Rishi Sunak is poised to order a review of the controversial 2030 ban on new petrol cars according to Government sources, who told the Mail the Prime Minister is “open” to a rethink amid mounting concern about the impact of costly green policies on household budgets.
Signalling a shift in approach yesterday, the PM said that in the future, the U.K.’s Net Zero ambitions would be pursued in a “proportionate and pragmatic way that doesn’t unnecessarily give people more hassle and more costs in their lives”.
Mr. Sunak ducked questions about whether he remained committed to the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars.
But a Government source said: “It is fair to say he would be open to reviewing it. There is no review at the moment, but he wants to make sure we are always taking a proportionate and pragmatic approach, particularly as we are way ahead of a lot of other countries on a lot of this green stuff, including vehicles.”
No. 10 confirmed that the Government’s green pledges were being looked at again in the light of their unpopularity and potential impact on the cost of living – raising the prospect they could be ditched before the next election.
The move is a significant breakthrough for the Mail’s Rethink The 2030 Petrol Car Ban campaign.
It follows the Tories’ unexpected victory in last week’s Uxbridge by-election, where Labour faced a backlash over Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand the controversial Ulez scheme to cover the whole of Greater London.
Craig Mackinlay, Chairman of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Tory MPs, said the by-election result had provided a “reality check” for the Government’s headlong dash to cut carbon emissions.
Mr. Mackinlay said the proposed 2030 car ban was “uniquely stupid” – and predicted it would be ditched along with other targets in order to contrast with Labour’s “madcap ‘Net Zero now’ policies”.
“Uxbridge is the first time we have had one of these green issues on the ballot paper, and the result was that by opposing it, we crept over the line,” he said. “It’s the first time we have had clear blue water with Labour on one of these issues and it’s unlikely to be the last.”
Tory MPs have piled pressure on the Government to water down its green pledges after the Uxbridge result.
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.
No surprise there. The manufacturers need a reasonable period of time for any new product to justify the investment on their part. If the shut off stayed at 2030, with only 7 years left, we would not see much that was new between now and then. They would carry on churning out existing designs (subject to international standards tweaks), or drop out of the market, more than likely.
The whole scam needs to be erased NOW.
Following my critical comment on the proposed bureaucratic ban on the use of road fuel, I had a look at one of the major manufacturer’s current output (I happen to have one of their cars). They can see which way the wind is blowing, and are even promoting the use of hydrogen as a storage mechanism on trucks: https://www.toyota-europe.com/news/2023/decarbonising-our-logistics-activities-in-europe No shortage of the current buzz words etc on that site!
Using H as a energy store is dubious, unless one is sure of how it was made, anyway. It can be somewhat inefficient overall. A lot of it is a by-product of other products, using methane reformation. Even the production of H as a fuel by water electrolysis can be dodgy. Only makes sense if the electrical power was surplus at the time, and not generated by (say) burning gas or coal.
They actually use the railways when practical, rather than HGVs on the roads, though. E.g. the one I have has an engine made in Poland, then assembled in Valencienne, then on a train to Nottinghamshire, then the last little bit on the road to the dealer.
The inefficiency of hydrogen is its Achilles heel. I don’t know about fuel cells, but an ICE equivalent engine has an approx. 30% ERoI, i.e. ~70% of the input energy is wasted. Moreover, the whole ‘green hydrogen’, i.e. produced from ‘spare’ renewable energy claim is entirely fatuous. There is no spare renewable energy, and likely never will be, nor can you rely on it to be available when you need it. Even if that energy was available, its cost would be monstrous. As an engineer, KISS and ‘if it ain’t broke…’ are a very relevant terms. The move away from petrol/diesel is both making thinks far more complex and trying to fix something that isn’t actually broken. Surely the investment being sunk into electrifying transport would be far more productive continuing the development of ICE engines. After all, we’ve made huge progress in efficiency and cleanliness over recent decades, and those improvements span all modes of transport, not just cars, but vans, lorries, ships and also aircraft.
