It’s a bad day when you draw condemnation from both self-appointed global green guy Al Gore and conservative ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but current PM Rishi Sunak’s surprise move to push back the ban on internal combustion powered cars has seemingly pissed off many people (outside of some conservatives). You know which group seems the most upset? Automakers. They are positively steamed.
While we’re at it, let’s talk about Italy’s gas-powered troubles, and a small win for Ford in Canada that may preview what’s to come next for the strike. And, finally, we say goodbye to an automotive legend.
Britain Pushes ICE Ban Back To 2035
In a surprise move, the Tory government of PM Sunak has pulled what critics are calling a “U-turn” on the country’s recent ban on ICE-powered cars (with exceptions) starting in 2030 (along with rolling back a lot of other environmental initiatives). You can read the speech here, but here are the highlights.
Now I believe deeply that when you ask most people about climate change, they want to do the right thing, they’re even prepared to make sacrifices.
But it cannot be right for Westminster to impose such significant costs on working people especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet and to interfere so much in people’s way of life without a properly informed national debate.
That’s especially true because we’re so far ahead of every other country in the world.
It’s not for me to judge how much a guy who has a bigger personal fortune than the King actually cares about the lives of working people, but that’s the stated reasoning behind this (or, potentially, an attempt to woo conservatives ahead of his party’s last nomination before a general election).
While some conservatives are cheered by this news, it seems to be fairly unpopular with the moderates in his party and pretty much everyone else. From The Telegraph this morning:
Senior Tory Alok Sharma, Cop26 president, said the U-turn “will not help economically or electorally”, while former minister Sir Simon Clarke said the PM had acted against the country’s “environmental, economic, moral and political interests”.
Tory MP Chris Skidmore, who led the government’s recent net zero review, accused Mr Sunak of jeopardising the UK’s international standing: “It will potentially destabilise thousands of jobs and see investment go elsewhere.”
Mr Johnson warned Mr Sunak he was in danger of losing “ambition for this country”, and said that businesses were desperate for “certainty about our net zero commitments”. Lord Goldsmith went further to call for a general election “now”.
Being PM is a tough gig and The Telegraph here is focusing on members of the Tory party that are historically pro-environment, but that bit about jobs isn’t wrong. The country was just starting to see a new round of investment in automotive production based on their commitment to electric vehicles.
Automakers are not pleased, either, because they’ve felt like they’ve gotten the runaround.
Ford UK:
Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three. We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong: infrastructure remains immature, tariffs loom and cost-of-living is high.
Watt Electric Vehicles:
The decision to scale back the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car and light van sales sends completely the wrong message to industry and customers. The UK can and should be a global leader in zero emission mobility. Government needs to be strategically consistent and introducing greater levels of incentivisation to bolster consumer confidence, further promoting a burgeoning industry, not creating uncertainty by moving the goalposts.
It is especially disappointing given the crucial role UK Government has played in promoting the development of electrification technology through the superb innovation infrastructure and funding made available by Innovate UK and the Advanced Propulsion Centre.
EV automaker Everrati:
Ever since the deadline was set in 2020, awareness and desire to go electric has increased rapidly across all sectors – and, indeed, demand for our products has accelerated year-on-year as forward-thinking consumers add luxury vehicles to their garages that are both sustainable and futureproofed.
But by rowing back, the UK Government has not only pushed our net zero plan a further five years down the road, but risked fostering procrastination in a burgeoning market. It is also disappointing as the UK is home to so many innovative companies who have invested in developing the latest in electrification technology which is not only better for the planet but genuinely advances the art of the automobile for both today’s generation and tomorrow’s.
We have a huge opportunity to lead on zero emissions mobility, but the UK government has sent completely the wrong message, both domestically and globally.
Also, Al Gore was big mad, but that’s not a surprise.
In my mind, it seems like this could have very little to do with the working class and more to do with the precarious structure of the current UK government (In the last 13 months they’ve had three different prime ministers). That is a callous view, but it’s otherwise hard to explain why the PM would suddenly toss a fairly uncontroversial climate agenda and risk the country’s long-term industrial position.
Here’s the complex bit, though: He’s not entirely wrong. Britain probably isn’t going to be ready to completely transition to electric cars in 2030. Their infrastructure is not equipped for it and the gulf between where they are now and where they’re going is fairly wide.
Still, you don’t score a goal by constantly moving the goal posts backwards. If I want my kid to go to sleep at 9 pm I tell her she needs to be to bed by 8 pm and that’s how I’ve viewed all of these ICE bans. They’re a ticking clock to force people into action and, sure, in 2029 they can be relaxed a little if they need to be. Relaxing them now seems counterproductive, especially if you believe the environment is really a ticking clock of its own with anthropogenic causes.
Rishi’s point is, basically: We’ve already done enough:
We’ve had the fastest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the G7. Down almost 50% since 1990.
France? 22%.
The US? No change at all.
China? Up by over 300%.
And when our share of global emissions is less than 1%, how can it be right that British citizens, are now being told to sacrifice even more than others?
Great Britain, but the Great is silent.
Marelli Shutting Down Internal Combustion Plant, Citing Lack Of Demand
The Marelli plant in Emilia Romagna, Italy, is responsible for a lot of the small plastic and aluminum parts an internal combustion engine needs to operate. But, with falling demand due to electrification, the company has decided to close the plant.
Expect more of this.
Ford And Canadian Union Make A Tentative Deal
While the strike in the United States continues on, Ford’s avoided a slowdown in two companies by offering Unifor (Canada’s UAW equivalent) a deal the union couldn’t refuse.
Here’s how The Detroit News summarizes what happened:
Details on the deal won’t be presented until after they are shared with Unifor members at ratification meetings being held “in the near future,” according to a news release. The parties early Tuesday morning had agreed to extend the talks 24 hours after the original deadline of 11:59 p.m. Monday, with Unifor instructing its members to remain at work unless they received alternate instructions from the union.
