More joined up thinking from the government...not


Userlevel 7
Badge +11
  • Rocket Scientist
  • 9025 replies

The announcement that the government are cutting the EV grant from £3000 to £2500 is precisely the opposite of what they should have done if they want to promote the move towards cleaner air and net zero.

Stupid, stupid stupid…(I’m genuinely lost for words at just how stupid this is, especially as we hopefully move out of Covid and budgets are tighter.)

Perhaps they believe that the impact of this on votes is low.

 

 


10 replies

I’m torn on this one.
On the one hand, I disagree with removing incentives, just like they did with feed-in-tariffs, when we need to encourage people to decarbonize.
On the other hand, it depends what they are going to do with the money saved (if any?).
Personally speaking I need to see far greater investment in the creation of the infrastructure necessary to support Electric Vehicles before I can even consider getting one.

Userlevel 7
Badge +11

@Gwyndy I don’t look upon it as money saved, but rather money not spent to encourage the take up of EV’s

@Gwyndy I don’t look upon it as money saved, but rather money not spent to encourage the take up of EV’s

I see ‘purchase price’ as only 1 factor in the things preventing the mass take up of EV’s, if the money currently spent on reducing the ‘upfront’ cost is used to make long-term ownership easier, then it’s not necessarily a ‘bad decision’. 

Ultimately, as important as how many vehicles are replaced with Electric Vehicles appears, what truly matters is how many miles are replaced, perhaps therefore government investment would be better aimed at the business sector, particularly the transportation of goods, where vehicles have lower MPG, and improving fuel consumption is more difficult?

New diesel 3.5 tonne vans cover an average of 32,925 km @ 161.2 g CO2/km miles per year over 5 years (5,307,510 g CO2 per year)
New diesel cars cover an average of 20,110 km @  127.6 g CO2/km in each of their first three years. (2,566,036 g CO2 per year)
New petrol cars cover an average of 12,054 km @ 127.0 g CO2/km in each of their first three years. (1,530,858 g CO2 per year)
Pure battery electric cars are driven an average of 9,435 miles per year in each of their first three years.

Therefore, every van replaced provides over twice the annual reduction in CO2 emissions of replacing a diesel car, and over three times that of a replacing a petrol car.


 

 

I’m torn on this one.
On the one hand, I disagree with removing incentives, just like they did with feed-in-tariffs, when we need to encourage people to decarbonize.
On the other hand, it depends what they are going to do with the money saved (if any?).
Personally speaking I need to see far greater investment in the creation of the infrastructure necessary to support Electric Vehicles before I can even consider getting one.

I think there is sufficient infrastructure in place to support an electric car. More charging points I understand than there are petrol stations. The issue is the price, the range and the quality. The latter is not very good for what you pay. The top of the range Nissan was not bad. Its price was/is. I had a good hard look last year and with many they have reduced the quality to keep prices down. It is possible now to get up to full charge in 10 minutes but the product that does that has not been released yet.

Userlevel 7
Badge +11

@Gwyndy 

I know it’s not the only factor, but it’s all about sticks and carrots, remember the scrappage scheme? That was introduced to encourage car buying after the financial crisis, and lots of people bought diesel models. If you want to encourage EV take-up you need to dangle carrots...(that sounds ridiculous!)

This announcement sends out entirely the wrong message at the wrong time (although given the urgency there isn’t a right time)

@Gwyndy

I know it’s not the only factor, but it’s all about sticks and carrots, remember the scrappage scheme? That was introduced to encourage car buying after the financial crisis, and lots of people bought diesel models. If you want to encourage EV take-up you need to dangle carrots...(that sounds ridiculous!)

This announcement sends out entirely the wrong message at the wrong time (although given the urgency there isn’t a right time)

My friend bought a Skoda Hatchback using the scrappage scheme, his Suzuki Swift was traded in for scrap. I was not convinced of the ‘environmental benefits’ of scrapping, often perfectly usable, if not the most ‘efficient’ cars, however, it probably did help prevent a few car dealers from going under.

 

 

Have to agree @woz it seems wrong. 

To get more people to adopt EVs and so meet climate change goals, wouldn’t it be better to increase the grant? 

Badge

The announcement that the government are cutting the EV grant from £3000 to £2500 is precisely the opposite of what they should have done if they want to promote the move towards cleaner air and net zero.

Stupid, stupid stupid…(I’m genuinely lost for words at just how stupid this is, especially as we hopefully move out of Covid and budgets are tighter.)

Perhaps they believe that the impact of this on votes is low.

 

 


The EV tax breaks for company cars is already generous enough.

Cutting the help to purchase a new EV does not make sense. There was no increase in fuel tax on petrol again. With inflation this is in effect a cut in fossil fuel tax.. Why?

The announcement that the government are cutting the EV grant from £3000 to £2500 is precisely the opposite of what they should have done if they want to promote the move towards cleaner air and net zero.

Stupid, stupid stupid…(I’m genuinely lost for words at just how stupid this is, especially as we hopefully move out of Covid and budgets are tighter.)

Perhaps they believe that the impact of this on votes is low.

 

 


The EV tax breaks for company cars is already generous enough.

I have had an EV for 2 years and it is so superior to fossil vehicles that I could never imagine downgrading to one.  The public charging infrastructure is fine for me because I can charge at home and the 200+ mile range (150 in winter) is fine because it has fast charging and I don’t want to drive more than 3h without a break.

Encouraging company car users to switch is good, but the private owner gets a fraction of the benefit, or nothing in the case of the Tesla Model 3 and many others now.  If the Government really wants to move away from fossil fuels then they should remove VAT on full EVs (like Norway has) and incrementally increase VAT on fossil vehicles, and all spare parts and servicing labour, to balance the books - make it cost neutral to the exchequer.

To encourage take-up of electric commercial vehicles - vans, lorries, buses - a useful mechanism might be to limit speed of fossils to 30mph on normal roads and 40mph on motorways, and ban the use of any lane but the left one with no overtaking.  This will reduce emissions.  Of course the haulage industry has a lot of political power, as shown by the speed increase for HGVs on normal roads a few years ago with blatant disregard for the resulting increase in emissions and risk from increased speed (kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity, for any politicians that might be reading).

I have not seen anything published about all the other fossil-powered things.  There is absolutely no reason why sales of new fossil fuel lawnmowers, strimmers, chainsaws, toothbrushes, etc, could not be banned tomorrow.  Even for professional use battery power tools are now excellent.

Portable generators are a tricky one, but making them expensive to own and operate would encourage some ingenuity.

You might say all that is too drastic and why should fossil machine owners pay the price?  Too many people are turning a blind eye to the climate catastrophe unfolding now and drastic action is absolutely needed.  It’s no good saying “we did our best” when Norfolk is under the sea, future politicians need to be able to say “we did what was necessary”.

Reply