Reports that the Government is considering watering down the 2030 Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate should concern anyone who cares about Britain’s economic future, energy security, and the cost of living.
At a time when other countries are racing to adopt the industries of the future, weakening the UK’s commitment to electric vehicles would be a step backwards. It risks leaving Britain tied to the economy of the past rather than embracing the technologies that will drive growth, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels.
What is particularly disappointing is that ministers appear not to have learned the lessons of recent years. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East exposed just how vulnerable the UK remains to global fossil fuel markets. Families and businesses paid the price through higher energy costs, while the Government was left scrambling to respond to events entirely outside its control.
The obvious response to these shocks should be to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. Instead, the Government now appears willing to slow it down.
The economic consequences of continuing our dependence on petrol and diesel are significant. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that repeated fuel duty freezes cost the Treasury around £120 billion between 2011 and October 2024. That is £120 billion that could have been invested in modern transport infrastructure, hospitals, clean energy projects, and the industries that will underpin future prosperity.
The scale of our reliance on fossil fuels is often overlooked. Every year, the UK consumes around 70 billion litres of petrol and diesel. Yet that figure tells only part of the story. A further 23 billion litres of energy are used extracting, transporting and refining those fuels before they even reach motorists. Consumers are not simply paying for fuel at the pump; they are supporting an inherently inefficient system that increases energy demand, deepens our reliance on imports, and contributes to poor air quality.
The national interest is clear. We should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
This is not simply an environmental argument. It is an economic and strategic one. Businesses need certainty before they invest. Manufacturers need confidence before they commit production lines and jobs to the UK. Consumers need reassurance that infrastructure will be there when they make the switch.
Here in Watford, we have seen what can be achieved when political ambition is matched by practical action. The council’s electric vehicle strategy has delivered charging infrastructure at scale, helping residents make the transition with confidence. In the ward I represent, every household without a driveway now has access to a public EV charger within a five-minute walk.
That investment did not happen by accident. It happened because the council recognised that people are more willing to embrace change when government provides the infrastructure and certainty they need.
The same principle applies nationally. Weakening the ZEV mandate would send precisely the wrong signal to manufacturers, investors and consumers. At a moment when the UK should be providing clarity and leadership, it would create uncertainty and undermine confidence.
Putting the brakes on progress would be a mistake. The Government should hold firm on the 2030 target and focus instead on accelerating the infrastructure and investment needed to make the transition a success.
* Mark Hofman has been a Councillor on Watford Borough Council since 2012.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
National Crime Agency asked to look at Reform UK funding
Pantomime or politics?
Paddington Bear: Slapstick, boosting Jeremy Clarkson's career and becoming our grim reaper
Book Offer - Signed copies of Emlyn Hooson and the Welsh Liberal Party 1962-79
expats
Paul Walter
David Garlick
Matt Wardman
Alex Macfie
21 Comments
If we are not careful Net Zero will be the next Brexit.
If the electorate feel that Net Zero is something that is being imposed on them without their consent then ultimately there will be a push back.
We need to take the public with us.
Excellent article Mark. I would value more information how Watford provided that EV charging for residents. I am trying the same in my Parish Council and would like LD controlled Bath & NE Somerset Council to follow Watford’s example.
Congratulations on the great work in Watford.
But this seems very confused : “The economic consequences of continuing our dependence on petrol and diesel are significant. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that repeated fuel duty freezes cost the Treasury around £120 billion between 2011 and October 2024. That is £120 billion that could have been invested in modern transport infrastructure, hospitals, clean energy projects, and the industries that will underpin future prosperity.”
You could equally have quoted the many many billions which fuel duty has raised. In any event moving to EVs will mean that many £bn in fuel duty will be lost – unless repalced by some other tax.
Yes, if the move to electric vehicles succeeds the government will no longer collect tax on petrol and diesel. It will also save billions in the longer term by not paying h to I clean up the pollution caused by fossil fuels and less on health care for those damaged by the pollution caused by fossil fuels.
It’s not a zero sum game
On the issue of loss of fuel duty, the Government is adding a new tax to be paid per mile by EVs and hybrids. At least partially replacing the lost tax revenue, but hammering the running cost benefit of EVs.
Many people driving around in fifteen year old cars is an economic reality. Public transport outside of large cities is almost nonexistent at unsociable hours. Fossil fuels will be here to stay for the foreseeable. All we are currently doing is outsourcing our emissions at the same time as making our industries uncompetitive.
“Many people driving around in fifteen year old cars is an economic reality. ”
What’s wrong with a fifteen year old car if it has been maintained properly. I’ve got one and it’s extremely fuel efficient – it was bought precisely because it was very fuel efficient.
“Public transport outside of large cities is almost nonexistent at unsociable hours”
Some of use have no public transport at all.
Shame it takes 14 + years to build a nuclear reactor, so until post 2040 our electricity will mostly be generated from (carbon-based) fossil fuels…
We also need to be cognisant of the rare earths supply chain, which won’t deliver batteries and motors in the quantities needed to permit a 1-for-1 replacement of cars.
The clever approach is to learn the lesson of lockdown and massively reduce the need to travel this combined with investment in a sensible public/mass transport infrastructure (and the adoption of the principles behind the 15 minute city) will deliver benefits quicker than waiting for people to buy EVs.