“We believe that this tentative agreement, endorsed by the entire master bargaining committee, addresses all of the items raised by members in preparation for this round of collective bargaining,” Unifor National President Lana Payne said in a statement. “We believe that this agreement will solidify the foundations on which we will continue to bargain gains for generations of autoworkers in Canada.”
The big question is how much this impacts what the UAW is trying to do.
Peter Mullin, Legendary Collector, Has Died
There are few collectors in the entire history of the automobile with such exquisite taste as Peter Mullin. The collector and philanthropist made his money in the insurance industry and then, seemingly, put a large percentage of that fortune into cars, especially early French cars.
Mullin was a contributor to, participant in, and board member of car museums and associations too numerous to list, including a long partnership with the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance. His own museum in California is outstanding.
I thought the Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum summed it up nicely:
Peter was a man with an exquisite eye, a fierce advocate for the preservation of the automobile, and a visionary collector. Peter will forever leave a lasting impact in the automotive world. We honor his legacy.
Our condolences to his friends and family.
The Big Question
Does it matter? Is the UK’s move actually going to change anything or is it just grist for the outrage mill?
The population of the U.K. is ~65M in a world of 8B. That works out to ~0.86% of the global population so if the U.K.’s “share of global emissions is less than 1%” he may have a good point.
OTOH France has a similarly sized population and they emit 306MMT to the U.K.’s 347MMT. Thats a whole 13% less!
Are you red-blooded Brits REALLY going to let the damnable frogs win? What would Lord Nelson say?!
France’s emissions are ludicrously better than any other large western country because nuclear is dominant there. It has been dominant there for decades, so ofc they have dropped less than UK. UK emissions on the whole and percapita are still way higher than the frogs.
Not really: 306 vs 347 million metric tons.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/
So despite the huge reductions UK was praising, they are still 15% worse than France. Point made.
Those emissions aren’t transport though. Even if the U.K. went 100% EV the electricity has to come from somewhere. France makes almost all of their electricity with nuclear and hydro. There’s much less hydro capability in the U.K., just over 2% of total. The only real renewable options for the U.K. are wind and nuclear.
I posted a link to the classic Jonathan Pie Trump election rant yesterday. Now’s the time to post a link to his latest:
https://youtu.be/iAleHFLP03A?si=2V8v8osCelbBbwa2
I feel like the momentum of the industry is all EV anyway. Already there’s far, far fewer choice of real world non-hybrid cars available to buy new in the UK. A PHEV would suit our use case best but too expensive, not enough choice….
The 2030 change announced yesterday is actually pretty marginal in effect. It’s aimed at preparing their attack lines for the next election like the other announcements. Nevertheless moving goalposts is never going to be publicly welcomed by industry increasingly committed to a plan of action.
At the start of this week, the UK position was: pure ICE cars can be sold new up to 2030. Hybrids (without defining hybrid in detail so not necessarily PHEV if it suits the government of the day) can be sold new up to 2035. Neither of those dates would apply to used cars. So in theory we could have been buying hybrid petrols in 2035 and running them until what, 2055 and beyond? The work of Boris with typical bluster (a headline 2030 date because the EU were/are saying 2035) and lack of serious intent.
“ Is the UK’s move actually going to change anything “
Given the price of fuel there and the fact that the EU and much of the rest of the world is going BEV, it might not end up being much delay to the move to BEVs for the UK in practice.
By 2030, it’s likely that ICE vehicles will be more expensive to buy AND more expensive to operate. So outside of some special cases, most consumers and businesses will go with a BEV as it’s the lower cost, better performing and requires less maintenance.
If he cares so much about the working class then help them by putting in the necessary infrastructure to allow them to get around without a car.
UK=who cares
I can think of 65,000,000 people who care.
it’s not intended to offend. the uk is a small market.
I heard a great anecdote recently that applies to conservatives, but the UK party especially. I’ll try to do it justice here.
A bunch of conservatives have a key party. They all show up and put their handguns in a big bowl in the middle of the table. They have a few drinks and get to know each other. Then each one randomly picks out a gun and shoots another in the foot, or themselves in the foot, if that’s their fetish. When EMS shows up to treat them, they shoot all the paramedics.
You lost me at handguns in the UK.
Give it a couple of years and all of the other countries that signed on to this grandstanding legislation will be very quietly doing the same. Heck, didn’t California already backtrack a bit on this by allowing PHEVs under their “ban”?
I 100% support reducing emissions from cars, even if there are bigger fish to fry. The timeline they set is not realistic though.
Very true, and it’s better to roll back the dates now than to wait until 2029, at least it’s a 7 year heads up here.
I disagree, it’s better to keep the heat on to push the industry as hard as possible. They won’t make the goals but they will be a lot closer because of it.
The best goal is no goal…. https://zenhabits.net/no-goal/
Is there something glaringly bad about PHEV I’m missing? For most people (myself included) it would be perfect. I’ve seen other people comment the same thing, so the market appears to be there. Current affordability is an issue though, but is that due to complexity, because people will buy them at high prices, or lack of want to make a cheaper version?
PHEV’s lack the glitz and glitter of full EVs and the word “hybrid” still has a negative stigma associated with it thanks the the Prius and Insight. Unfortunately that means the market is pushing full EVs.
You’re not wrong though a PHEV is (IMO) the better stop gap for the next 10 years or so until the infrastructure can be developed/EV tech become more feasible for fringe case buyers.
Problem with PHEVs is dual power is added cost, complexity, and maintenance. The better solution is Range Extender, just ask DT he’s the EV King now formerly the Rust King. Don’t know how there hasn’t been more than 3 mainstream vehicles with it the past 10 years.
