Local Govt’s Blueprint To Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars
By Paul Homewood
h/t Patsy Lacey
Priceless!!
A series of measures to help the UK ban on new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles by 2035 has been put forward.
Local government has put a blueprint in place, with a number of proposals to ensure the environmental drive is a success.
Would any of their measures convince you to swap?
- Financial incentives to encourage people and businesses to make the switch to electric vehicles, including changes to vehicle excise duty.
- Research and development grants to help the car industry shift production to zero emission vehicles.
- Improved charging infrastructure for electric car users and further funding for research into the establishment of a hydrogen distribution network.
- Government to lead by example, ensuring zero-emission fleets across central and local government well before the proposed end date to help drive demand.
There are now more than 30,000 electric car charge points across the UK in over 11,000 locations It has set out its views as part of a response to the Department for Transport’s consultation on ending the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles.
Cllr Keith Glazier, chair of transport for the South East, said: “Ending the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans will be a critical point on the UK’s journey towards a zero emissions future, but agreeing a date is not enough.
“Whether the target is 2040, 2035 or sooner, it must be accompanied by a clear and costed action plan setting out how we are going to reach this critical milestone. Without it, there is a significant risk that the target could be missed.”
Financial incentives? Don’t these bright sparks know that taxpayers have already been forking out up to £5000 to subsidise the purchase of EVs? Or that EVs are exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty? Or that owners avoid payment of fuel duty?
And the result? Hardly any EVs have been sold.
R&D grants? It will cost car manufacturers tens of billions to retool and shift production. Where do the Councillors suggest this money comes from?
Ditto, car charging points. Expansion of these is in any event largely a red herring. Nearly half of car owners have no off street parking, a rather fundamental obstacle which public charging points cannot solve. And even those able to charge at home do not want to queue for hours, when they need to recharge on a long journey.
As for research into the establishment of a hydrogen distribution network, this would surely make the billions spent on EVs redundant?
And, no, I don’t think many will switch, just because they see government setting an example!
And these idiots govern us!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Paul, you only have to look at the government’s handling of Covid to confirm that!
Climate alarmist nonsense. Whilst I can see the practicability of public service vehicles operating within local areas like buses, local delivery services,etc. car and long-distance drivers are never going to put up with hours spent recharging, plus that the cost of providing adequate charging point especially in towns where many cars are parked on the street will be astronomical and extremely disruptive, and probably use as much ‘carbon’ as it saves, plus the cost of the additional electricity generation required has not been calculated. It’s nonsense on stilts.
Equally counter-productive is clogging up traffic flow with cycle lanes, resulting in ongoing emissions from idling vehicles. And cycling may be fine in our present unusual summer; just wait until January,dark, rain, snow, sleet, negligible load-carrying capacity. More pie-in-the-sky,
You are correct that winter weather puts people off cycling to work. I used to work at an edge-of-town office 6 miles from home. In summer there would be around 35 bikes in the bike sheds. In winter there would be 3, always the same ones, my old heap which went to the scrap yard at the 20-odd thousand mile mark, and those belonging to two other nutters.
I did on occasion question my sanity when cycling home in the gale-driven sleet (that’s worse than snow), but I still commute by bicycle at 61 years old.
You’re correct too that bikes have limited load carrying capacity, but I can do the shopping with panniers no problem at all, although I can’t do a full weekly shop for the family.
At the moment it’s great to cycle as I don’t have to wear a face mask. Happy days.
Imagine what 30-minute refuelling times at filling stations would look like. Massive EV recharging queues beckon – is that the future we need?
I have said before that it would be good to see the throughput of vehicles through the pumps on a motorway service station on one of the busiest travel days and then work out how many acres – or probably square miles – it would take if all the vehicles were battery powered.
It is just one of the inconvenient things – like lack of money, lack of mineral resources etc – that make a battery powered vehicle fleet complete nonsense. WUWT has a paper that actually acknowledges that there are not sufficient minerals to have cars battery powered but then the airhead goes on to say that the batteries available should be used for trucks instead.
