Government rules for new EV sales

[GJH]

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.

As mentioned before, the thread is about purchasing brand new vehicles, not keeping existing vehicles.

The government is not there to do what we want. It is there (though often fails) to take actions in the best interests of the country as a whole despite the conflicting wants of individuals

 

[AndyPK]

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.

This makes for interesting reading too….

Goodbye car ownership, hello clean air: welcome to the future of transport

This is what the future of transport will look like, thanks to two cutting-edge technologies.

www.weforum.org

 

[Gromett]

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 ...

But none of that is what you said.

Net zero does not imply 60% reduction in car journeys. It is about reducing CO2 emissions.

 

[VXman]

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.

They don't have to buy a battery car. Don't understand what the problem is. You can buy a nice ULEZ compliant petrol car for £3-4000. Some Petrol cars as far back as 2001 are still ok to go in ULEZ zones. Petrol and Diesel cars will still be able to purchased until 2030 which means you will still be able to drive these cars in 2060 and beyond. Plenty of time for most people!

 

[Guigsy]

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 ...

This is true. Even if EVs quickly saturated the market, we still won't meet our commitments.

Plus EVs don't do anything for congestion, safety or the amount of space they take up in our urban environments.

Bottom line is, we have to take less trips by car and we have to drive less miles overall.

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

 

[Jev88]

Do you remember on Top Gear many years ago they had the Lambourghini Smart Car? (It may have been another prestigious sports car brand?)
It was a Smart Car with a Lambo badge - publicity stunt and to bring "average emissions" down across their range.

 

[Guigsy]

Do you remember on Top Gear many years ago they had the Lambourghini Smart Car? (It may have been another prestigious sports car brand?)
It was a Smart Car with a Lambo badge - publicity stunt and to bring "average emissions" down across their range.

Also see, Aston Martin Cygnet... A Toyota IQ with a posh interior and a massive chrome front grill.

cygnet

The Aston Martin Cygnet was designed as a solution to urban mobility. Find out more about this city car, an elegant extension to the iconic range of sports cars.

www.astonmartin.com

 

[robnchris]

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.

Hang on hang on, so you are saying "The Powers that Be" are controlling how far we are allowed to drive by cutting our journeys, there are some on here who will label that a Conspiracy Theory!!!!!

 

[GMLS]

They don't have to buy a battery car. Don't understand what the problem is. You can buy a nice ULEZ compliant petrol car for £3-4000. Some Petrol cars as far back as 2001 are still ok to go in ULEZ zones. Petrol and Diesel cars will still be able to purchased until 2030 which means you will still be able to drive these cars in 2060 and beyond. Plenty of time for most people!

Agreed. A worry for me though as shortly to collect a new diesel motorhome (there being no other viable option and probably won't be for 5-10 years) and which I intend keeping for circa 10 years, is what the Governments are going to do to the cost of the fuel to run it in the future.

 

[Guigsy]

Hang on hang on, so you are saying "The Powers that Be" are controlling how far we are allowed to drive by cutting our journeys, there are some on here who will label that a Conspiracy Theory!!!!!

Err, taxes aren't structured the way they are by accident. The government artificially inflates the prices of things it doesn't want and gives relief (it even grants) for things it wants to encourage.

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

 

[Guigsy]

Agreed. A worry for me though as shortly to collect a new diesel motorhome (there being no other viable option and probably won't be for 5-10 years) and which I intend keeping for circa 10 years, is what the Governments are going to do to the cost of the fuel to run it in the future.

Motorhomes are really in a hard place right now. The vans they are based on are apparently becoming all EV. But as we aren't delivery drivers, the additional up front cost isn't offset by the reduced running cost. Also, motorhomes are both heavier and less aerodynamic than a panel van, so range is currently unacceptably poor. So battery vans make a poor fit for motorhomes.

But we're also not a big enough market to have any significant impact on research and development, or big enough to steer policy. We're stuck with what we're given.

In 2030, I think the nearest we'll have to a new motorhome on sale will be £120k VW ID Buzz campers, and maybe some small PVC motorhomes with 150 mile range... that also cost £150k. I don't see how motorhomes will continue as they currently are.

