HOW convenient that Keir Starmer has the excuse of Donald Trump’s trade war to ease the phase-out of petrol and diesel vehicles.
Manufacturers who produce fewer than 2,500 cars a year will no longer face a ban from 2030, while hybrid vehicles will now be allowed to be sold up until 2035, not 2030 as the Government was intending.
AlamyKeir Starmer has the excuse of Donald Trump’s trade war to ease the phase-out of petrol and diesel vehicles[/caption]
Trump had not taken office when the parent company of Vauxhall announced it was closing its van factory in Luton
GettyAston Martin has been left reeling from the announcement of 25 per cent tariffs on cars exported to the US[/caption]
It is true UK car makers such as Rolls-Royce and Aston Martin have been left reeling from the announcement of 25 per cent tariffs on cars exported to the US.
Yet the real reason why the ban on petrol and diesel cars has had to be relaxed is because it was itself killing the car industry.
Donald Trump had not even taken office last November when Stellantis, the parent company of Vauxhall, announced that it was closing its van factory in Luton with the loss of 1,100 jobs.
Part of the reason, said the company, was the Government’s Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, which demands that 28 per cent of all cars a manufacturer sells in Britain this year must be pure electric.
That proportion will rise steadily before reaching 80 per cent by 2030.
Desperate measures
Car makers who miss the targets have been threatened with fines of £15,000 per vehicle over the limit.
No wonder they have been driven to desperate measures such as offering massive discounts on EVs and delaying the delivery of new petrol and diesel cars.
Stellantis has even hatched a deal with a Chinese car maker to rebadge its cheap electric vehicles in the hope of upping its EV sales and so avoiding the fines.
While, in the event, no fines were handed out last year, ZEV is badly damaging the car industry.
The Government’s targets are running well ahead of consumer interest in electric cars.
They remain too expensive to buy and too difficult to recharge.
Ed Miliband claims that forcing people to buy electric cars will ultimately save them money because they are cheaper to run. In his zealotry, he just can’t see that is not everyone’s experience.
It is one thing if you have your own private driveway and can always charge at home using off-peak electricity. It is another if you are scrabbling around for on-street chargers which cost up to 80p per kilowatt-hour.
The Treasury currently rakes in £24billion in fuel duty, which will gradually disappear as electric vehicles take over.
Does anyone think the Government is going to sit around and lose this source of revenue without dreaming up some other tax on cars to take its place?
The most obvious candidate is road pricing, where motorists are charged for every mile they drive, possibly on a sliding scale according to where and when they are driving.
Welcome changes
When that happens, the economics of owning an electric car are going to look very different.
The changes announced by Keir Starmer yesterday are welcome.
With any luck they might keep our remaining luxury car makers alive.
But they don’t go nearly far enough.
For one thing, the Government has just created a perverse situation where you will be allowed to continue to buy a car that spews carbon dioxide from its exhaust pipe but only if it is a gas-guzzling monster of the sort made in volumes of under 2,500 a year.
If all you can afford is a family hatchback, you will be forced to go electric.
That is only too typical of how Net Zero works. It is the wealthy who scoop up all the subsidies for green bling like heat pumps and biomass boilers. Now they are winning an exemption from the rules, too.
What the Government should really have done this week is to announce that hybrid cars will be allowed to be sold indefinitely.
GettyWhat the Government should really have done this week is to announce that hybrid cars will be allowed to be sold indefinitely[/caption]
They are the sensible stepping stone to full electrification, which sidestep the problems with charging and the excessive cost and weight of batteries.
The answer for the next few years, until battery power improves, is the “series” hybrid, which is essentially an electric car with a small petrol engine to recharge the batteries when required.
But which manufacturer is going to invest in new models using such technology when it faces being banned in just ten years’ time?
One by one, Net Zero targets are having to be watered down as they collide with reality and our leaders realise that it was madness to commit ourselves to a legally binding target of Net Zero by 2050 when they had no idea of how it could be achieved.
Damage the economy
The Government has already had to backtrack on its plan to ban new gas boilers.
The previous government was forced to ditch a proposal to ensure all rented homes reach an EPC rating of “C” by 2028 after the consequences became clear in falling numbers of rental properties available (although Ed Miliband says he wants to reinstate the requirement).
Miliband’s ambition to achieve 100 per cent carbon-free electricity has already been reduced to a 95 per cent reduction, and is likely to fall further as the costs and impracticalities become clear.
The Conservatives were forced to offer heavy industry relief from carbon levies, although it was not nearly enough.
Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, which have already led to the demise of our primary steel industry.
Jim Ratcliffe, who founded chemicals giant Ineos, has warned the chemicals industry will be next.
The Government, too, has had to overturn its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow as it became clear how failing to provide capacity would damage the UK economy.
The 2050 target has become a hostage to fortune.
The sooner we have a government brave enough to ditch it and start all over again on climate change policy, the better.
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
