Miliband’s New Net Zero EV Targets Are Not Credible, Warn Carmakers

Ed Miliband’s new Net Zero targets requiring the tripling of electric vehicle sales in just three years are not credible, carmakers have warned. The Telegraph has more.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the Energy Secretary’s latest so-called carbon budget implied electric vehicle (EV) sales need to triple in just three years.

This was “highly unlikely” on current trends, the industry lobby group said, even though demand has risen significantly.

New figures published on Thursday showed that 24% of new car sales were electric in the first five months of this year. However, the proportion remains well below the government target of 33% for 2026.

Miliband’s latest carbon budget is based on modelling that assumes 95% of sales will be electric by 2030. The SMMT said that “if such targets are to be credible, then equally ambitious fiscal and investment support would be essential”.

Mike Hawes, the SMMT’s Chief Executive, said the figure was not realistic given current demand.

He said: “The EV transition is progressing, but consumer uptake still lags behind even today’s targets, let alone the ambition set out in the latest carbon budget.

“While industry shares the long-term ambition, the pathway to Net Zero must be credible. It cannot come at the cost of lost competitiveness and deindustrialisation.

“A review of the transition is now urgent to ensure we have a sustainable path to road transport decarbonisation.”

The seventh carbon budget, backed by Miliband on Tuesday, sets a target to reduce Britain’s total emissions by 87%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2040. It is based on modelling by the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC).

The Government said the SMMT was “wrong” to claim that the new carbon budget would impose a higher target for EV sales and that alternative ways of meeting it were possible.

A spokesman added: “We value the Climate Change Committee’s independent advice, but that does not mean we have to replicate its pathway.”

However, the overall budget is legally binding, meaning the emission savings would have to be found elsewhere if EV sales do not accelerate.

Worth reading in full.

4.8 5 votes

Article Rating

51 Comments

emhmailmaccom

June 7, 2026 10:37 pm

Anyone who thinks that is a good idea to replace power generators that work at large scale and consistently 24/7/365 at ~90% productivity with technologies that are dilute, unreliable, widely distributed and working intermittently at a measured productivity ~18% or less, (actually down to ~15% across Europe in 2025) must be in error or malign.

The low productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” means that installations have to be about 5-6 times larger just to contribute the same amount power to the Grid. Even so they are still unreliable. If the installation costs of “Renewables” were equivalent, (they are in fact much higher when fully accounted including subsidies and other accounting fixes), their power costs more than conventional gas, coal and even nuclear technologies.

https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/

Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are:
·       dependent on massive subsidies charged to customers
·       require extended costly linkages to gather power from widely distributed small power sources
·       very destructive of the environment, agricultural land and wildlife.

Weather-Dependent Wind and Solar “Renewables” aren’t effective power sources: they can only ever be intermittent fuel-savers.

Burning fossil fuels does produce Carbon Dioxide CO2, but its warming effectiveness is radically diminished at higher concentrations. At its current level its warming effect is already ~80% effective. Any future Man-made CO2 emissions can now only make a minor contribution to Global temperature. Were CO2 emissions important, Gas-firing has half the CO2 emissions of Coal and about a quarter of imported biomass.

https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/proportions-of-the-temperature-contributions-of-greenhouse-gasses-h2o-co2-n2o-ch4/

CO2 is essential Plant Food, its rise in the atmosphere has resulted in a massive increase in all plant and crop productivity worldwide. So, rising CO2 levels are reducing the need for agricultural land. And this spring CO2’s positive effects can be seen all around.

Having damaged its industrial base, the UK only produces ~0.8% of Global CO2 emissions. It is irrelevant compared to the growing CO2 output from the Developing world, particularly China and India.

altipueri

June 7, 2026 11:12 pm

The current UK government is run by zealots and maniacs.
They got elected by the quirk of the First Past The Post system we have.
Imagine 5 candidates getting 20% 20% 20% 19% 21%. The one with 21% wins control of the entire government.

varg

Reply to altipueri

June 8, 2026 12:22 am

Well…if the one achieving 21% does the right thing it wouldn’t matter. Sadly we are all governed by idiots and it makes no difference how many votes they achieve in an election.

Democracy is an utter failure, so is the fallacy of believing that someone is representing you (regardless the form of government you look at)

Maybe better strive for “leave me the fuck alone and live in peace” than trying to be part of a group forcing their (wrong) beliefs on others.

kwinterkorn

Reply to varg

June 8, 2026 6:04 am

I understand your sentiment, but think you are wrong on a key point: Democracy is not a failure…instead it is the only hope. The Brittish people are waking up. The disastrous results of Leftist and wrongheaded elitist Conservative policies on climate, immigration, taxes, and policing are becoming ever mote obvious and obnoxious to the British people.