‘Reviewing’ the 2030 ban is some kind of a start but the Conservatives need the political equivalent of ‘Bazball’; clear blue water.
Bin nut zero (not in the recycling bin, in the rubbish bin)
Slash public spending
Swingeing reform of the NHS (‘Universal healthcare without the NHS’ IEA paper)
Massive deregulation, particularly for small businesses
Tax cuts
Serious Free Zones, Free Ports; lots of them…..
‘Another great advantage of a Free Ports policy is that its fundamental simplicity and the wealth of international precedent make implementation possible over a short timescale. While a more ambitious programme than the Enterprise Zones introduced by the Coalition Government in 2011, Free Ports have similar legislative requirements. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that a determined government could see the first Free Ports become operational within as little as a year of announcement, as was achieved with Enterprise Zones.’
‘What Brexit means for Britain will be determined as much by how we make use of our new freedoms as by the outcomes of the forthcoming negotiations. Free Ports are not a panacea, but, with decisive action, they have the potential to lay the foundations of a golden age of prosperity for a Britain connected by its trading and manufacturing businesses to every corner of the world.’
Who said that?
https://cps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/161114094336-TheFreePortsOpportunity.pdf
I think the most influential countries in the EU have already reversed their bans on new ICEs. UK is merely following on in this regard. I am not an EUphile, just saying.
The EU have introduced exemptions for vehicles running on biofuels, but as far as I know are still going to ban petrol and diesel engines. They clearly have their heads so far up a certain part of the body that they’ve learnt nothing about the environmental and financial costs of biofuels. If CO2 was a problem then for this reason alone biofuels would be a poor choice due to the amount of energy intensive fertiliser needed plus all the processing.
They are seeing things getting sticky regarding net zero, they are just looking at the best and or acceptable get of the doo doo (jail) card for when the slurry hits the rotating foil. They are starting to realise that they were not on the side of the majority, but found themselves within the ranks of the insane.
He knows Net Zero is nonsense but he’s been destroying our freedom since March 2020 for nonsense
Leaflet for the printers
The public do not want EV’s. If they do this we would end up like Havana, Cuba with all these older cars being maintained indefinitely.
Will they put the ban back? It would be a rather humiliating u-turn.
Basically, the Eco-Nutter Establishment thought they had created an Unstoppable Force and it has just had a nasty collision with the Immovable Rock …… called the electorate ….. and come off worse.
Words, words, just words. Empty rhetoric in my view. He can say what he likes but until the government stand up and state that they are dropping the Net Zero targets because of new – haha – evidence that shows that climate change is not down to anthropogenic reasons and face down the fanatics of XR and JSO and open debate to all comers, I wouldn’t give it or anything he says time of day. I feel they are trying to sit on both sides of the fence, lulling us into a sense that Net Zero will be scrapped but actually still going ahead with their plans regardless. They have their orders after all!
Before the car sales ban comes in there is a proposal to ban the sale and installation of new oil fired boilers from 2026, there are a large number of homes in rural areas which rely on oil heating. The rules would mean that from 2026 if your oil fired boiler breaks down and cannot be repaired, you would not be able to install a new one and would have to go for a heat pump or other eco heating. Many rural homes are not suitable for heat pump installation, many rural areas do not have the electric supply infrastructure to allow for a large scale switch to heat pumps, many rural residents do not have the money to pay for a heat pump. Are they going to review the oil fired boiler ban as well?
I rather fear that there is a lot of propaganda, gas-lighting and manipulation going on, first they announce a ban, then they review it, then they tinker with the details and do a few fudges just to play us all along. But in the end there seems to be too many big players with too much invested in this net-zero scam to just let if go.