“Is there something glaringly bad about PHEV I’m missing?”
Yes… it has been found that the majority of PHEVs are not actually plugged in as expected by their owners. And thus, their real-world fuel economy is much worse than expected… comparable to regular non-plug in hybrids.
Shouldn’t that mean that the dumb people who don’t plug in their PHEVs should be selling their cars because they are disapoint? I look but I don’t see many available.
In theory. But the same stupidity that cause them not to use the PHEV capability they paid for is the also why they’ll keep the vehicles AND complain they don’t get as good fuel economy as expected.
But the government doesn’t care about that. What they care about is reaching their CO2 emissions goals.
And they give incentives to vehicles that have lower emissions.
So does the government want to give more credits to PHEVs if people don’t plug them in causing them to be no more efficient than a regular hybrid? Hell no!
And here’s the other problem… even if the stupid person sells their PHEV, it doesn’t necessarily solve the issue as it could be that the next person that buys it also won’t plug it in.
Easily fixed with software.
How?
I think UK pushing back the ICE ban will help EV adoption. I already see ICE bans framed as “the government is coming to take your car and your freedom.” There is no sense furthering that narrative. ICE bans should be cancelled immediately.
With that being said, I am very optimistic about the future of EVs. Charging times and ranges have improved considerably over the last decade and will continue to improve incrementally. Charging infrastructure and ease of charging will improve dramatically in that the next decade. I expect EVs will be functionally equivalent to ICE vehicles in 10-15 years, at least for most use cases.
In a lot of ways EVs are already superior to ICE vehicles as transportation appliances. They are quiet, smooth, comfortable, and reliable. They require almost no maintenance. They are cheap to operate. You can refuel them at home. You can make your own fuel if you have a solar system or other form of home power generation. In some cases you can use your EV as a backup power source for your home. As EV technology improves, EVs will become the more desirable choice and buyers will purchase them without needing to be coerced or forced. If governments want to do anything, they should heavily invest in EV research. The “ban and hope for the best” strategy is a bad one.
Also, I’m skeptical of the view that we need to solve climate change immediately or turn the planet into an uninhabitable hellscape. Technologies are being developed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I don’t think it is unrealistically optimistic to view climate change as reversible. These technologies may not be viable in my lifetime, but I think 2100 or 2150 might be a reasonable target. I think the best course of action is to focus on a realistic timeframe and in the meantime adapt as best we can.
“Technologies are being developed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.”
Is that so?
Show me one that beats the solar powered, self assembling self replicating, fully mature CO2-to-pure-oxygen-and-building-materials technology of a tree.
Obviously, more trees would be a great solution. Unfortunately, that would require the cooperation of millions of people to plant those trees and not destroy them. Humans aren’t great at large scale cooperation. Since humans aren’t great at cooperation, it will take new technology to fix the climate.
“Unfortunately, that would require the cooperation of millions of people to plant those trees and not destroy them.”
Trees are self replicating. No need to actively plant them unless you want a specific kind of tree in a specific place, most of the time they propagate just fine on their own…
…Which leads us to to not destroying them, well that IS a bit more of an ask. The good news is there are other solar powered, self assembling self replicating, fully mature CO2-to-pure-oxygen-and-building-materials technology available (as long as you accept food for something as a building material). Algae comes to mind, so does grass, lichen, seaweed, etc. If those don’t become food, fuel or building materials they can ultimately become buried coal, oil or natural gas, maybe even diamonds, all excellent ways to permanently sequester carbon.
I’m not disagreeing that trees/plants/other green things are a great way to sequester carbon. My concern is that they have been inadequate to this point, or else climate change would never have been an issue (green things couldn’t even compensate for early 20th century emissions). It might be possible that green things alone could reverse climate change if emissions are lowered to preindustrial levels, though.
Also, while I specifically said “technologies”, I was including the possibility that plants/lichens/grasses could be used in new ways to reduce emissions (something like intentionally growing algae in the oceans, for example). I guess “technologies” is not a good way to describe that.
Whether technology will be required to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or not, I still think 2100-2150 is a more realistic target since transitioning away from fossil fuels is going to take decades and not years. I don’t see this as a problem.
I’m very skeptical of any human created carbon sequestering tech to date. Most I’m aware of downplay the energy input required, aren’t anywhere near capable of the scale needed or are just outright bullshit, kick the can down the road, nice doggy, delusional, its OK, we can fix it in post fantasies. Looking at you Australia and your “clean” brown coal to hydrogen for Japan pipe dream.
The nice thing about plants is they are about as hands off, eco friendly and scalable as it gets. They are also well proven to work. After all the coal and oil we burned was carbon sequestered by plants and algae for millions of years. Had we not dug it up and burnt it that carbon might have been sequestered for millions of years more.
The not so nice thing about plants is the timeframe. They DO tend to take a while, especially trees. Not as long as human can-kicking thlugh.
Hopefully the first of many ICE ban rollbacks. They were of course completely arbitrary and had no discernible tie to when/if EVs would be ready for everyone to adopt. The way to know this is they’re all nice even year timeframes. Ask any government that wants to institute one of these bans: “why not a year earlier or later”? If they don’t have a specific reason why, you know the first one was pulled out of someone’s ass.
The most important thing EVs need to solve is not more range, but quicker recharge times. If it is more than 5 minutes, people won’t want to do it. It really is that simple. Please miss me with replies about charging at home or combining charging with other activities – these are the things early adopters are fine with, not things lower-middle class apartment dwellers will stomach.
As these bans get closer politicians will have two choices: backtrack and delay, or be voted out for someone who will.
> not things lower-middle class apartment dwellers will stomach.
