely we will also
need to reduce miles driven by all vehicles."

"The scale of traffic reduction required is uncertain until the CCC has modelled the least-cost
pathway to a 1.5°C target89. However, provisional work carried out by the Tyndall Centre has
found that even if all new cars were ULEVs by 2035 (80% battery electric, 20% plug-in hybrids),
a 58% reduction in car mileage between 2016 and 2035 would be needed for car CO2
emissions to be in line with a ‘well below 2°C’ pathway" 90,91

(Extract from Transport for Quality of Life briefing for Friends of the Earth. )

Sustrans puts the need at between 20% and 60%.

The SNP policy is to reduce car journeys in Scotland by 20% by 2030.

Still looking like a conspiracy theory? What does it take to convince some people - do you wait until the reality hits you ...

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}