It is our duty never to comply with bad laws that go against a human right to heat, food, clothing and shelter. Anything that counters our basic human needs is not worth the paper it’s written on. Maybe a tax rebellion is the way to go to get it through their thick heads that we ain’t going along with it!
any practical advice please, big instalment due end this month
Absolutely agree
The collapse of the market for oil fired boilers creates an opportunity for other alternatives, though. Several years ago, I came across a steam heating boiler that was fired by pelleted chips, at Ramsbury Brewery. Admittedly, they were a special case as it’s almost a side business from a major group of farms growing wheat and barley. The fuel is made from the remains of the crop and fed into the boiler. A bit more information re this technique: https://www.treco.co.uk/wood-pellet-boilers and quite a few other firms on the market. OF course, it might not be suitable for some, given the relatively low energy content per unit volume c.f. a tank of heating oil or LPG.
And that is my view also Aethelred.
When I took early retirement in 2001 and we flit, en-famille with our two young children to Spain, it was because the portents didn’t look good for Blair’s Britain. Jeepers! In my wildest nightmares, I didn’t foresee a tenth of the woke crap that Westminster is currently subjecting the UK to, with plans for even more in the pipeline. Aside from about a dozen MPs (and Farage), it’s confirmation of the adage of University of York’s history Professor that ‘Guy Fawkes was the last man to enter Parliament with honourable intentions.’
He always new he was going to do this, but it had to be timed right for the best political advantage at the next election! So, wait and see what happens at the Uxbridge bi election and voila!
And don’t let’s kid ourselves that it will not be reinstated too long after a general election, whoever wins!!
Net Zero ———Cost unknown. Benefits unknown. Technologies unknown or not even yet invented. This 2030 number is simply plucked from the globalist save the planet script. It is a one size fits all political decision to do all of this absurdity by 2030 —(Agenda 2030). It takes no account of the practicality because it is a political agenda and there is no cost/benefit. eg If the UK get rid of coal gas petrol and diesel by 2030 what effect will it have on global climate. We should probably ask Bjorn Lomborg that question, but the effect will be next to ZERO. So why do it? Because our mainstream parties (Con Lab and Libs) all want to pander to the UN and WEF rather than to their own citizens. I see now in Scotland the SNP who are in a commie alliance with the Greens are threatening to not let Scots sell their house unless they get rid of their gas central heating and get a heat pump. ————-Imagine the total clutter this would cause as people have to rip out radiators and lift carpets, spend 12-15 grand on this inferior heating system and all the additional decorating costs etc. —This is the absurdity of the Green agenda that whips people into submission so the UK can get a little gold star on its lapel from the WEF. If planets need saved then why do they need saved 6 and half years from now when India and China are NOT saving it and are currently in the process of burning more coal in a year than we ever did? Surely this review by Sunak if it has one ounce of common sense in it will decide all of this can be put back 20 years to make the transition smoother. But I suspect this just another bit of posturing.
“Surely this review by Sunak if it has one ounce of common sense in it will decide all of this can be put back 20 years to make the transition smoother.”
There is no putting back. Net Zero is a complete myth. Net Zero refers to Co2 and Co2 has nothing to do with any alleged global warming or climate crisis. Climate crisis – utter BS.
We must never cede the language. Reducing Co2 will have NO impact whatsoever on climate.
Net Zero is the myth originally propogated by the Club of Rome in order to facilitate massive societal changes and ultimately to allow a few lazy but rich people to control the planet.
Net Zero should always be debunked for the utter nonsense that it is and we should not engage in arguments about its validity. Net Zero is based on lies.
And the CO2 they want to reduce to zero is us, the humans….They’re committing democide.
100% correct. Indeed we should also point out that if every country on the planet went “Net Zero” today it would take 100 to 300 years before CO2 levels started to fall. So not only is Net Zero trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, it won’t fail to start solving it for many generations.
Given the state of the Parliamentary Conservative Party, (which has its full share of eco-loons and J Arthurs) I doubt whether a decision to scrap the 2030 ICE ban would prevail. It could be like the Brexit votes all over again, with quislings subverting the policy.