As a consequence, the next vote will usher in the Reform Party and recovery will begin. Without democracy, the Left in power means worsening destruction until a civil war displaces them, a far uglier thing than democracy.

Redge

Reply to kwinterkorn

June 8, 2026 9:32 am

The Brittish people are waking up.

If only we were. You only have to look at the support for Palestinian terrorist and illegal immigration to see how far we have to go before the alarm clock goes off.

George Thompson

Reply to varg

June 8, 2026 6:10 am

Good attitude; now apply it and, as always, good fortune to you.

michel

Reply to altipueri

June 8, 2026 8:17 am

The current UK government is run by zealots and maniacs.

Maybe. Or maybe the country is being governed by people who dislike and despise it, its history, its culture, and most of the population.

Ex-KaliforniaKook

Reply to michel

June 8, 2026 10:58 am

In the U.S. we’ve been living with that since Reagan – until Trump. We know the feeling.

Rud Istvan

June 7, 2026 11:37 pm

Clear that the UK has unfortunately become hopeless on many fronts. Not just Milibrand. Paki grooming gangs, Nowak stabbing murder, former ‘Prince’ Andrew, incompetent ‘Royal Navy’.
The signs were already there when US won the war of independence very long ago.
’Rise and Fall’ did not only apply to the Roman Empire.

varg

Reply to Rud Istvan

June 8, 2026 12:12 am

Looking at paths of self destruction it will also apply the US. Trump’s correct ditching of Nut zero may only delay it. The rot sits very deep in the state and is institutional, regardless who governs… sadly.

Ah well being a good sport in terms of “who is right or not” I’m keeping my beers cold, want some?

Denis

Reply to varg

June 8, 2026 5:51 am

I believe the US Government is far more resilient that the UKs. The UK’s “democracy” is light on the concept. The Prime Minister is not chosen by the UK people but only by no more than 1/650th of the country’s population who are resident in one parliamentary district and by Parliament members of one political party, the others mostly having no say. The varied cultural areas in the UK have no say in Parliament and nobody ever voted for the King or any King. The UK people have very little say as to their political masters.

In the US, all the national electorate votes for President, members of the House of Representatives (the number for each State is based population) and 2 Senators for each State regardless of population or any other condition. Wyoming, population 600,00 has 2 as does California, population 40,000,000, this because each State has certain sovereign powers. All the national electorate vote for President but the final choice is left to the Electoral College which exists to preserve a measure of State sovereignty. Both the House and Senate must agree with any legislation sent to the President for final approval or disapproval.

It is a resilient system that dilutes the power of any one State or any one political party and has survived poor presidents and poor member of Congress in the past and will, I believe, in the future.

George Thompson

Reply to Denis

June 8, 2026 6:16 am

A very good tautology. True democracy is mob rule; a Republic like the US is a better choice…but it does most unfortunately lend itself to election fraud. One must always be vigilant.

isthatright

Reply to George Thompson

June 8, 2026 7:11 am

California is proving the dangers of election fraud over the past week. The press continually asked for proof of fraud, while they ignore the late night mail in ballot drop of over 23,000 mail-in ballots for the LA Mayoral election.
Karen Bass (the incumbent) received 13,000 votes.
Nithya Ramen (the 3rd place candidate and City Council member) received 10,000 votes
Spencer Pratt (the number 2 candidate) received 0 votes. That is ZERO out of 23,000 ballots.

The statistical improbability of this tally is enormous, but our news media is oblivious to the fraud that this ballot drop implies.

George Thompson

Reply to isthatright

June 8, 2026 7:22 am

Figures can lie, but liars always figure. Our Republic is in danger from both Democrats and their captured media…

GeorgeInSanDiego

Reply to Denis

June 8, 2026 6:46 am

If I went around saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

George Thompson

Reply to varg

June 8, 2026 6:11 am

Yes, and some popcorn?

varg

Reply to George Thompson

June 8, 2026 6:45 am

yes please, salty, goes best with beer.

George Thompson

Reply to varg

June 8, 2026 7:27 am

I grow my own popcorn and I have 3 types in my garden (if I can get to the raccoons and squirrels first); you can try them all as they are quite different. If not, cheers!