 

[Steve and Denise]

We have just been discussing a new car and usually have a Mercedes Diesel but after all the carry on with adblue and dpfs we have decided on a petrol made in China,
I don’t think I will ever buy an electric car as it would not suit my needs

 

[PaulyP]

As mentioned before, the thread is about purchasing brand new vehicles, not keeping existing vehicles.

The government is not there to do what we want. It is there (though often fails) to take actions in the best interests of the country as a whole despite the conflicting wants of individuals

How then are the government and local councils going against the majority wishes of people and are doing what they want not what the people want.

 

[Folkranger]

"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.

I suppose they're not making people buy, but preventing selling more than their earned quota of ICE vehicles.

 

[benellioldman1]

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

Is this not that public are buying the surplus by us being the tax paying public, we can't win.

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

 

[gus-lopez]

The government is there to lead by example. shortage of fuel etc they should be the first ones waolknig .they are there soley to do what is the wish of the population regardless of whether it is right for the country ,world or planet

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

exactly

The government is not there to do what we want. It is there (though often fails) to take actions in the best interests of the country as a whole despite the conflicting wants of individuals

As above ,yes it is & to be the first walking & no I don't want to hear they can't because people will attack them that is part & parcel of the job & many should be removed from the planet

Net zero does not imply 60% reduction in car journeys. It is about reducing CO2 emissions.

This says different?

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"

mileage= journeys whichever way you look at it

is what the Governments are going to do to the cost of the fuel to run it in the future.

put in 5 or 10k litre 'central heating fuel' tanks & use that when things start getting iffy.

What has long been needed in the Uk is a civil war. Trouble is those at the top have no worries, those at the bottom are similar & the legal decent honest tax & NI paying middle ones are too apathetic ,juggling & trying to keep heads above water to rise up.

 

[GJH]

How then are the government and local councils going against the majority wishes of people and are doing what they want not what the people want.

We all know, unless we delude ourselves given the science, that we need to combat global warming. If what (some of) the people want goes against that then governments are absolutely right to ignore what those people want.

 

[PaulyP]

We all know, unless we delude ourselves given the science, that we need to combat global warming. If what (some of) the people want goes against that then governments are absolutely right to ignore what those people want.

So you are happy for them to go against the majority and dictate to them what they will do, wait until it affects you or your family , and I’m not convinced that the science is not being suited to what they want.

 

[MichaelT]

So you are happy for them to go against the majority and dictate to them what they will do, wait until it affects you or your family , and I’m not convinced that the science is not being suited to what they want.

What proof do you have its a majority?

 

[PaulyP]

What proof do you have its a majority?

No proof, bit like the climate changers, but lots of people I speak too feel that governments and councils pay no attention to us and will spend/waste money hand over fist on vanity projects that will only ever suit a minority of people.

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

 

[MichaelT]

No proof, bit like the climate changers, but lots of people I speak too feel that governments and councils pay no attention to us and will spend/waste money hand over fist on vanity projects that will only ever suit a minority of people.

But you can say that of anything a government or council does. Sounds like this is something you don't like/want so you think you are the majority bit you are likely a minority.

 

[GJH]

So you are happy for them to go against the majority and dictate to them what they will do, wait until it affects you or your family , and I’m not convinced that the science is not being suited to what they want.

No proof, bit like the climate changers, but lots of people I speak too feel that governments and councils pay no attention to us and will spend/waste money hand over fist on vanity projects that will only ever suit a minority of people.

So no proof about the majority, only a "feeling", which just happens to support wanting to carry on using a 2.8 diesel 4x4.
Climate change is already affecting me and my family, as it is the rest of the world, so I am perfectly happy for governments to adress that. They are not "dictating" and, in fact, I wish they would get on with it quicker instead of faffing about trying to gain votes from the likes of the self-serving voters of Uxbridge.

