Four in every five vehicles sold must be electric by the end of the decade, ministers have told car bosses, despite Rishi Sunak’s decision to delay a ban on new petrol sales. The Telegraph has the story.
Mark Harper, the Transport Secretary, is understood to have told companies building charging points that the Government is pressing ahead with the so-called zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which sets sales targets that ramp up each year.
The mandate will require 22% of cars sold by manufacturers to be electric from next year. By 2030, the quota will gradually rise to 80%.
Carmakers that cannot hit the annual targets must either sell more electric vehicles in future years, purchase credits from rivals, or pay a fine of £15,000 per car.
On Wednesday, Mr. Harper told members of industry group ChargeUK that the Government was set to push forward with this plan, multiple sources told the the Telegraph.
Hours later, Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, also confirmed the requirement for 80% of sales to be electric would be in place by 2030, during an interview with BBC Breakfast.
It comes despite the Prime Minister’s announcement on Wednesday that he was delaying a ban on new petrol and diesel car sales until 2035, arguing that the Government should not “force” drivers to go electric.
Except he will force them, just five years later. And he will force manufacturers to make cars even if no one wants to buy them – and thereby drive up the price of petrol and diesel cars so they’re unaffordable.
When will the Government accept that the problem isn’t 2030 vs 2035? It’s Net Zero.
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.
Aye, aye, what’s going on here then? I thought DS had put a lid on this.
It was article the involvement of the Helen MacNamara woman that disappeared from here and from the Telegraph.
I reiterate the points I made last time
1) Does this young lady think it would be OK to ban a fan for posting “anti-Lesbian” or “misogynistic” Tweets? If so then isn’t that a bit inconsistent?
2) Would she accept that identity politics in which she is apparently involved in so far as she “campaigns for gay, bisexual and women’s rights” (not sure what rights those people lack) tends to lead to what has happened to her?
I have nothing personally against the young lady and do not believe she should be banned, think the PL and the club are disgraceful etc etc. Just think we need to look at the bigger picture.
I could apply your post just as easily to JK Rowling.
Possibly. I don’t know much about her, other than she has attracted a lot of vitriol for being a “TERF” and has stood her ground. I don’t know what her general views are on freedom of speech and “identity politics”.
I’m certainly not suggesting that this young lady or J K Rowling should be condemned completely, but if their positions are arguably inconsistent neither should they be approved of completely.
Very few people are free speech absolutists – something I think is a negative.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-project-fear-and-the-vaccine-rewrote-the-software-of-the-brain/
The Great Reset is based on resets of our brains.
“the manipulation of human behaviour has now gone beyond an understanding of psychology, sociology or through ‘nudging’, and into the realms of ‘environmental engineering’.”
Well weren’t we just discussing this very topic yesterday? Yes the censorship net is getting ever tighter, our ability to speak freely throttled by the corrupt, authoritarian woketards;
”Last month the European Parliament passed a report calling on the Council to include hate speech and hate crime among so-called “Euro crimes”.
In other words, offensive speech may soon be established as a criminal offence, which all member states must integrate into their own legal systems. However, no clear threshold has been set for what makes speech prosecutable.
According to Maite Pagazaurtundúa of Renew Europe, rapporteur for the report and Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, “we must protect people who are attacked, persecuted and harassed … always in accordance with the principle of proportionality and guaranteeing freedom of expression for citizens”.
This sounds nice, but it is also dangerously vague.
The Parliament’s report comes as part of a process started by the Commission in 2020. In her inaugural speech, Ursula von der Leyen had stressed the need “to extend the list of EU crimes to all forms of hate crime and hate speech – whether because of race, religion, gender or sexuality”.
This is yet another example of decisions that are being imposed on Europeans top-down.
Would quoting from St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians, where homosexuality is clearly condemned, be banned because it violates somebody’s “dignity”? Would stating that there are only two genders become criminalised? Would saying that Europe should remain a predominantly Christian continent break the law? The questions are not rhetoric.”
https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/02/the-eus-hate-speech-laws-are-an-attack-on-free-speech-itself-this-years-european-elections-may-be-the-last-chance-to-defend-our-rights/
Von der Leyen show us your deleted TXT messages you corrupt Bit@h.
Yesterday I caught a clip from Jeremy Vine (I know) They were asking for positive experiences from the Lockdowns — Many said more time with family etc, but they had a guest on the show on the big screen who was based. He said he enjoyed the tranquility but also learned to ignore the Press and that Lockdown was the UKs biggest psyop. Nobody answered to that. I’m surprised they invited him on when you consider how they treated Bev Turner, and how fast they got shot of Dan Wotton on there in early 2020.
Thanks tof
I don’t know where she gets them from but some of them are crackers
This is a classic too