They’ll be homeless by 2035 and it won’t matter. /s
Saying this with conviction these days takes courage, similar to that of a Bangladeshi farmer out to tend his crops on a July day in 2050; the heat you’ll take is not quite as dangerous, but still extreme.
The only thing “sustainable and futureproofed” about ALL new cars, is the recurring revenue stream the manufacturers are baking into their products by way of monthly subscriptions for heated seats etc. and selling harvested personal data.The manufacturers have targeted 30% of future revenue by this means. I will never purchase a connected vehicle because They are maintaining ownership. EVs could make environmental sense if the additional costs, and carbon footprint of mining, and electric power production and infrastructure and life cycle, recyclable and repair ability balance out. THEY CURRENTLY DO NOT. Buy a well made, maintainable used vehicle if you are serious about what is best environmentally.
Some missing context here. Britain decided to join American and swanned dived into the deep end of conspiracy theories. There is a growing theory, that’s basically Pizzagate for monarchist, surrounding “15 minute cities”. Basically the theory is the State are using green policies to prevent people from leaving their immediate surroundings and then somehow will be enslaving them. Also EV’s are a part of this because of course they are. It gets pretty wild if you’re bored. Not secret kid tunnel under Central Park good, but close.
Richie Rich’s government is also a dead government walking. So, this is nothing more than him throwing a bone to some nobs, who are busy taking out traffic cameras in Greater London. This is the English Parliament we’re talking about. There is no actually policy or plan here. Just the unyielding urge to make life on that god forsaken rock as miserable as possible. Pax Britannica in miseriis.
I am in favor of citizen activism as far as traffic & red light cameras are concerned. Everything else sounds pretty bad.
Red light cameras don’t get anywhere near the hate in the UK that they seem to have in the US. I don’t know if it’s because they’re more generous with how cut you can cut it, but even people who hate speed cameras don’t seem to care about them. I can’t remember the last time I saw someone jumping a red light (except occasional cyclists).
Yeah, it seems like their target is exclusively ULEZ cameras. Mainly because they can’t drive their old Renault or whatever into interior London without paying an fee and this is somehow infringing on their freedom of movement. Which they often cite the Constitution has granting. They also call themselves Bladerunners and wear ski mask, which would be cool if it wasn’t a bunch of middle age contractors riding around on scooters that haven’t had a history class in awhile.
“someone jumping a red light (except occasional cyclists).”
The difference there is a cyclist jumping a light puts only his or her own life and well being and property at risk whereas an impatient driver puts everyone else’s lives and well being and property at far greater risk than their own. Cyclists also have pretty much unlimited visibility with which to make that call, drivers do not.
The UK has really been giving the US a run for its money on speed of spread and distance-from-reality-measured-in-lightyears for conspiracy theorizing these past few years. I really didn’t think anyone could outdo a nation with a collective imagination that gave us Pizzagate, D.U.M.B.s, and of course Q-Anon. Just the extent that the Brits managed to incorporate their own national mythology so well into Q-Anon is amazing (what with the Queen being a lizard-person and all). It’s time for America to regain its rightful place as #1 for conspiracy theories!
(Actually, please, please no, I’m so exhausted by all of it).
I heard that the queen was actually a werewolf.
“what with the Queen being a lizard-person and all”
Wasn’t that an episode of Doctor Who?
There’s an EV maker that sounds like a manufacturer of knockoff AA batteries?
I suppose we’ll be seeing “EnnerJyzer” and “Dur-A-Sell” EVs too.
It’s EnnerGIZZer… with EnnerGIZZer, you can come and come again…
Not too surprised that they’d roll back a bit and I’d be surprised if more aren’t goin to follow. IMHO, EVs aren’t exactly ready for the masses, particularly on the low-income side of the spectrum. Dramatically too expensive and the charging infrastructure just isn’t there, yet.
Let the “rich” folks that think it’s OK to drop 40k+ on a car deal with the early adopter issues while the tech and infrastructure catch up enough to make it affordable for everyone else.
If you are low income you are supposed to be in section 8 housing next to the bus or other mass transit lines. Don’t like it, tough. You are poor, what are you goign to do about it? If you are poor and dependent on gov services, you will use those provided and nothing else.
And you’ll use them regardless of whether they’re offered or not. Some cities have transit, but I once mapped out a trip to work via bus and light rail and it would’ve taken me 2 hours to travel the equivalent of a 10-minite drive one-way. Yet we’re still granting density bonuses that allow developers to add units to projects and subtract parking because “transit.” We still need more mass transit infrastructure because taking cars off the road is much more effective than electrifying them, but with the way west coast cities evolved and the rich locals demanding their road taxes be earmarked for expanding the freeway from 10 lanes to 14 instead of adding light rail lines, I’m sadly not seeing it.
Ah, almost as if people actually want space and like the drive! Density can work for some, but it’s definitely an acquired taste that is being pushed toward the whole of society by our “betters,” no matter what people moving to less dense cities says
“Density can work for some”
Landlords. Only for landlords.
“I once mapped out a trip to work via bus and light rail and it would’ve taken me 2 hours to travel the equivalent of a 10-minite drive one-way”
Tells me you live in the US without saying you live in the US.????
Snark aside there ARE some public transit gems to be had. For example, if you live in the south SFBA but work further up the peninsula Caltrain can get you to and from work faster and cheaper than driving, especially if your employer comps you for public transit (some do). The Altamont express can get you to Fremont from Stockton and back in the same manner. VTA has express busses that can do the same around the south bay.
It’s extremely YMMV but for a lucky some effective public transit DOES exist in the US.
I live in England. My old 3 mile commute (which I’d walk or cycle mostly, but it was a 5 minute drive) could be done by public transport, but it involved either two busses, a train and a half mile walk or three busses. One of those busses ran twice a day. If you got everything running on time you could do it in two hours, it’s a 45 minute walk.