Sparta Nova 4

Reply to George Thompson

June 8, 2026 1:15 pm

Beer and popcorn.
Seems I have seen that comment somewhere before. 😉

George Thompson

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

June 8, 2026 2:45 pm

Ya gotta love it and keep a sense of the absurd while relaxing. Yes, indeedy, beer and popcorn is a well worn phrase and implies both sanity and humor at the world in general, and certain specifics as necessary. It’s an existential world: one can laugh, or one can cry. I prefer to laugh at the theater passing by. Most times.

Gregg Eshelman

June 8, 2026 12:13 am

“However, the overall budget is legally binding, meaning the emission savings would have to be found elsewhere if EV sales do not accelerate.”

Translation, UK residents will freeze in winter and roast in summer.

Scissor

Reply to Gregg Eshelman

June 8, 2026 4:39 am

The problem is there aren’t enough stupid rich consumers to purchase even more EVs, but there are way too many stupid rich people to fill leadership vacancies.

Denis

Reply to Gregg Eshelman

June 8, 2026 5:58 am

And walk more.

Alan M

June 8, 2026 12:31 am

I wonder how many members of the “independent” Climate change committee, read this website?

Oldseadog

Reply to Alan M

June 8, 2026 4:41 am

I wonder how many of that committee can understand what they read.

Victor

June 8, 2026 12:51 am

UK manufacturing and production is more polluting than other countries and needs to be closed.
Products made in Asia are environmentally friendly and need to be imported to the UK to reduce pollution in the UK.

Coal-fired power plants in the UK are more polluting and have been closed. Environmentally friendly electricity is imported from neighbouring countries to the UK.

As the population of a country gets poorer, dissatisfaction with the government grows.

Is there a connection between government policies and poverty in a country?

Inflation in the UK is 3%.
Over the past 20 years (2006 to 2026), the British Pound (GBP) has decreased by 27.85% against the US Dollar (USD), dropping from a June 2006 value of 1.8497 down to 1.3345 in June 2026. This represents a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of -1.62% per year.
Britain relies on interconnectors to import a significant portion of its electricity, often accounting for 15% to 16% of its total energy mix. Historically importing over 33 Terawatt-hours (TWh) annually, Britain regularly spends hundreds of millions of pounds monthly on European power to secure system resilience and lower costs.
While child poverty fell significantly in the late 1990s, it has stagnated at roughly 27% to 30% over the last two decades. An estimated 4 to 4.5 million children currently live in relative poverty, which is a near-record high.
About 6.8 million people – half of all those in poverty – were in very deep poverty, the highest number and proportion since records began three decades ago, said the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), which carried out the analysis.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/27/very-deep-poverty-uk-record-numbers-joseph-rowntree-foundation-analysis

-15

atticman

Reply to Victor

June 8, 2026 4:38 am

I don’t think we’ve got any coal-fired plants left, Victor, not since Ratcliffe-on-Soar closed.

MarkW

Reply to Victor

June 8, 2026 8:12 am

In what passes for your mind, countries with few if any environmental laws and that pretty much ignore the ones they do have, are “cleaner” than the UK?
Or is that just the left wing poverty is always better mindset leaking out again?

As to you poverty nonsense, I shredded that yesterday, and as usual, you didn’t respond.

Poor people in the US are middle to upper middle class in most of Europe and rich compared to most of the rest of the world.

You have no idea what true poverty is. To find out, try visiting any country that practices communism.

Victor

Reply to MarkW

June 8, 2026 9:19 am

There are several ways to calculate poverty in the UK.
The calculation of poverty differs between countries.

Relatively low income: This refers to people living in households with an income below 60% of the median income in that year.
Absolute low income: This refers to people living in households with an income below 60% of the median income in a base year. This measure is adjusted for inflation. In previous editions, the reference year for absolute poverty was 2010/11, but the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) updated this to 2024/25 in the latest edition.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/

-1

Victor

Reply to MarkW

June 8, 2026 10:45 am

The World Bank has divided the poverty line into three categories depending on how wealthy the countries are.
The categories are: Low-income economies, lower-middle-income economies and lower-middle-income economies.

The international poverty line was first introduced in 1990. At that time, around 9 out of 10 people living in extreme poverty globally were in low-income economies. Since then, however, the world’s demographics have changed significantly, and today, three-quarters of the global population lives in middle-income economies.
To better capture poverty in these countries, the World Bank introduced two additional global poverty lines in 2017 – one for lower-middle-income economies and another for upper-middle-income economies.
All three global poverty lines are derived from the median national poverty lines of countries in their respective income groups. Over the years, the global poverty lines have been periodically updated, with their values adjusted upward to reflect changes in costs of living, improved measures of household consumption, and changes to national poverty lines.

https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/topic/poverty/measuring-poverty

-1

MyUsernameReloaded

June 8, 2026 4:16 am

They can either innovate to compete with china, ~~or they can go bancrupt~~ get tax payer bailouts (as always, sigh).

