When Boris Johnson moved up the date after which Brits would not be allowed to buy new ‘traditional’ cars from 2035 to 2030, there was plenty of bluster about the U.K. leading the way, setting an example to the rest of the world and so on. Oddly, the rest of the world has been unwilling to follow the U.K. over Johnson’s cliff.
So how are things going in Blighty now?
The UK car industry has called for tax incentives to help motorists switch to electric vehicles to offset weakening demand for battery models among private buyers. “Our EV market is emerging from the early adopter phase. To move to the mass market, we need something to incentivise consumers,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders [SMMT], which represents the UK car industry.
So, an allegedly superior technology and the illusion that buying an EV will help save the planet is not enough to persuade consumers to buy?
Amazing!
The FT:
Electric vehicles account for 16 per cent of new vehicles sold in the UK, with more than 1mn on the road.
But businesses make up the vast majority of sales, with only a quarter bought by private buyers — a level that is falling.
Battery-powered vehicles bought through company car schemes or using salary sacrifice receive generous tax incentives, while motorists buying a vehicle privately from a dealership have no direct purchase incentives after the so-called “plug-in car grant” was wound down last year.
Alex Smith, who runs Volkswagen in the UK, which accounts for about a fifth of cars sold in the country, said there had been “stagnation” among mainstream non-business buyers. He said that the phaseout of incentives had hurt demand among private buyers, and it was now “flatlining”.
“Where the incentivisation really succeeded was in sending the message that electrification is the desired direction of travel,” he said. “There needs to be some kind of levelling up if we’re going to reaccelerate this transition.
To put this another way, makers of EVs are finding it difficult to sell them to consumers who have to pay for them with their own money.
And Mr. Smith’s comment about “sending the message that electrification is the desired direction of travel” reveals a lot that is wrong about the coerced switch to EVs. If electrification were “the desired direction of travel” for consumers, they would be buying EVs in the quantities required of them, but they are not. The only message sent by bribing taxpayers (with their own money) to buy EVs is that these cars are not yet ready for primetime.
The FT:
The [SMMT] also wants the government to set a mandatory target for the installation of public charging points. The lack of a comprehensive network of chargers has long been flagged as one of the biggest barriers to motorists switching to all-electric vehicles.
This problem, of course, was predictable to anyone other than, it seems, central planners such as those running the race to net zero. Range anxiety was one of the reasons that EVs were overtaken by internal-combustion-engine cars at the beginning of the 20th century, so its reappearance as an issue a little over a century later should not have been too great a surprise even to those with no understanding of human nature.
If demand for EVs had been allowed to grow (more or less) organically, then the network of charging stations would have grown naturally alongside them, just as gas stations did in the last century. Instead, it seems that taxpayers may well have to fund this process.
Johnson opted for 2030 for the bragging rights, without thinking through the implications. In reality, if new EVs were to be ‘forced’ on consumers (they shouldn’t be), his reckless decision to shift the date from (the already premature) 2035 to 2030 will turn out to have led to nothing but added inconvenience and expense and it will have done nothing for the climate.
There are reports that current British prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is considering pushing the date back to 2035. We’ll see. The political calculation is not straightforward. In principle, net zero is (sadly) a political winner. It’s only when its real cost comes into view that voters think again. The question for Sunak is whether enough voters now realize what that 2030 deadline will mean.