>” What’s wrong with a fifteen year old car”
A good point Nonconformistradical, we need to remember EV’s to deliver the supposed energy efficiency benefits they too will need to be on the roads for 15+ years, complete with the original factory installed battery pack, dashboard etc…
We should also remember one of the interesting findings from dieselgate was the real world testing which showed that the older diesel engines could be less polluting than the engines that were the subject of dieselgate…
The future of the car is the bicycle. Possibly electric.
@Jenny Barnes
“The future of the car is the bicycle..”
For a journey of, say, 7 miles on narrow winding roads carrying the weekly shopping?
” Possibly electric”
What about the batteries for such bikes?
https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/uk-lithium-ion-battery-fires-rise-93-in-two-years/
Net Zero will be the next Brexit if we are not careful. If the electorate feels that net zero is something that is being imposed on them without their consent by an out of touch elite, who can afford the costs whilst the public cannot, then there will be an almighty pushback eventually.
A bit like with Brexit where the electorate was not made up of 40,000,000 economists, with Net Zero we need to accept that the electorate is not made up of 40,000,000 climate scientists.
We need to take the public with us, far better to go a bit slower and get there eventually ,albeit later than we would like, rather than insist we got at full pace and not get there at all.
Also the talk of the future of the car being the bicycle is nonsense. I say that as a keen cyclist. For all the talk of public transport and bicycles, the British people love their cars.
I drive an 10-year-old EV, which I bought, at a very reasonable price when it was 2 years old. My wife has a diesel of about the same age, but the battery EV does most of our milage, in spite of the fact that its technology is very outdated by modern standards. At first, in my street of 60 odd dwellings in Greater London, I had the only EV. A second came some years later. Now there are eight.
I think any idea that putting the government EV targets further into to the future will slow the adoption of EVs is wrong. Long term EV manufacturers like such as BMW, VW, Nissan and Renault have already got lots of models available in the showrooms and there are plenty of secondhand EVs with perhaps 20 years of life left available at reasonable prices. A network of workshops who can do major repairs cheaper than the main agents is developing.
@Julian Carpenter Perhaps 6 years ago, I attended an IET lecture in London on Watford’s approach to encouraging EVs. At that time, their first target was replacing diesel taxis, which were very polluting, did a lot of their work at slow speeds in urban streets and often kept their engines running while stationary. They ensured the provision of rapid chargers where they were needed. A frustration was that a fair proportion of Watford taxi journeys were to Heathrow airport, where, at that time, provision of EV chargers was meagre. The lecturer mentioned at St Albans was doing similar work and that Cambridge was observing their approaches.
“For a journey of, say, 7 miles on narrow winding roads carrying the weekly shopping?”
It’s generally thought that up to 5 miles is a reasonable everyday cycling distance. I have a trailer, and cycle to a supermarket 2 miles away to do my weekly shop. Agreed, not everyone lives within cycling distance of a supermarket, but many, if not most, do.
Round our way I’ve seen quite an uptake of Tern electric cycles, which have giant panniers and room for children on the back. 2nd car replacements?
@Jenny
“It’s generally thought that up to 5 miles is a reasonable everyday cycling distance.”
I don’t know how old you are but I’m old, I live in fairly hilly territory on a narrow winding country road – I don’t cycle – I tried a very long time ago and even then was never comfortable cycling.
I’m mobility impaired due to osteoarthritis. No shop of any sort is anywhere within my possible walking distance. I have to drive or organise a taxi to take me anywhere.
I agree with you Nonconformistradical. Diversity is about treating people as individuals and respecting that we’re all different not the same. I too drive for a heavy shop and for my 93 year old father. I don’t drink tap water due to IBD, have similar health issues caused by disease and purchase large bottles of water. I do not use my car every day of the week and walk to nearby stores for light shops whenever I can. In any case more global emissions are caused by building than traffic in my area, data from an FOI request. Many well off people can afford electric cars, not all of us are in that demographic. I am also very concerned about pedestrian safety after q friend of mine was recently hit by an e-bike on the pavement and had to spend 5 days in hospital due to their injuries.
Over 95% of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries on pavements and verges are caused by motor vehicles, so watch out for the cars! Esp SUVs which are 40% or so more likely to kill you.
It’s interesting that NCR tries to turn my point that the future of cars is the bicycle into a strawman that everyone must cycle whatever their route or physical status. I don’t think that. I do think that the idea that we can carry on with a car centric way of life, just replacing ICE vehicles with EVs, is misstaken. Public transport, active travel, and, yes, occasional use of taxis or cars looks to be the way to go. 50% cycling modal share in Holland, for example.
@Jenny Barnes
“50% cycling modal share in Holland, for example”
Holland is mostly a flat country – unlike the British Isles. The cycling culture is built in to the way of life.
“Holland is mostly a flat country ”
OK but the UK, especially in the South of England, isn’t that hilly. Bikes do have gears these days. 🙂 The introduction of electric assisted bikes should remove most of these kinds of objections to cycling.
I find it annoying that local councils engage in ‘tick box’ exercising when it comes to implementing cycling lanes. Councils decide they are going to meet a target of so many miles and put a tick in the box when they’ve done it . In practice, this means the cycle lanes go in where the road is wide enough to cause minimal inconvenience to motorists but abruptly cease when the road narrows and the lanes are most needed!
The backpedelling on tackling climate change is appalling. Our present heat waves give ample evidence of the sort of world our descendents will be inheriting if the present projectory continues. Electrification is a major part of this process. Renewable energy to produce that electricity should be increased to the point when it is the cheapest and most convenient energy available anytime anywhere.