 

[Sandancers]

So no proof about the majority, only a "feeling", which just happens to support wanting to carry on using a 2.8 diesel 4x4.
Climate change is already affecting me and my family, as it is the rest of the world, so I am perfectly happy for governments to adress that. They are not "dictating" and, in fact, I wish they would get on with it quicker instead of faffing about trying to gain votes from the likes of the self-serving voters of Uxbridge.

Why wait for the Gov. to do something about climate change. Take up the frugal life now. You family and the World will thank you for it I'm sure.

 

[MichaelT]

Why wait for the Gov. to do something about climate change. Take up the frugal life now. You family and the World will thank you for it I'm sure.

Why does tackling climate change have to result in a frugal life?

 

[PaulyP]

So no proof about the majority, only a "feeling", which just happens to support wanting to carry on using a 2.8 diesel 4x4.
Climate change is already affecting me and my family, as it is the rest of the world, so I am perfectly happy for governments to adress that. They are not "dictating" and, in fact, I wish they would get on with it quicker instead of faffing about trying to gain votes from the likes of the self-serving voters of Uxbridge.

I live a reasonable good life regarding climate change, which started the day after the earth was formed !
I feel now that it’s being used as an excuse to change the way people live, and not in good ways, there is no way I’m giving up my vehicle, but as I only do around 5/6,000 miles per year I contribute much less than most drivers in their diesel motorhomes who probably have a very similar engine, I feel that changes are being brought about to line somebodies pockets not for the right reasons, education and encouragement is much better than the way I feel they are trying to force people to change, but we can agree to disagree on the subject.

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

 

[GJH]

Why wait for the Gov. to do something about climate change. Take up the frugal life now. You family and the World will thank you for it I'm sure.

Why does tackling climate change have to result in a frugal life?

Exactly. It is merely the response of those who will not see.

 

[SpeedyDux]

Why does tackling climate change have to result in a frugal life?

Because to stop man-made CO2 or get to Net Zero, you would have to reduce your living standard and forego many things you take for granted that have a significant carbon footprint. You can volunteer to do this, e.g. go "off grid" in a shack in the woods without even a woodburner stove for heating, live off nuts and berries, and walk or cycle everywhere, but for the majority this climate change goal will only be achieved by compulsion, after they realise what sacrifices they must make for the greater good of the planet. Of course the rich, technocrats, and other elites are going to be exempt.

 

[GJH]

Why does tackling climate change have to result in a frugal life?

It doesn't, but it does mean changes.
Even if climate change wasn't a factor, fossil fuels are finite so will run out one day. To leave tackling that until the last minute, dumping the problem on those who happen to be around at the time, is simply selfish. Governments (and individuals, many of whom don't like to admit it because it doesn't suit them) have known that for decades but have failed to act because it doesn't suit their short term aim of gaining/retaining power.
The standard of living we supposedly have in the UK will have to be reduced sooner or later because government policy over the last 40 or 50 years has been to support material gains without supporting infrastructure in order to suit their short term aim of gaining/retaining power. That is why the likes of health & social care and housing are in such a mess.
Tackling both does not have to result in a frugal life but failing to do so will have that result.

 

[MichaelT]

Because to stop man-made CO2 or get to Net Zero, you would have to reduce your living standard and forego many things you take for granted that have a significant carbon footprint. You can volunteer to do this, e.g. go "off grid" in a shack in the woods without even a woodburner stove for heating, live off nuts and berries, and walk or cycle everywhere, but for the majority this climate change goal will only be achieved by compulsion, after they realise what sacrifices they must make for the greater good of the planet. Of course the rich, technocrats, and other elites are going to be exempt.

Why reduce living standards, we've just got to live differently. No need to live in a shack but we need better insulated homes with solar panels (which should be mandatory in new homes) new cleaner fuel such as hydrogen will come (maybe not fast enough) and nuts and berries are good for you as is walking and cycling but we need the infrastructure like France and other countries have to make it safe and viable.

None so blind as those that will not see, and by the way I'm no tre hugger but I do see the issue.

 

[Sandancers]

Exactly. It is merely the response of those who will not see.

But some might say that your response is of those who preach big and do nothing.

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