Now I’ve moved, but they also cancelled the twice a day bus so there is no public transport option at all.
Just because the US is bad (and it is) doesn’t mean the tiny crowded countries aren’t also shit.
Sure, nobody’s perfect. Nor is any public transit.
Unfortunately a 3 mile, 5 minute commute is terrible for ICE vehicles. Its just long enough for an engine to warm up before it gets shut down again. Meantime it’s getting its worst gas mileage, polluting its most and enduring the most wear.
A 3 mile, 5 minute commute for times when walking or biking isn’t an option is also the perfect use case for some kind of EV, especially a PHEV when you need it for longer trips. Even an e scooter if the roads are smooth.
My city has light rail. The problem with light rail is its inflexibility, it goes where the rails are. In our case those rails go through downtown so unless you live/work/shop/eat there light rail isn’t of much use and with a gazillion stops LR is prohibitively slow if your destination is on the other side of town. I like light rail very much for those few times I can use it but those times are few and far between.
Busses OTOH are extremely flexible, they can go wherever the roads go. They can also be electric or hybridized.
Matt is right though that you never get to the goal if you keep moving the goalposts, especially this far out. However, you’re 100% on point regarding wide availability from an income stance. A lot needs to change policy and industry wise so that there exist EVs in the Chevy Trax bracket of the market before we’re ever going to get close to these goals without further penalizing the poor for well, being poor.
As you all know my own leanings are pretty much on the left (international left too, not this lame as American “we want to throw it back to Reagan/3rd Way ass “LeFt”) across the board…but I don’t think this will be the last rollback of these mandates because the fact of the matter is that EVs are simply not ready for mass adoption and *begins dry heaving* Sunak has *a bit* of a point when it comes to mass adoption being particularly difficult for the less economically advantaged.
When the average price of an EV is somewhere around $60,000 you simply cannot force people who make around that much or less as an entire household to adapt. It’s impossible unless we want to keep up our current “force everyone into crippling debt” model of car ownership running strong despite dire consequences on the horizon and the 1% actively trying to take the privilege of car ownership away from all of us slowly but surely.
EVs aren’t ready for mass adoption and they won’t be for years. The way to get people of normal means into EVs is to make them appealing and viable. If someone is stretching their budget to buy a $35,000 car why would they willingly make an additional sacrifice with an EV that’s dependent on non existent infrastructure and still a beta product when they can get a goddamn Accord or CRV or whatever that’ll last them 10+ years and require 0 compromises?
Regular folks switching to EVs doesn’t even make much of a dent in emissions where things stand today anyway. The data is a little all over the place and loaded with propaganda from both sides…so I wouldn’t say there’s a firm consensus necessarily but EVs are significantly more carbon intensive to produce and don’t offer a net advantage over ICE vehicles on that front until they’ve been driven for tens of thousands of miles.
Basically they’re a large, expensive, less-than-sorted-out sacrifice to make a minuscule difference. I am not anti EV. Far from it in fact. I just got my dad into a PHEV and I’m working on getting my wife into one as well. I think we should absolutely continue to develop the technology and that it’s promising. I also think that the current beta state EVs aren’t an accurate representation of where the technology will take us. I firmly believe that there are EVs enthusiasts can get legitimately excited for in the not so distant future.
But right now? The bans are a dog and pony show getting milked by both sides of the aisle to fuel the culture wars and distract everyone from the real issues, which is rampant inequality and the disproportionate carbon footprint of the 1% and various institutions they control. This won’t be the last one to get repealed.
For right here, right now, rapid adoption of traditional hybrid and PHEV technology will make a much bigger difference and require none of the sacrifices of a full BEV. And guess what? It’s way less expensive. We already have a wealth of both options in the $30-$40,000 range and there are more on the horizon. PHEV and hybridize all the things.
Preach!
No rational person thinks the 2030 ban on ICE production is feasible for multiple reasons.
Yeah, it’s really just the fact that they are not mass market ready that is pushing these back. We were told over and over again by those in government and the media about how amazing they are, but the take rate hasn’t materialized like we have been told it’s supposed to. I’m not necessarily anti-EV, but you can see they just aren’t a better product for the money right now. It’s a losing proposition of extreme compromises for a higher price, which just doesn’t work. Sure, they’re great in some scenarios, but it’s just not there, and like you said, ESPECIALLY not for those without a huge car buying budget.
Good news! The governments of the world have all elected you as Planetary Admiral of Transport for life.
Small problem: climate change. The shadowy officials explain to you that they’re anticipating social upheaval due to food and water shortages, economic disruption through real estate and shipping lane stability, and simmering tensions will break out into war due to the above.
Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to reduce emissions from the transportation sector to net zero by 2050, with a “halfway” point around the early/mid 2030s — the later you wait to hit halfway, the earlier you have to hit net zero. This may sound unpleasant, but every other sector is tasked with the same deadlines. You have regulatory power over what is manufactured or used, and at least some financial incentives to hand out. You have full compliance from every government.
I’ve played this scenario over in my head a hundred times, and every time, my best solution is a ban on new combustion engines by 2032 (earlier for engines with long service life) and a ban on gasoline/diesel/bunker fuel sales by 2050, all while subsidizing nascent alternative fuel tech and public transit infrastructure where possible. But luckily I’m not the Admiral, you are. What do you do? How do you achieve this pivot with minimum social and economic disruption? What sacrifices will you have to make?
Oh, that’s easy. Just pretend it isn’t a real problem and fuck off to Aruba for the next 27 years.
What’s that? Aruba is under 12 feet of water? I guess I’ll just hang out at Disney World for a while. I hear their unlimited pass is a good deal if you’re a local. Oh, it’s under water too? Hmm….
“What sacrifices will you have to make?”