Their choice, your money.

-20

Redge

Reply to MyUsernameReloaded

June 8, 2026 9:36 am

They can either innovate to compete with china, ~~or they can go bancrupt~~ get tax payer bailouts (as always, sigh).

Pray tell, what do you think EV purchase subsidies are?

I’ll give you a clue they’re taxpayer bailouts in advance, robbing from the poor to give to the rich

bnice2000

Reply to MyUsernameReloaded

June 8, 2026 1:51 pm

Net Zero is NOT innovation, it is degradation…

… of the whole manufacturing sector, and life-style/economy in general.

bnice2000

Reply to MyUsernameReloaded

June 8, 2026 7:17 pm

The FACTS about cars in China.. for those who want to know (ie not MUN)

courtesy, Redge.

Chinese people can’t just walk into a dealership and buy whatever car they want. New license plates are strictly limited:

For ICE cars: You enter a lottery with terrible odds (often less than 1% chance). Many people wait years, many never win the lottery. (Basically “reserved” for CCP members and hangers on)

For EVs: Much easier – you often get a plate immediately, or through a far less competitive process, sometimes for free. People take this route even though they can’t afford a new car and buy the license plate for when/if they can afford a new car.

How it distorts things:

It artificially boosts EV sales by making them the only practical option for many buyers and potential buyers who want a car now.
People who would naturally prefer a petrol car (for range, refuelling speed, or lower upfront cost in some cases) are forced into EVs instead.

This creates inflated demand for EVs that isn’t purely based on consumer preference, price, or performance.

It’s a very effective government tool for hitting EV targets and reducing local emissions, but it’s classic central planning distortion – not a free market outcome. Many “EV adopters” in these cities are simply lottery refugees.

Tom Abbott

June 8, 2026 5:58 am

All this pain for nothing in return!

If the UK achieved Net Zero right this moment and produced no more CO2, according to the worst-case scenario of the IPCC, the UK’s efforts would reduce the atmospheric temperature by one-tenth of a degree.

Mad Ed Miliband is destroying the UK for one-tenth of a degree. And that’s the worst-case scenario. The “best” case scenario is that such a reduction has no measurable effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.

Miliband is just as much a fanatic as any ayatollah you will find in Iran. Just fanatic about different things.

JonasM

Reply to Tom Abbott

June 8, 2026 11:25 am

Unfortunately, that argument would never work against a fanatic. “Well, if we lead the way, and give a good example, other countries will follow…”
Not to mention the virtue signaling of simply “doing the right thing” regardless of consequences.

Neutral1966

June 8, 2026 6:05 am

I wondered how long this would take to come out in the open. I mistrust Ed Milliband more than I do most politicians, and that bar for that starts very low….. getting lower all the time.
What British politicians will not speak out aloud is the need to lower car usage – or at the very least, stifle growth in car usage. The problem is very obvious but difficult to tackle – UK roads are bursting at the seams, it’s a small island nation, not enough room or finance to build more roads, while even road maintenance is problematic, due to such huge traffic volume. What can you do realistically?
Answer: claim that in order to achieve Net Zero (a completely pointless goal in Global context), compel the population to only use electric vehicles.
Price at least 50% of users out of the market, and “bingo”, you have your answer, without directly having to tell voters, you’re not allowed to drive a car anymore! Instead, you can tell voters, they’re playing their part in saving the planet. Perfect!
Unfortunately, it won’t wash with the UK electorate. But how the problem is to be solved is something our gallant leaders are going to have to sort out one way or another – and pretty soon. The country is verging on being permanently gridlocked!

michel

June 8, 2026 6:12 am

The question no-one can answer – and that it is actually taboo to even ask in the UK – is: why are they doing this?

All its doing is ensure there is not enough reliable electricity, and raise the price of what there is.

And try to make everyone at the same time use this unreliable and expensive supply for ever more things, like home heating and transport.

Why? Its insane.