Realistically I think the best we can hope for in the short term are gradual postponements of various bans a a gradual loosening of green regulations. Hopefully once the ball starts slowly rolling it will gradually gain momentum, however I see the green and general woke agenda as a super tanker, it takes a long time to slow down and finally turn around.
At least the idea of trying to be anti woke as the best way of winning the next election seems to be spreading in the Tory party.
There’s some warming going on but it’s not because of life-giving gas CO2 or methane cow flatulence. It’s mostly from causes we can do nothing about such as planetary oscillations. What man-caused warming there is comes from stupidly high levels of population growth (1 billion added in just the last 11 years) massive deforestation and the construction of dozens of new 10 million plus population concrete heat trapping mega-cities, particularly in the far east and in developing nations.
Stopping production of new, cheap, efficient and clean petrol and diesel cars in the UK by 2030 and escalating the War on Motorists will have no effect whatsoever on warming. Banning gas boilers in favour of noisy, expensive heat pumps will have no effect whatsoever on warming. Subsidising wind farm construction will have no effect on warming.
All of the above will, however, plunge millions into poverty and bankruptcy.
But..but…but……. There was an expert on the radio yesterday lunchtime, talking on behalf of a whole group of experts and he said something like; ” there is no doubt that the climate is changing for the worse and there is no doubt that it is totally the fault of us miserable humans for burning fossil fuels and we must stop burning fossil fuels”.
Are you saying he might have been talking ???????? out of his ****?
Maybe I was a little premature in donning sackcloth and ashes and sitting in the corner wailing in guilt and shame at having destroyed the planet?
Those lefty “experts” make me sick with their smug attitudes when they’re on the radio. At the moment they know they’re untouchable. Hopefully a harsh reckoning is coming for all of them.
Climate change isn’t caused by CO2 emissions, every sensible person knows it. But, even if CO2 was the problem (it isn’t) achieving Net Zero is pointless. If the whole planet went to Net Zero right this second it would take 100 to 300 years before CO2 levels started to lower.
I think it was Greta No Fun Berg or King Charles or John “Lurch” Kerry or JSO or ER or AOC or many others that keep telling us the planet is doomed in 7 years due to CO2 emissions. So a treatment plan that takes 100 to 300 years just to start to kick in isn’t going to cut it.
Moronic Net Zero. It’ll doom us all. It must be stopped.
There needs to be a national referendum on the climate change crisis. Along with this there needs to be an open debate of the science. Climate change is just a method used by powerful elites to seize power and control. These are centered in the UN, WEF and academia. The current push for Net 30 and Net 50 will impoverish most people and could possibly interfere with the production and distribution of food and other necessities we rely on to survive. This will happen very quickly and be very difficult to recover from. Allowing a group of elites at the UN and WEF to insert their representatives into government to enact their misguided policies is irresponsible, naive and will be a disaster.
There is now a second serious ship fire caused by an electric car (new) being delivered. Many conventional cars have been destroyed, and probably the whole ship. The insurance industry is soon going to say “No,No” as the risk appears to be very high. This is caused by the large number of cells in a car, and the fact that one failing sets the whole lot on fire in an unextinguishable inferno. Energy density is the key factor, it is dangerously high, not far off a pile of high explosive. This would never be carried in a way that could catch fire, but electric cars have it built in!
Instead of feeding the pigs’ trough of money given to unecological wind farm despoilers of our landscape and giving money to people to make useful agricultural land into fields of solar panels and unusable for the crops we need, there are much better ways to reduce pollution. We are the second-largest importer of food products, and our farmers do not get sufficient support from the government to home produce more of the crops we need. Rather than restricting people’s choice of personal transport, the government should be funding scientific research in the reduction in pollution from the vehicles we want to use. In recent years there have been substantial reduction in pollution from ICE vehicles, but with the encouragement required there is scope to do much more.