Sunak sets out to destroy UK car industry

[pellinore]

Having discovered that pretending to be anti-ULEZ ( which is a Tory policy first proposed by Boris Johnson) gave them a  local election win, Sunak is now poised to completely destroy the UK car industry. He has already brought it just about to it's knees with Brexit (again, a policy to give the Tories a short-term election lead even though he knew it was damaging) and the "rules of origin" tariffs, he has now thrown a spanner into the whole works again. Industry will not tolerate the constant flip-flopping of the Tories as they try to gain votes - manufacturing will abandon the UK altogether.

Ford is leading a furious business backlash against Rishi Sunak’s plans to water down some of Britain’s key climate pledges - including a delay to the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales.

The car giant said any relaxation of the 2030 target would undermine the government’s “ambition, commitment and consistency” - all of which are key to its manufacturing plans.

The ban on new petrol and diesel car sales was announced by Boris Johnson in November 2020, and as recently as July the government described the date as “immovable”.

Ford leads furious business backlash to Sunak plan to row back on net zero pledges | The Independent

Edited September 20, 2023 by pellinore

[L.A.T.1961]

The UK seems to be following the Germans and Italy.  If the UK put implementation back to 2035 we would still be in line with EU.

 The German government is threatening to continue its blockade of EU green legislation unless the European Commission finds a way to allow combustion engine cars running on synthetic e-fuels to be sold post-2035.

In correspondence to the Commission late Thursday evening, seen by POLITICO, Germany’s transport ministry formally rejected the Commission’s latest attempt to compromise in the battle over the future of combustion-engine cars and vans, deepening a row that has overshadowed an ongoing summit of EU leaders in Brussels.

The Germans wanted a fudge to allow them to build cars using, so called, green fuel. Guess what, they got it. 

 In 2022, a historic agreement was reached on ending sales of new polluting combustion engine cars by 2035 in the EU. In March this year, however, just before the final sign off by national governments in what had been considered a formality, the German government declared last-minute opposition. Backed by just three other countries (Italy, Bulgaria and Poland), the blocking minority demanded that sales of new cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) be allowed after 2035, if they run on e-fuels.

The basis of this opposition was the inclusion of a non-binding recital (Recital 11) in the new car CO₂ standards regulation that asks the Commission to propose a role for e-fuels – or CO₂ neutral fuels – in vehicles that are outside the scope of the regulation. An agreement was eventually found and the Commission agreed to make a proposal that would allow cars running only on climate neutral fuels to be registered under vehicle type approval rules, before setting out how these rules would be aligned with the car CO₂ standards.

An analysis by campaigning NGO Transport & Environment (T&E) found that by 2035, there will only be enough synthetic fuels for around 2 per cent of Europe's cars. That means just 5 million of the EU's projected 287 million cars could run on these fuels.

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-ursula-von-der-leyen-germany-rejects-commissions-proposal-for-ending-car-engine-impasse/

https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-to-prevent-an-e-fuels-loophole-undermining-the-eu-car-co₂-law/

By the way, if UK was still a member of the EU it would have been paying towards the implementation of EU green legislation. 

[itsnotoutthere]

[itsnotoutthere]

The squealing amongst the subsidy junkies tells you all you need to know about who is benefiting from net zero.

[pellinore]

10 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

The squealing amongst the subsidy junkies tells you all you need to know about who is benefiting from net zero.

I actually have as little interest in Net Zero as you have. And I don't want to change my car for an electric one. I just think it is suicidal for the UK's industries (not just the car industry) for the government to flip-flop on such an important policy just to try to buy a few votes at the next GE.

[itsnotoutthere]

Just out of interest, does anybody actually believe that if everybody went out and bought a non polluting electric vehicle, Sadiq Khan would remove all the ULEZ cameras? 

It's a rhetorical question because we all know the answer.

The ULEZ scheme has absolutely nothing to do with cutting pollution & everything to do with raising tax revenue.

[quiXilver]

I'm rather dreading the eventual realization of the impact of all these batteries on the environment when we go full hog on electric vehicles... they are decidedly not green tech.

[pellinore]

4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Just out of interest, does anybody actually believe that if everybody went out and bought a non polluting electric vehicle, Sadiq Khan would remove all the ULEZ cameras? 

It's a rhetorical question because we all know the answer.

The ULEZ scheme has absolutely nothing to do with cutting pollution & everything to do with raising tax revenue.

4 hours ago, quiXilver said:

I'm rather dreading the eventual realization of the impact of all these batteries on the environment when we go full hog on electric vehicles... they are decidedly not green tech.