Since you asked and hooboy you’ll be sorry you did:
1) A global draconian one child policy and heavily incentivized no child program starting immediately or if at all possible 20 years ago, effective till the population is projected to level off at 2B. Violators risk sterilization and their children becoming wards of the state.
2) Nuclear all the new plants. Hippies and NIMBYS can suck it! In fact build those plants where the resistance is greatest. Homeless shelters, waste dumps high speed rail and commercial flightpaths too.
3) Mandate all surplus renewable energy be used to make hydrogen for industrial use only. Only if that market becomes saturated will hydrogen be allowed in transport.
4) Hybridize and plug in all the ground transport. Existing diesel engines to be converted to run on NG.
5) End tax subsidies for commercial real estate and impose heavy tax on corporate real estate investments to incentivize WFH and reduce financial motivations to unnecessarily force employees into the office. WFH ALL the jobs that can WFH!
6) Repair the damn transportation infrastructure!
7) Outlaw salting roads unless ABSOLUTELY necessary and or require manufacturers to salt proof vehicles
8) Eliminate all incentives for large, heavy personal use passenger vehicles (trucks included) and redirect to incentivize smaller, more efficient vehicles. Yes the guv’mint IS coming for your pedestrian killing brodozer.
(The good news is that same government will provide low cost delivery of your goods on demand eliminating the actual need for that truck and probably save you money and time).
9) Jail unlicensed and uninsured drivers, no mercy nor exceptions. Non citizens will be returned to their country of origin regardless.
10) Invoke eminent domain to build as much public transportation as is needed to reduce #9 as much as possible. NIMBYs can suck it.
And more!
The most frustrating part of the continued refrain of EVs aren’t ready for mass production is that we’re talking about a date almost a decade into the future. Ten years is a loooong time. Ten years ago today the model s was just getting started and the model 3 was barely a twinkle. In 2020, there were over 200,000 model 3s sold in the US alone.
Are EVs a panacea for climate change or will they fit everyone’s driving habits right now? Absolutely not. Will there be options to purchase new vehicles for the working poor in 2030? No, same as there aren’t right now. But I can guarantee you that by the time 2030 rolls around, charging, towing, etc will be a solved problem. We’re talking several years into solid state batteries having reached volume production (baring another major world event ala covid.)
If things don’t work out by 2029, then yeah, expand the timeline. But doing so now is just a plan to kick things down the road. Things don’t change because we wait for things to be ready, things change because we set a goal and work to meet it.
That is pretty weird on the UK change, don’t they import like all of their oil? I’m sure a lot of their power too but would think they’d be even more gung ho on getting off petrol. Also had no idea who that guy was as they get a new PM every week, how do they even get stuff done?
Also don’t know that it’s any worse than the US, we get emmission rule changes every 4 or 8 years.
1997 – we’re going electric!
2001 – nevermind maybe hydrogen, later.
2009 – we’ve bailed you out, go hybrid at least! Here’s some tax credits!
2017 – California stop having your own tougher rules.
2021 – Here’s a tax rebate to buy an EV again.
Such a strange pattern….
That little car looks so cool, what model is it? I know it’s gas and that’s the topic there but we need some cool little EVs like that. All we’ve got is like the Mini…and…at some point maybe a new Tesla Roadster? Where’s the sporty little EVs for fun commuting?
The UK supposedly doesn’t import much, they have a lot of offshore rigs. BP… British Petro, Shell, Total, etc.
Yeah lots of offshore which is why gas central heating became the norm over 80s 90s 00s – however the best/cheapest days of those fields are gone, lots left there but more expensive to get at. We actually import gas and oil now, and in any case it’s a global market for gas and oil so it’s not as though the proximity of offshore fields helps prices that much.
Too late for edit, but I found that it’s a 90s Fiat Coupe Turbo, man the 90s had some sweet 2 door coupes, need those back again.
Designed by pre-BMW Chris Bangle.
Let me shed some light on the reasons behind those changes:
1997 – we’re going electric! – Democrat
2001 – nevermind maybe hydrogen, later. – Oil-Lobby-owned Republicans
2009 – we’ve bailed you out, go hybrid at least! Here’s some tax credits! – Democrat
2017 – California stop having your own tougher rules.- Crooked Oil-Lobby-owned Republicans
2021 – Here’s a tax rebate to buy an EV again – Democrat
Both democrat and repub politicians are far richer than voters.Just pointing out the obivious thingy
Since Net Zero is an illusion anyway, how can you get mad about someone ignoring it?
Here I thought Spotify was just a streaming music service!
Of course wealthy brits are raging about it, they’re not the ones most affected by EV adoption.
Of course the automakers are angry about it, they’ve invested and lost a lot of money to EV adoption and want to make that money back through customers being required to buy them.
Of course, neither of those groups cared about people who need low-cost transportation in the first place, so they can suck it.
Yeah right, and there is nothing stopping the automakers to continue on their current path. Don’t know what UK incentives are being cut, but companies can continue push towards non-ICE. It’s not like they are saying you must make ICE and no EVs.
Markets rightly don’t like uncertainty
Wah wah automakers, that’s life. Uncertainty is all we have had the past 3 decades, people need to get used to it.
Plus it’s only five years we’re talking about here, that’s enough time to develop a new car, or refresh an ICE model one more time, and they have plenty of time to plan for it. Just giving low-income vehicle-needers more time to prepare for the ICEpocalypse.
When the market measures time in 3 month intervals, 5 years is a long stretch to reset capital-intensive planning and investment. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for the market, but those investments are being made to coincide with the increase in demand from a 2030 run-up, not 2035.
Wealthy Brits aren’t affected by it at all. They buy their compliance vehicle to escape the London CCZ (like a PHEV Range Rover), or an EV that they can easily charge at home in dedicated parking (and/or at a workplace that offers EV charging).