I can corroborate your assertion that people won’t cycle in winter. I used to work at an egde-of-town office. In summer there were about 35-40 bikes in the bike racks on nice days. In winter there were usually just 3, belonging to myself and two other nutters. The worst weather of all is sleet, as it both chills and soaks you very quickly. One bad night I did question my sanity as I cycled home 6 miles in a gale of sleet, one side of my face utterly frozen. I could have taken the bus, but it was Friday, and I didn’t want to have to go in to collect my bike the next day. I’m now 61, and still commuting by bike to my city-centre office. The advantage of the bike is that it’s faster than the bus, at least on the way in (downhill), and I don’t have to wear a muzzle.
The funny thing is when governments use taxes and rebates to encourage buying decisions, it’s the lower and middle class paying the taxes and the upper middle class collecting rebates. The state of California is notorious in pushing these policies and pushing its poorer citizens to leave the state. The wealthy get $7k from the state to buy electric and the poor pay cap and trade fees, low carbon fuel penalties, road use taxes than account for a third of of the pice of fuel while those who drive electrics avoid those fees and drive in high occupancy vehicle lanes saving time and money. Even in public transportation, the effort goes into making it an option for the more we’ll to do rather than make it work efficiently for the poor who have no choice. Well, at least you town council will be the toast of their well to benefactors.
A direct comparison of cost per mile between electric and petrol, shows electricity to cost about 1/3 of petrol. Sounds like a bargain if EVs suit your circumstances. There is no chance of this staying. Electricity prices will surge ( no pun intended) to cover the loss of duty revenue from petrol and diesel. All that money and for what?
Just put the massive taxes onto tires, that’ll fix most of it.
The BBC licence fee for the over 75s will pale into insignificance once they start whacking up electricity prices to recover the fuel duty lost by diminishing petrol and diesel sales.
Not a nice prospect for the poorer amongst us.
It’s OK it is somebody else’s money.
Us the taxpayers, the Government and Councils do not have any Money, they beg, borrow or steal it from us..
“Whether the target is 2040, 2035 or sooner, it must be accompanied by a clear and costed action plan setting out how we are going to reach this critical milestone.”
COSTED ?!?! You are doing this $#|+ NO MATTER THE COST. NET ZERO IS NET ZERO.
It’s not “Net Zero if the cost works out.” If cost had been a consideration, May would have never said, “Net Zero.”
“how we are going to reach this critical milestone.” should read
“how we are going to reach this critical millstone.”
I for one will not buy an electric car at any price until the appalling mining practices to extract battery minerals, including child labour working in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, are ended. Ministers are calling electric cars clean and green when they are nothing of the kind.
Yes.
Too bad they don’t value facts the way they do fantasies.
https://www.cfact.org/2020/08/09/renewable-energys-staggering-human-costs/
After the devastating economic revelations, the article goes on to show the horrific human cost of this phenomenally misguided policy, revealing some of the guilty parties in the process.
On the up side, it has revealed what would be going on even in the absence of a lunatic “green” agenda. Now that it’s been exposed, they have no excuse for ignoring the suffering of so many to satisfy the greed of a few.
I will be 75 next month, teafing this makes me hopefil that assisted suicide will be legal before net zero
As long as it’s the politicians and green activists who need “assisting,” eh?
Establishment of a hydrogen distribution network it’d be nice if these ecowarriors could explain how this might help. Burning hydrogen as a fuel emits water vapour. Water vapour is a ghg, only many times more potent than CO2.
Clever stuff.
Interesting angle, maybe there should be an obligation for net zero water vapour, which can be achieved by covering over an increasing proportion of lakes. Imagine greenies trying to wriggle out of that, though it was lost on the ones promoting solar panels on lakes.
