Rishi Sunak’s announcement of a delay from 2030 to 2035 on the ban on sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars is understandable in political terms given the emotive role cars play in many peoples’ lives – mainly, because of the inability of public transport to cope with (sub)urbanisation and rural areas – and a general election being at most 14 months away. Another ‘freedom to drive’ matter, the London Low Emission Zone is credited with the Conservatives retaining the Uxbridge seat at a recent byelection. But does it have any credibility in technical terms in respect of achieving the 2050 Net Zero target?
Sunak made four key claims in support of his delay: that he was merely bringing the UK into line with the 2035 limit selected by comparator countries, that the vast majority of cars bought in 2030 would be EVs whether or not the ban was 2030 or 2035; that he wanted to avoid the costs of the EV transition falling on ‘hardworking families’; and that there was no point pushing an early transition if it could only be achieved by importing cars manufactured in China using carbon-intensive production processes. With the exception of this last point, his rhetoric seems to be on sandy foundations.
It is true in factual terms that having initially determined a date for ending ICE car sales of 2035, Boris Johnson brought it forward to 2030, and this placed the UK in the vanguard internationally. But these national targets cannot be considered in isolation from their wider policy contexts. The European Union has legislated for interim targets which mean car producers must radically reduce the emissions of the cars they sell before 2035 or face a large fine for each vehicle sold. The UK Government has consulted on similar interim targets, known as the ‘Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate’, but they are not yet law. Now that the ban is delayed to 2035 there is clear pressure on the UK to introduce a ZEV mandate which makes it clear that the UK’s transition polices are worth at least as much as those other countries with a 2035 zero emissions deadline.
And this is also important because, despite Brexit, the UK remains very much part of the European car market. If there is any scarcity in the supply of low or zero-emissions vehicles in the run up to 2035, which market will producers choose to serve? One with tough penalties for not achieving interim zero emission vehicle targets, or one without them?
The need to protect ‘hard-working families’ from increased car purchase costs was repeated several times in the speech. But most new cars sold in the UK are bought by corporate customers. Those families on tight budgets would tend to buy used cars. Despite some comments made by Sunak to suggest otherwise, there was never an agreed policy to prevent the sale of used ICEs after 2030.
The support to private purchasers for plug-in vehicles was ended in 2022. Comparator countries like Germany have retained their subsidy programmes.
What the moving of the goalposts does suggest is that the pressure on producers and retailers to deliver affordable EVs in the UK by 2030 will be reduced, and so the problem might simply be delayed by five years. An alternative to moving the deadline might have been to review the availability of grants for zero-emission vehicles. It is notable that Sunak’s speech announced an increase in subsidy for heat pumps from £5,000 to £7,500, but the support to private purchasers for plug-in vehicles was ended in 2022. Comparator countries like Germany have retained their subsidy programmes.
Where the policy review does have a point is the risk of Europe becoming reliant on EVs manufactured in China using carbon-intensive production processes, for the batteries in particular. This is important because compared to an ICE a larger share of the lifecycle carbon for an EV comes from the production stage. However, simply moving the target does not make the UK immune to these high-carbon vehicles being imported. That is a matter for production standards and trade policy.
If Sunak really wants to address the four concerns he raised and retain the UK’s status as a net zero pioneer, he now needs to combine his delayed target with ambitious supporting policies. Interim targets for EV market share with sanctions should be set, ensuring the transition does not lose pace while ‘hard to charge’ consumers retain an additional five years to adjust. For those experiencing financial barriers to EV ownership, he should consider a policy such as that being developed by the French to provide social lease and purchase subsidy solutions targeted to families with limited financial means and valid only for EVs achieving low carbon production standards.
This blog was written by Prof Graham Parkhurst, Professor of Sustainable Mobility and Director of CTS, and Xabier Gangoiti, Research Associate at CTS, University of the West of England, Bristol.