This action gives the elected politicians a bye for the current lack of infrastructure, and an excuse for years of neglect in planning and preparing to actually follow through with their commitments.
Those are are most affected are those who street park their car, drive older vehicles, and likely need a car for their daily life. They are entirely reliant upon the government/industry infrastructure to be in place to even have this scheme function properly. But they’re too relieved not to be forced down this path to realize that they should be more upset.
“…the Tory government of PM Sunak has pulled what critics are calling a “U-turn” on the company’s …”
“…and risk the company’s long-term industrial position.”
Even though these may be Freudian slips, it still sums up the whole EV thing nicely. It’s never been about the environment, it’s about creating a new economic marketplace to supplement the super-saturated ICE market, only with countries acting as bigger “companies.”
All these government mandates are gonna end up being a huge waste of time, energy(ha), and money.
In other news, the UK is the first country to become an LLC
You joke, but the East India Company was p real
LOL got me.
I’m just responding to say this should be in consideration for COTD and I don’t want it getting lost in the sauce
The amount of onesy-twosy, hard cutoff, patchwork political gambles just to avoid a carbon tax is astounding. Just f’ing tax the carbon. The rest will shake out
Outlaw new carbon intensive electricity, tax (ALL) carbon, and use the money from the tax to subsidize electricity down to a retail rate of $0.05/kW*hr. Things will electrify faster than Liz Truss’s government collapsed.
Where may I send my donation to your campaign? Or do you perhaps have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
I exclusively accept ButtCoin.
“I exclusively accept ButtCoin”
Well now we know what your day job is.
This will turn into the tax and spend version of the human centipede; as the government levy carbon taxes on utility companies and use them as subsidies, the utilities will simply raise, or request rate increases, to offset those taxes. The CEOs of those companies will be damned if they let anything affect their bottom line. They may not be considered “for profit” but they unequivocally operate in that manner.
Energy generation is totally a for-profit industry. Regulated utilities don’t really own the solar panels or natural gas power plants. They typically buy the energy from third parties. You’ll still have market dynamics just as every other (i.e. literally all) taxed market has dynamics
It might vary on legislation state to state or even country to country, but here in North Dakota, there is regulation for our utility companies. They’re not necessarily non-profit, but they’re permitted to generate only a certain volume or percentage of it.
Some of it will be a wash in the beginning for sure, but it isn’t a zero-sum game. ~75% of GHG emissions come from things other than electricity generation, and the tax would reward cleaner producers and incentivize the the others to move on from oxidation as an energy source. SOMETHING will have to put pressure on them for this, because an absolutely giant portion of electricity is coming from nearly brand new natural gas power plants with service lives of 50-100 years, built to replace coal plants that only became uneconomical when coal pollution was regulated.
It wasn’t until this happened that power generation fell behind transportation as the lead GHG producer and certain circles decided it was time to pretend “lead producer” is the same as “only producer” and “transportation” is the same as “light duty passenger transportation”.
Hear, hear. I agree with what you’re saying. To me, it seems like the bogeyman of the day is whatever is most visible and yet easiest to legislate against. Nobody wants to do anything that would impact the travel industry, recreation industry, and shipping industry, all things that contribute a lot to GHG but are “inconvenient truths.”
There are two reasons we’re hearing so much ruckus about electric cars: Humans have a love affair with conspicuous consumption of status objects, and the government’s authority to regulate cars was established before congress was fully lobotomized.
new/increased tax as a policy tool seems to me the 3rd rail for both usa political parties…
i agree with you that it’s the right approach, i just can’t imagine anyone successfully championing it.
I sincerely hope this is the first of many.
If and when EVs are ready for mass adoption, bans won’t be needed to convince people they are the superior option.
Because that worked so well with DEET, CFCs, leaded fuel, and so on…
Sometimes the superior option is only superior in the short term, and only if you take a very narrow view of what counts as “superior.”
DEET is not banned….
CFCs and leaded fuel weren’t banned until viable alternatives existed.
You’re completely ignoring the push back and uproar on those bans and, once they were planned, the intense work put together to accommodate the ban. I’m not saying definitively that we need to ban ICE cars by 2030, but the “superior option” schtick is just so tired, old, and a gaslit falsity.
Sorry, I meant DDT rather than Deet.
Jake the Snake can still give DDT’s, its not truly banned.
Viable alternatives existed when leaded gas was made, it was just slightly more profitable to have leaded gas.
We shouldn’t be protecting profit margins at the expense of poisoning the world.
Lead was bad, everybody knew that.
Everybody didn’t know that MBTE had it’s own issues in being bad for the enviroment
I miss leaded fuel, the saying “Get the lead out” just doesn’t have the same nostalgia anymore.
I found the lead and mercury fan!
Wow, you got me.
The situations are exactly analogous, there’s not a bit of difference between fuel additives and $50,000 vehicles we rely on for every part of modern life.
I mean, if you’re going to throw out generic talking point blanket statements, you’re going to get an equally inane response
Sometimes nothing more is necessary.
I’m personally not in favor of banning ICE cars unless and until EVs are equal or superior in every way.
Anyone not in favor of that position needs to justify it beyond pointing to unrelated bans of objectively much less disruptive technologies IMO.
There are some aspects that cars are *just now* starting to match when compared to horses, for instance, the ability to automatically get home while zooted out of your mind on ether and OTC heroin. Does that mean that we shouldn’t adopt cars until they can replace every single function of a horse and carriage? Of course not. Equal or superior in every way is an absurd standard.
You’re right, but so are bans on widely used consumer products in a free society.
The sale of horses and carriages is not banned even to this day. People overwhelmingly chose cars because they are a superior product.