Going back to “the basics”, I still can’t work out why our Government, politicians at all levels are so hooked on the UK reducing or getting to zero emissions of CO2 when we only produce less than 1% of World CO2. Yes, I know Parliament quietly approved the Bill without asking the electorate but that was never questioned by our virtue signalling politicians. There is no economic or climate logic to the figure, is there?
If we make the vast majority of our citizens poorer ( e.g. the less well off working drivers who have to travel long miles with equipment for their jobs for instance) getting to this target will they feel so much better knowing they have played such a pitiful role in reducing the World’s CO2? The other emissions have reduced enormously over recent times but they are a small fraction of the total. Also, I can’t understand why the supposed 3 months shorter life from air pollution is so critical given all the other uncontrollable we encounter in our lives. Er, we all have to die sometime.
Do tell me why or point me to a trusted realistic study, please…
“Going back to “the basics”, I still can’t work out why our Government, politicians at all levels are so hooked on the UK reducing or getting to zero emissions of CO2 when we only produce less than 1% of World CO2.”
Don’t flatter yourself. It’s <0.04%.
∴ it's not about CO2 at all.
Because they’re thick people who don’t have a STEM degree?
Thanks Gamecock. I agree. I can not believe our leaders are not fully aware of the technical and cost issues. So they must have a political view (after all thats what they do) that is using this strategy to their own ends So what is their motivation and agenda?
Not visible but could it be worked out?
I put forward a few thoughts:
On the surface:
-Capture the green UK vote:
-Virtue signal to the world:
-Justifies more wind and solar investment (coal and gas to go) Reduces imports
– expands public transport and bicycles ( remember the old photos of China!) gets people fit and reduces city pollution.
– Keeps the other parties on the wrong foot
– Is a distraction from other issues
-Push private cars of the ordinary man off the road thus clean up city pollution
But underneath:-
-Justify more taxation.
-Long timescale. So surface effects continue till its changed.
-MPS will be long gone.
It may get terminated sooner rather than later due to Corona Virus and Brexit impacts on the economy.
Very old Nick.
What is Net Zero? If we take the Drax power station definition, it’s utterly meaningless ( the trees will grow back in 80 years). None of this will make any difference to lowering global CO2 emmissions as this blog has demonstrated ad infinitum. What a con.
The answer to reduce actual vehicle pollution (rather than pretend CO2-driven pollution, which isn’t even a thing) is self-charging hybrids.
Zero emissions in urban areas where most people live and work, with range, reliability, usability and most importantly, re-charging, all taken care of by a small ICE unit.
No charging stations, no subsidies, no Green whack-jobs and untold billions of taxpayers money saved. So obvious a child of 15 could see it makes sense.
We can safely expect therefore that this plan has a Net Zero chance of ever being implemented.
All politicians know that the whole thing is rubbish and are well aware that they have squandered 100s of billions of taxpayers’ money; however none of them have the morale character to stand up and admit it, preferring to kick the can down the road for some other Johnny to admit it. How many of the expense-fiddlers do you see driving electric cars to set an example? Jaguars and Mercedes are the order of the day for them.
Perhaps the lot on the Isle of Wight should be confined to getting on and off the island by yacht. Perhaps they already do? Yarmouth, or Cowes?
Please, all of you, get involved with the political parties. It is a desert of common sense out there and it will not change unless we all try to do something about it!
Just ned a political party that opposes this nonsense. The problem is that there is not one yet in the UK. This represents a big opportunity for someone though it may need a brand new party.
The Global Warming arguments are rubbish. Perhaps there is a case for attempting to reduce air pollution by traffic in cities. (I say “perhaps” because it’s a matter I’ve never looked into.)
If so, one place to begin would be with diesel vehicles that make lots of stop-start journeys in city centres – local buses, taxis, rubbish collection, and so forth. Since the city councils will either own or license these services it could presumably be made within their powers to push them into electric power over the course of (say) a decade, without interfering with the mass of the population.
And if such an experiment revealed little change in pollution, then it could be abandoned.
