Buyer interest in new electric cars has slumped by nearly two-thirds since the start of last year, new figures released this morning suggest, but Government is full of ideas to push the unwanted products on an unconvinced public. The Mail has the story.
Online vehicle marketplace Auto Trader said it recorded a 65% drop in inquiries for electric cars last month compared with January 2022.
The company’s Road to 2030 report blamed the decline in demand for electric vehicles (EV) on a multitude of factors, including their premium price tags, the cost-of-living crisis, higher interest rates for borrowing and increase in energy prices.
The report follows Elon Musk’s suggestion that he will slash the price of Teslas in the U.S. for a staggering sixth time this year in a bid to rejuvenate demand for the company’s battery vehicles.
The price of Model Y vehicles is to be cut by £2,400 to around £37,743, and the Model 3 vehicle by £1,600 to £32,100.
After a series of cuts, the models are a respective 29% and 15% cheaper in the U.S., its largest market, than at the start of the year.
In response, shares dropped 4% in New York during after-hours trading, adding to its 18% decline in the past six months.
Tesla has already slashed U.K. prices of its new cars various times in the UK in 2023, which in turn has hammered the value of second-hand models in recent months.
Auto Trader’s report published on Thursday said the new EV market is being hampered by a lack of affordable choices, with very few models available priced between £20,000 and £30,000.
The analysis also stated that new EVs are an average of 37% more expensive than petrol and diesel cars. …
The RAC says that many motorists are being priced out of EV ownership, which is resulting in them keeping their older – more polluting – petrol and diesel cars longer.
By doing so, it threatens the Government’s targets to cut air pollution levels in the coming years before the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars in 2030.
Ministers are currently consulting with industry about the introduction of a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate from next year, which will require manufacturers to sell an increasing share of electric cars annually in the run up to the ban on sales of all new motors with internal combustion engines.
From 2024, it has outlined that 22% of all sales by each mainstream car maker must be zero emissions at the tailpipe, and by 2030 this sales share will need to rise to 80%.
Failure to meet these objectives would land manufacturers with fines of up to £15,000 per vehicle over the targets set out in the mandate.
The Government hopes that by introducing penalties it will force the hand of vehicle makers to bring more affordable cars to market that more drivers can afford.
Net Zero really is an anti-capitalist’s and statist’s dream, with never-ending cause for heavy-handed Government intervention and regulation to force people to do the ‘virtuous’ thing over the thing they want to do and that is most convenient and affordable for them. Pure coincidence I’m sure. The only downside of course is more people not being able to afford to buy and do stuff – so, er, increased poverty, in other words.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“That is my take, but make up your own minds by reading the full piece.”
It is behind a paywall.
https://12ft.io often gets you past some paywalls. Works well on Telegraph articles.
Thank you.
By the second paragraph, they are telling us….
“As Tate, who denies the allegations, waits to find out what will happen next, the misogynistic philosophy he has built is still thriving among social media followers. In the real world the effect has been significant.”
They can’t help themselves, and this is certainly not objective. Misogyny is defined as a hatred of women. Tate doesn’t hate women. He has a traditional view of how the sex roles are or should be played out in society. From what I’ve seen his focus is mostly on the man, and taking responsibility for their actions, and playing the provider and protector in relationships. Its a bit old fashioned if you like your men soft and weepy, but it isn’t what ts played to be. That so many leftie educators should want to spend time on making sure that young boys aren’t responsible, self reliant, ambitious or competitive, but rather compliant, and passive says a lot more about them that it does about Tate, imo.
Just expanding the point a little. I think Tate is what we used to call a ‘highly eligible bachelor’. He probably meets a far higher proportion of women, who see their opportunities in, shall we say ‘gold-digging’. Its the same for the wives of professional footballers. Are they complaining about their partners misogynism while they are spending £100k a week, driving Ferrari’s, and up to their firm buttocks in Gucci. It was a similar argument of feminism about the ‘Male Patriarchy’ because a handful of super successful and competitive men have vast wealth, then try to apply that rhetoric to the typical male in a typical marriage with a typical woman.
I know nothing about Tate but my gut tells me that his enemies are my enemies.
As for “man up” and “be a man” I think the behaviours those phrases are aimed at emphasising are generally helpful but it’s unfortunate they are sex-specific. I’m a man so it doesn’t hit me in the way it might hit a woman but to me they say “be stoical in the face of adversity and take responsibility for your own actions”. Possibly at some point in the past the general perception was that those were more typically male behaviours and that may or may not be true. I wonder if we should try to out that behind us and agree that those qualities are generally positive. Btw I’m not denying that males and female females might on average have different tendencies. I tend to think that people should think of themselves as individuals and not worry about their sex, and be strong in themselves, whatever that brings for them.
”Man-up’ a problem phrase? good grief; it is like a 1984 manipulation of language, I wish some of our politicians (male/female/in between) would ‘man up’ and get a few things sorted out.
Not a problem phrase for me – but I suppose it might be for women who could interpret it as implying that those qualities were exclusively or predominantly male. But I tend to think we should not get hung up on such things. But I can’t presume to speak for women.
Why is this unfortunate, ie, why shouldn’t woman be able to man up? The phrase is historical and ultimatively comes from the fact that men were expected to be soldiers/ fighters and women weren’t. How can the fact that this used to be the case possibly negatively affect someone? Any attempt to create or enforce politically correct language is evil.
Yes, indeed – I agree.
Tate has been a psy-op. Stop glorifying him. And don’t underestimate the enemy.
I’m curious as to why you say that. Care to explain further..?
Is that the best you’ve got.? Downvote me because I asked for an expanded answer.? Come on, engage in the discussion. We might learn something from each other…
Don’t know Tate, don’t really care either, but an online (non-Google) search of ‘who is Andrew Tate’ gives you pages and pages of MSM vitriol about him. He’s obviously hit a non-narrative nerve: perhaps one reason they’re so narked is that his classically patriarchal misogyny (where women can actually call themselves women) is getting more attention than wokerati transgender misogyny (where women can’t). That, and encouraging boys to be boys. Allegedly.
classically patriarchal misogyny
Or so. Judging from comments in the Weekly Sceptic podcast (I hate real-time media because I can read much faster than people usually speek), the guy is an ex-kickboxer- turned-pimp with an internet presence for self-marketing. Guaranteed to drive certain people up the wall in anger but otherwise, not exactly a savoury or much important character.
Entirely agree he’s probably a loathsome individual with possible criminal intent, I was just making an – admittedly tangential – point about how MSM rage about his misogyny (it seems to be the point du jour in a lot of headlines) yet are fully embracing of wokerati misogyny. Nuff said: he’s not worth the attention.
Neither, actually, and I’d quite like it if the entire internet stopped trying so hard to make me care about him.
“Some pupils are giving up on studying for exams”. How many more young people are giving up studying for exams or in the worst cases giving up on life because they have been brainwashed by Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion etc. to believe that climate change means that they have no future. Surely these unfortunate victims need a bit of sympathetic “re-education”, or at least being presented with alternative points of view so they can make up their own minds. The same applies to gender confused teenagers who are being brainwashed into taking damaging puberty blockers by woke doctors or groups such as Mermaids.
It’s funny how right on people only call it brainwashing when it involves opinions they don’t agree with, otherwise it’s education or empowerment.
The law states that teachers must not promote partisan political views and should offer a balanced overview of opposing views when political issues are taught
Is the law being followed in schools?
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/17/political-impartiality-guidance-for-schools-what-you-need-to-know/