From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Too little, too late from the SMMT:
From the Observer:
The motor industry has urged the government to revise its targets for electric vehicles, unanimously warning that the current zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate will result in a loss of inward investment and British jobs.
So what? Car makers broadly accept that decarbonisation is inevitable, but the industry still feels squeezed by :
- •industrial energy costs that are among the highest in Europe;
- •mandated EV sales targets that it says don’t match consumer demand, and which result in fines for companies if not met;
- •competition from Chinese companies that sell into the UK, but barely invest; and
- •a decade of self-inflicted trade friction with the EU.
CHX and balances. To make matters more complicated, the UK may be about to get a chancellor who is deeply committed to net zero targets, and the automotive sector is already pushing back.
Attendees of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) annual conference yesterday were unequivocal that Ed Miliband – who is largely viewed as an architect of higher energy costs – would be the wrong choice.
“He’s totally incompetent. No good for business at all. It’ll be a disaster,” said Stephen Morley, President of the Confederation of British Metalforming. Another attendee described Miliband as “without a doubt, inflationary”.
Miliband, as energy secretary, has previously stated the importance of a “commitment to our world-leading EV transition plan”, despite rumours last month that Keir Starmer intended to relax the rules.
By the numbers. Fast-moving politics aside, there’s a disconnect between the government’s aspirations and the reality on the road.
- •24%: ZEV market share in the UK, year to date (half of which the SMMT says is driven by subsidies rather than “natural” demand).
- •38%: ZEV mandate target for next year, rising to 52% in 2028.
- •95%: what the government’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) assumes the market share for electric vehicles to reach by 2030.
Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, said that the CCC’s analysis did not take into account “industrial consequences” and that “if we all have to buy EVs from abroad, so be it. The UK will meet its climate goals, but… the domestic industry will be collateral damage.”
Full story here.
It’s a pity Mike Hawes did not have the balls to stand up years ago and fight the suicidal ZEV mandates before they took effect. Instead he meekly supported the electric car agenda.
Just like Renewable energy they have put the cart in front of the horse! It’s like building a car without any roads. Solar and Wind without long-duration storage or the decaying 1930s Grid to cope with two-way transmission and many many EVs without any means of charging them (especially with green energy) is typical of the ill thought out plans and deadlines!
Also, has anyone considered the day when China will no longer supply us with the equipment and/or minerals for Net Zero? I really doubt it. Plough on ‘hoping’ everything will turn out all right! Fred Carno springs immediately to mind!
At this moment, there are six comments on this piece, and all of them are good.
Not to be pessimistic, but I find an appropriate reply to each is something like, “The beatings will continue.”
The UK is jumping through hoops to satisfy China’s (private) demands. Examples include:
Stopping a spy trial. Chinese operatives in Parliament, no less.
Waving through the super embassy
Handing over the Chagos archipelago and paying £35 billion to do so.
Ignoring slave labour
China has all the cards. And we have mad Ed and his red alert bulb.
The desired products are not EVs. The desired products are headlines, contributions and votes. Ignored are the costs of new factories, new tooling, new generation and new charging capacity.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see budgets and sources of funds? I’m not holding my breath.
The Chinese EVs can undercut their foreign competitors because they are effectively selling them below cost.
This will change when they’ve driven all the other manufacturers to the wall with the aid of the morons in govt of those manufacturers’ countries.
At that point their only competition will be each other and the prices will jump.
Are you saying that tariffs might be a good idea?
It’s only taken them 2 years plus to wake up.
It took them No time at all to WOKE UP!
When you mandate the impossible, all you can get is scorn. Only fools attempt it.
With respect, slightly disagree. When you mandate the impossible, all you get is power and control. Only power-hungry, authoritarian leftists attempt it. It’s a feature, not a bug.
That way you can jail all those who fail, while giving dispensations to your friends and family.
The SMMT need to talk about the second hand or used car market and tell the government what is happening there.
Having targets for new vehicle delivery is one thing which state tax policies and grant support can influence and it is doing so.
If you are a company providing vehicles to your employees then there is no way you will not buy an EV. Unfortunately when those EVs are offered to the aftermarket the take up is not there.
Unless the battery replacement cost is insured against then electric car sales into the aftermarket will be the battle ground where EVs are defeated.
It looks like government will be forced to introduce a ban on fossil fuel powered cars in the second hand market, in one way or another, to force the drivers to get out of petrol and diesel purchases.
The upcoming replacement PM (well it has been two years) will be presented with a choice either he destroys the entire auto market in pursuit of EVs only or he cancels the excesses of Net Zero.
Watch this space.
The two vehicles I have at home are both internal combustion and manufactured in 1999. A Toyota Hilux diesel 4-wheel drive for the off-road work and a Subaru Liberty ULP all-wheel drive for dirt-road and highway.