Neutral1966

Reply to michel

June 8, 2026 7:05 am

I think you’ll find your answer (at least in part) in what I have detailed above. Too many cars on British roads, leading to permanent gridlock. It would be political suicide to tell voters they have to stop driving their cars. They have to couch it all in different terms – hence Net Zero and EVs. While the debate might rage as to whether rising CO2 levels are problematic, there’s absolutely no debate about the problem with too many cars on British roads. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that the same underhand motive is what drives Europe towards Net Zero as well those states in the US in which intense car usage is jamming up the road network.

-6

Idle Eric

Reply to Neutral1966

June 8, 2026 7:43 am

Too many cars on British roads, leading to permanent gridlock.

That’s not a situation I recognize.

Neutral1966

Reply to Idle Eric

June 8, 2026 9:42 am

Well it’s one that’s certainly a reality over vast swathes of the country – how much of the country do you drive through on a regular basis?
Most motorways are now inundated with semi- permanent roadworks, contraflows and endless tailbacks. I will seek out reports on this for you, if you wish.

-5

bnice2000

Reply to Neutral1966

June 8, 2026 1:53 pm

“semi- permanent roadworks, contraflows and endless tailbacks.”

Sounds more like government incompetence to me. !

Too many bike lanes ?

Idle Eric

Reply to michel

June 8, 2026 7:41 am

why are they doing this?

Essentially, the government has tied itself in knots by passing well-meaning, but misguided legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1997, Climate Change Act 2008, Equality Act 2010, etc, which has the effect of allowing activists to seize power over both public and private sector institutions, use this to advance whatever warped ideology they follow, and demonize anyone who objects as “far right”.

The upshot of which is that the government, regardless of party, is no longer running the country.

jtom

June 8, 2026 6:14 am

UK is on track for a deep depression. When that happens, the EV targets will be met. 95% of zero cars sold is zero cars, a target easy to meet.

Ronald Stein

June 8, 2026 7:13 am

The proof in the pudding is that the EV demand has failed to support the demand anticipated by the supply chain of numerous EV manufacturers.

The elites have bought EVs and will most likely continue to buy EVs, mostly as second vehicles, BUT demand has evaporated as we’re running out of elite buyers, and the common folks cannot afford the MANDATED transition.

Major companies including Ford, GM, Stellantis, and Honda are scaling back EV investments, canceling models, and pivoting back towards hybrids to manage these losses and align with consumer demand.

Major automakers have responded to weak consumer demand by pulling back from EV commitments at scale:

General Motors announced a $4 billion investment to boost internal combustion engine vehicle production and a $6 billion restructuring to unwind earlier EV commitments.
Ford canceled plans for a three-row electric SUV, delayed additional EV launches until 2028, and recorded a $19 billion write-down on its electric vehicle investments.
Stellantis is scrapping its plug-in electric vehicle lineup, citing weak customer demand, and has taken a $26.5 billion charge against EV investments.
Honda reduced EV spending by 30%.
Hyundai halted electric vehicle production at its Alabama facility to shift focus toward vehicles consumers are actually purchasing.

Dave Andrews

Reply to Ronald Stein

June 8, 2026 8:15 am

I take it this means you are not going to buy the new EV that Ferrari has just launched at a cost of £450,000? 🙂

Redge

Reply to Dave Andrews

June 8, 2026 9:42 am

That new Ferrari Luce is just plain ugly. It sullies the name Ferrari, just dreadful.

Sean Galbally

June 8, 2026 8:35 am

Miliband’s flawed climate science (Net Zero) also assumes that the energy used to produce the elecricity to charge the EV’s is clean and that battery production which uses valuable resources for minimal return is also cost effective. He is not known as Mini Brain for nothing

Redge

June 8, 2026 9:29 am

The SMMT said that “if such targets are to be credible, then equally ambitious fiscal and investment support would be essential”.

No! No! No!

I am sick to death of paying for rich peoples indulgences!

ResourceGuy

June 8, 2026 12:01 pm

Where to find the money for the implied surge in subsidies? Will it be cutting the NHS, pet spending programs of the ruling Party, or maybe taking away from other green energy programs? Nope, and there isn’t enough defense spending to even bother looking at that in the UK. Maybe debase the currency like all the other dictators and socialists resort to.

Edward Katz

June 8, 2026 5:51 pm

EV sales are unlikely to increase that much unless their prices drop substantially. Meanwhile their resale values have to improve, and their replacement parts need to be made more dependable as well as fall in price. At this time, EVs seem relatively well-suited for urban commuting where distances aren’t that great and charging stations are readily available. For longer hauls in unfavorable weather conditions gas/diesel types are by far the better choice.