????️ Is this thing on? DDT, leaded fuel, CFCs, OTC heroin, etc. were all “widely used consumer products in a free society.” Sometimes society wises up and recognizes a Tragedy of the Commons situation as it is happening and they do something about it.
I’m willing to admit that my analogies aren’t 100% analogous, and that EVs are even a red herring when compared to industrial polluters, but 100% laissez faire libertarianism is not how you build a society.
Again, those products (except maybe heroin) were banned once reasonable alternatives existed. That simply isn’t the case for EVs right now. No EV in the world can replicate fairly simple tasks (towing a trailer more than 200 miles without stopping for example, or refueling in 5 minutes, or selling for $20,000 new without tax credits) that ICEs can do easily.
I guess we differ on how much of the “tragedy of the commons” burden should be shifted onto ordinary drivers vs all the other polluters in our society.
Nowhere did I ever advocate for pure laissez faire libertarianism. I’m strongly in favor of a carbon tax and rebate program, as I’ve stated here many times. I simply don’t believe in lowering living standards to fight climate change, because I believe human ingenuity makes that sacrifice unnecessary.
We also have differing definitions of reasonable. England is 426 miles from toe to tip. It is about as ideal as you can get for electrification. You already can’t get a new car for under 20k, and the percentage of people hauling trailers regularly is probably a rounding error at best. For the people looking at new cars, EVs seem to check the most boxes. Poor people are buying used, and the infrastructure will expand in the ~10 years it will take for these cars to start hitting the secondhand market. I just don’t understand why anyone would get that bent out of shape by governments trying to sell fewer new gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
“I believe human ingenuity makes that sacrifice unnecessary.”
Counterpoint: Human selfishness and stupidity.
Tied to V10omous arguments about reasonable alternatives, I think there is a huge argument here about sacrifice. When DDT, leaded fuel, CFCs were all banned, how large was the sacrifice made by the people as they were forced to adapt? Did aerosol no longer exist, so we had to all switch to spritzers? Did we cease to go to gas stations and fill up the same exact cars in the identical fashion?
Now heroin, I don’t know how big a sacrifice that was when it was banned. Maybe the comparison you want to make here is that ICE is an equivalent danger to society as heroin.
But as of now, ICE bans are pointing to scenarios that appear to require substantial and often life altering sacrifices on the part of low income individuals. I struggle to see that changing in 10 years. I dont really believe that will change much in the next 20 years. They still won’t be able to charge their car at home in their apartment building, they still won’t be able to charge their car at work at the local Mcee Dees.
None of the comparisons you provide had anywhere the literal impact on the lives of the “average” consumer that ICE bans seem likely to have, at least not to my knowledge.
I’m very curious to observe how batteries fail in 20 year old EVs. That will be a critical factor for the low income used market. If batteries become known for failing spontaneously, that would have a huge chilling affect on the market. If they are just a slow roll down to not taking charge, then people will be able to somewhat predict continued life expectancy, which will be necessary for a strong tertiary market, low income pricing.
My argument is pretty discombobulated but if i were to distill it down to one point I would say “bans are bad” is a weaksauce argument and it holds no water for me. We ban stuff all the time. These bans are called “laws” and it is how society functions. We banned human chattel slavery even though it had a tremendous impact on consumers and it upset a lot of people. I’m painting with an extremely broad brush here and do not intent to impugn anyone on this website, but the “you can’t make me” argument is toddler-grade and it comes from the same kind of people who said it way back when.
Henry Ford had a famous saying about consumers and their desires. Sometimes you have to recognize when a technology is dead and you need to push to newer developments. It’s how you innovate, lead, and build your portfolio for tomorrow rather than for yesterday.
But a government may push and lead in soooo many ways short of (and more efficiently than) an outright ban. Which is what V10omous is also trying to say, if you read beyond “bans are bad.”
I don’t personally think it’s “toddler grade” to ensure people’s standards of living don’t decrease unnecessarily, which is one of the *primary* reasons our government exists as it does in the first place (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, et al). And to therefore tend to err on the side of fewer restrictions on what people can do with their own money.
My standard of living will decrease unnecessarily if I can’t: run my own basement nuclear power plant. Booby trap my yard to keep my hoard of gold safe. Own human beings to till my land for me. It’s a shit argument.
There’s a line somewhere. It’s ignorant to assume that the oil and gas industry isn’t being subsidized on a global scale (it has been 20 years since the US federal gas tax was last increased), and at some point you have to acknowledge that the global consequences outweigh the benefits. Just because oil dependency is a deliberately engineered fact of life now doesn’t mean that it is natural or that it should remain. Electric vehicles would immediately be a much more appetizing alternative if the manufacturers and owners were responsible for the social and economic costs of their production and use, and I’m saying this as a person who has never owned or even sat in an EV.
You used to be able to smoke in restaurants. People were upset when that went away, but we adapted. It’ll be the same for electric cars.
Maybe the disconnect is that I believe we are nowhere close to this point, and that there are better ways to reduce emissions than heavy-handed bans.
People believe lots of stuff. Some people think you get a bonus life after you die, where everything is perfect and nothing bad ever happens. Other people believe that witchcraft is a force that affects our daily lives, and that you need to remain vigilant lest demonic spirits consume our culture. Some people even believe that medicine is bad for you.
I guess we’ll never know for sure. Best not to challenge them in case they are right.
Ensuring people’s standards of living don’t decrease unnecessarily IS the whole reason for the ban. Especially folks who don’t have much of a standard of living to begin with but will lose even that due to the selfish actions of others.
Sure some people may have a harder time hopping on a private jet to Europe for lunch and back home for dinner. They might even have to – gasp! – make do with a lunch just as opulent but in an exclusive domestic establishment instead.
A lot of people think owning workers instead of paying them is superior in every way too.