I will bequeath them to my children through a raffle of those interested.
Maybe mass layoffs in Germany, the largest industrial economy in Europe, will help educate knuckleheads in the UK.
Unlikely unfortunately. UK car production is already back to 1950s levels and the SMMT have been meekly going along with Government directives while the industry is faltering.
The economy runs on transportation.
Energy “REALITY” is that wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for life as we know it.
Planes, ships, trucks, and cars run on the transportation fuels manufactured FROM crude oil refined by multi-billion-dollar refineries.
Economies around the world run on the transportation fuels that support commercial jets, military jets, merchant ships, trucking, construction equipment, and vehicles, the same transportation fuels that Wind Turbines and Solar Panels CANNOT make!
Some significant number trucks and cars currently run on electricity stored/recharged in on-board batteries, with some percentage of said electricity being generated and fed into the grid from non-fossil fuel sources such as nuclear reactors, hydropower dams, geothermal sources, wind turbines and solar cells.
That is reality as I know it.
Yes, but it affects productivity.
I saw a ‘British Gas’ EV van waiting for the charge to finish. The driver said “I just play games on my phone & drink coffee while I’m waiting – and I get paid to wait.”
Unless you work for the government, your employer won’t be able to keep that up indefinitely. Even the government can only delay it.
14.9 million commercial trucks in US.
162 thousand are EVs.
I do not see 1% as being significant.
Europe 24,000 EV trucks out of 6 million on the road.
Those are not significant numbers.
And that’s with subsidies for EV and taxes on gas/diesel.
Strange—well, perhaps not so—that you focused on commercial trucks.
With regard to passenger car EV’s, in the USA they compromise 2% of the roughly 291 million total vehicles on U.S. roads and, globally, EVs represent 25% of all new car sales, but account for about 5% of the total global car stock. This represents roughly 80 million EVs currently on the road.
Those ARE significant numbers.
“Strange—well, perhaps not so—that you focused on commercial trucks.”
I saw the post was from you so I stopped reading before I finished the first line of your post. 4 words in, in fact.
2% and 5% are not significant numbers.
Thanks so much for letting me know that . . . I’ll stop worrying about annual inflation and annual salary increases.
/sarc and ROTFL
The annual salary increase is nice, but it is not significant. I typically get much more than 2% just FYI.
Inflation comes and goes. It has been higher of late, but I lived through an era where it was much, much worse. APR for my first real estate purchase was 14.5%. What we are going through not is merely an annoyance.
By the way, you have never worried about anything about me, so stop lying.
It is clear, based on your insulting language, constant redirections and mis-directions, and hyperbolic language that you are not at all interested in having an adult discussion.
You are a Flame Warrior only here for S&Gs and to inflate your pathetic ego by believing you are scoring “debating points.”
Please give the time of any previous post in this thread where I stated or implied that I was “worried about anything about you”; otherwise your reference to me lying in that regard is most curious.
In fact, your statement has caused me to start worrying about you and your posts. ;-))
“Inflation comes and goes.”
The last time year-over-year inflation in the USA was zero or negative was in 1954 (see chronological table at https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rate-by-year-7253832#toc-historical-us-inflation-rates-from-1929-to-2025 ). Were you born before that?
As a matter of fact, pinwit. I’ve seen LBJ’s inflation-and God help me Carter’s…but Biden’s was by far the worst. Democrats and mindless progs….
Uhhhh I think you meant “nitwit” not “pinwit”, which is a species of bird.
This, along the lines of “I don’t care what you say about me, as long as you spell my name correctly.”
And BTW, from 1954 until today, positive rates of inflation have been maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations . . . no need to single out LBJ, Carter and Biden. In fact, Nixon had the second-highest average inflation rates during his presidency, behind that of Carter: +6.6% (Republican Mixon) vs. +10.4% (Democrat Carter).
Well, somewhere out in the ether is my reply, so once more: Don’t understand American slang, huh? Tough. I’m not refering to a wee birdy, I’m refering to an intellect the size of a pin head. As for Nixon, do try to remember that he was dealing with LBJ’s war and other insane spending called the “Great Society”-look it up, wise guy, why doncha? OF COURSE the inflation was high-it was very high-but not his fault…sorta like today’s inflation gifted from Biden and the auto-pen gang. Jeez.
If that were true, wherever did you come up with the numbers of 2% and 5% that you mention in your last sentence?
All manufactured using vast amounts of fossil fuel, all constructed from parts made using fossil fuel, all delivered for use … ditto ditto
OK, but the topic was what “fuels” the various vehicles listed by Ronald Stein.
So what.
The article addressed industrial needs.
Phillip was expanding back to include the article.
From the second paragraph of the above article:
“Car makers broadly accept that decarbonisation is inevitable, but the industry still feels . . .”