I think ULEZ is about cleaner air. But I heard someone point out on a R4 programme, that adding a few months to our longevity is not all that useful. It is added to the end of our lives (obviously) when we may be in poor health anyway (we might even have dementia). It is tempting to think of a longer life benefitting us in or prime, but that's not the way it works.

I also heard that (by someone committed to Net Zero) the UK contributes 0.8% to global pollution. She was stressing how important it is for the UK to do it's bit. The argument was: China contributes 33% to pollution, the US and a couple of other countries (I think Russia was one) contribute another 33%, and the UK and a few hundred others contribute the last 33%. If we cut back in the UK, along with those few hundreds, we would contribute to 33% of the global pollution being cleaned up. But it didn't convince me. To me, the figures point to the UK contributing only 0.8% to global pollution, so we would be suffering from higher bills, inefficient heat pumps and pointless ending of ICE cars when the vast majority of the world carried on as they wanted.

With regard to ending ICE car production in 2035 instead of 2030- I think it will make not a jot of difference to global pollution- but it will damage our car industry if we keep moving the goal posts just when manufacturers need certainty to invest. I think Sunak has no interest in the UK or it's population, he is just trying to buy an election win in 2024. Then he'll be off to California where he can keep his fleet of ICE cars and jet-setting lifestyle.

 

 

[Grey Area]

This is such a messy subject.  The oil industry is almost a self serving entity, existing not only to power our lives but to keep itself afloat.

On the subject of cars specifically, if you stand back and think about it, petrol/diesel is about the least inefficient fuel source you could use.  You have to first prospect for oil, you have to drill for the oil, you have to refine the oil, the fuel then has to be transported to a nation, then transferred to a fuel station, the fuel station has to be managed appropriately.  All that before you have even put it in your vehicle.  When put that way it kinda makes your 45 mpg seem kinda redundant.  But the infrastructure is embedded into society globally.

Shifting away from oil is going to be one of the biggest challenges this world faces in the coming decades, but I think we all know that transition has to begin, world leaders need the guts to commit to it, clearly Sunak is lacking in that respect.  I expect several rather influential nations who’s economies are rather dependent on the supply of oil have been whispering in Sunak’s ear.

[pellinore]

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Shifting away from oil is going to be one of the biggest challenges this world faces in the coming decades, but I think we all know that transition has to begin, world leaders need the guts to commit to it, clearly Sunak is lacking in that respect.  I expect several rather influential nations who’s economies are rather dependent on the supply of oil have been whispering in Sunak’s ear.

Oh absolutely. And his bank manager has done some whispering. And given his and his wife's heritage, I'll bet he would be quietly pleased to see the British economy crash and burn. That's why he supported Brexit, it won't affect him one iota. And he has a point, if the Brits want to vote themselves into oblivion, good luck to them.

[acidhead]

Fossil fuels are in decline and new discoveries are only going to cost more to extract to market. 

[itsnotoutthere]

Finally a gap emerges between the main political parties: Labour "we will return you to the stone age" Conservatives "we will return you to the stone age, five years later"

[pellinore]

On 9/20/2023 at 5:06 PM, itsnotoutthere said:

Just out of interest, does anybody actually believe that if everybody went out and bought a non polluting electric vehicle, Sadiq Khan would remove all the ULEZ cameras? 

It's a rhetorical question because we all know the answer.

The ULEZ scheme has absolutely nothing to do with cutting pollution & everything to do with raising tax revenue.

Of course he would. He would have to. At the moment any car 8 years old and less (which is when they became cleaner) is exempt.

[itsnotoutthere]

19 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Of course he would. He would have to. At the moment any car 8 years old and less (which is when they became cleaner) is exempt.

Ah so there's one that believes it. 

[pellinore]

3 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Ah so there's one that believes it. 

You do know that ULEZ is a Tory policy, first advocated by Johnson and forced on Khan by Grant Schapps? It is about clean air in cities, and London is not the only city in the UK to adopt it, and certainly not the only one in Europe. It is only demonized by Sunak now because he thinks it is a vote winner, whereas previously promoting it was a vote winner. If you think Sunak, with all his wealth, who flies by private helicopter or private jet, really cares one iota about poor working class tradespeople and their health, or the UK economy, I have a bridge to sell you. Sunak and his family couldn't care less if Britain went to hell in a handcart. He owes us no loyalty. He has just jeopardized thousands of jobs by moving the goal posts on Net Zero at the last minute.

Edited September 21, 2023 by pellinore

[itsnotoutthere]