But such complaints are never about “power” in the scientific sense are they? They are about the power, the infinite joy, of denying other people their pleasures and conveniences.
Oi, Homewood, where’s your Dalbeattie sitrep? Were you spared the desolating temperatures of the South?
Cold and wet!!
https://scontent.flhr2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/116871584_10159941497162564_958635142954524023_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=F0qEDxysCskAX-2CRc-&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr2-2.fna&oh=e24900c37b9697f871df6dc3d9ae6f64&oe=5F556733
Attaboy!
Unlucky – Galloway was unusually sunny and mostly dry this spring.
That’s anthropogenic warming weather of the catastrophic, irreversible kind is it Paul?
I am connected to the London Taxi trade but not from any financial aspect nor am I a Taxi driver. The switch over to LEVC (electric taxis) has been more rapid than most expected due to the scrappage scheme introduced by TfL to get rid of the diesel taxis. Then along came Covid-19. The finances just don’t add up as there is very little work out there at the moment.
A new LEVC will cost you in the region of £65,000 to buy or £300 a week to rent. You then have to have your electrical intake uprated to 100A, at your cost, (most homes are 60A) to be able to charge the vehicle and the £500 cost of the charging unit is also extra, not sure what happens if you live in a tower block. After all this the LEVC is still a hybrid as it has a 1.5L petrol engine to power the generator so it isn’t allowed into some London streets of which the list is growing longer.
The batteries (the whole floor of the vehicle) have a warrenty of five years after which they are £7,000 to replace if they have a fault. The vehicles have been on London streets for approx two and a half years now. Most driver will tell you they are great when they are working but there can be start-up / charging problems which if they can’t be resolved by the owner/driver require a total lift from a diesel breakdown truck and off to a qualified service agent to correct resulting in another day off the road.
Most of the luvvies in the GLA will tell you this is the future but non of the luvvies have to foot the cost of owning one.
Aother couple of EV stories that came my way are: 1) My mechanic has a commercial body repair unit nearby to his premises. A recent conversation it was mentioned that when the EV’s come in for body work, they firstly have to be taken to a service agent to have the batteries removed (again by a diesel low-loader) and then back again when the work is complete to be refitted. The cost of this was in the region £2,000 per vehicle which was pushing them into the ‘write off’ stage due to prohibitive cost of repair.
2) A company that dealt in electrical compressors changed its fleet over to all electric vehicles to service its customers. The vehicles have a range of 75miles.
They then realised that when the vehicles themselves needed servicing they had to return to a main agent, the closest of who was 90 miles away from their base. What’s the number of that diesel low loader again?
If they filled the back of the EV vans with compressed air cylinders, and had someone to open the valves in turn, that might provide enough “push” to make up the remaining 15 miles…
CheshireRed You are absolutely right. Hybrids are the only answer. No pollution in built up areas, unlimited range and much smaller battery presence.
Or how about using petrol? No pollution, driving one down Oxford St. cleans the city air.
“it must be accompanied by a clear and costed action plan setting out how we are going to reach this critical milestone.” At last someone has mentioned cost. I await with much anticipation what they will come up with. I don’t expect an honest evaluation but I’m sure much will be made of the low cost due to massive government subsidy.
Having (briefly) engaged with a small selection of these hopeless, ineffectual, intellectual pygmy, grandstanding bozos – most of them have their heads wedged so far up their own anus – they can still spot the curry they had at university…
What price electricity when fuel duty is lost to the Treasury ?
Not long ago I was given a calculation that if all petrol and diesel cars were taken off the road and we all drove electric vehicles the price of electricity would rise from 14p per KWT/hr to over £1 per kilowatt hour to replace the fuel duty.. I don’t know how true that is.
Some kind of road use charging is another option. Penalising all electricity users for loss of fuel duty sounds like a vote loser.
Unless there is a massive expansion of nuclear generated electricity the whole thing is pointless anyway. Do these fools think that the massive increase in demand is going to be met by building a few more windmills?