Say what? If that were really true, the car makers would be vigorously pursuing replacements for:
— the synthetic rubber used for tires on all “cars”,
— the synthetic rubber and plastic tubing and couplings/fittings used to route liquids, gases and vacuum throughout all “cars”,
— the petroleum-based plastics used for decorative trim (and even structural support) throughout the interior trim and seat/floor coverings as well as for headlight and signal light “lens” coverings and some exterior exterior trim features of all “cars,
— the R-1234yf and R-134a fluorinated hydrocarbon refrigerant gases sourced from petroleum feed stocks and used in the ACs of all “cars”,
— the petroleum-based synthetic resin compounds used in some layers (e.g., the “clear coat”) of external paints applied to all “cars”,
— and, most importantly, replacement for all fossil fuel-based energy used directly, or indirectly via conversion to grid electricity, by “car” manufacturers and their component suppliers for the fabrication, assembly, and transportation to retail sales outlets of their products up to and including all ready-to-sell “cars”.
AFAIK, such is not happening to any appreciable extent . . . but maybe I’m just not up to date on my information.
I welcome any corrections in this matter, especially considering the fact that car manufacturers are significantly scaling back and delaying their plans to achieve “Net Zero”.
That is why EV’s are doomed to repeat their early 20th century fail. The whole concept of non-dispatchable energy being capable of manufacturing and recharging EV’s is so foolish an idea that I am having to recalculate my thoughts on the stupidity level of the experts let alone the general population. I look back at my work at the steel mill where just one small operation a scrap furnace draws over 40 Megawatts and a two stand 56″ temper mill requires 22,000 hp to run. That is another 16.5 Megawatts added to the total. I won’t even get to the amount of power it requires to electroplate 0.020″of tin on both sides of a 40″ wide strip rolling through the plating tanks at 1000 fpm. That is a max of 12,000 amps at 15 volts per tank. Our manufacturing won’t work without a solid reliable base power with a minimum of non-dispatchable energy in the mix.
Great list ‘ToldYouSo’ . . . .
As requested,
And silicone resins, adhesives & hardeners.
And nylon cog mechanisms (ie wing mirrors).
Superplasticisers to strengthen seat belts.
Noise insulation.
Solvents, cleaners & wax.
Electrical wire insulation & looms.
Grease & lubricants.
Synthetic cellulose fibres in oil filters.
Air bags.
Antifreeze.
Anything plastic, acrylic, plexiglass, polyurethane or UPV laminate (you mentioned already).
Anti-microbial products used in ventilation filters.
Printed circuit boards.
And, (sarc) the parachute fabric & cords used to slow top fuel ‘slammers’ down from 320 mph on the drag strip.
Oh, and the tar resins & bitumen needed for our ICE & EV cars to even begin to travel efficiently to our chosen destinations !!
Right, straw insulation, wooden hairbrushes & hemp sandals from now on . . . .
You omitted glass.
not to mention what the roads are made from and how they are built and maintained.
Most of the comments thus far indicate a belief that car manufacturers will continue to operate and adapt to the insanity of the UK’s ‘Net Zero’ obsession. I think it is at least as likely the companies will adopt VW’s response to the ongoing idiocy of Germany’s Energiewende and the EU’s de facto ban by 2036 on sales of new ICE car.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/26/volkswagen-vw-job-cuts-autos-germany.html]
They recently announced plans to close four German plants and cut 100,000 jobs.
VW already has started closure of their newest plan in Dresden, one that became “…a symbol of the brand’s electric transformation…”
[https://gmk.center/en/news/volkswagen-shuts-down-factory-in-germany-for-the-first-time-in-88-years/]
For some reason, it appears that cutting losses when there is no indication of those losses decreasing in the future is preferable to bankruptcy. Who knew?
De-carbonised vehicles? What, not one gram of metal or plastic or fabric allowed to be used in their manufacture?
Where do they think the stuff comes from?
TREES!!!
Cut down by Beavers! Not sure how they’ll rip them into lumber.
If manufacturers have been having trouble selling EVs, they have themselves partially to blame by pricing them too high from the outset, then deluding themselves into the belief that government subsidies would entice consumers into buying them anyway, particularly since they supposedly would be helping to fight climate change. Except the consumers quickly smelled a rat when it became obvious that EVs had numerous limitations. Then demand fell swiftly and the producers have become wary of investing any more in a product they can’t sell profitably. So here we have a classic case of governments trying to pretend they know what’s best for their electorates without doing adequate surveys in the first place.
I would like to see data that the manufacturers inflated sales prices.
Every EV mandate should immediately be withdrawn, it is not the government’s place to regulate what kind of transportation we choose especially when we are paying for it.
It is interesting that the manufacturers are fined for the decisions of their customers. That says a lot about the system of government in the UK and elsewhere.