Skip to main content

Britain needs bolder action on petrol and diesel

Last year, the UK government committed to ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040. That just is not good enough to meet climate change commitments.
Environmental experts now believe we are close to a tipping point in global warming. If we are to meet national and global targets on global warming emissions, we need urgent and effective action. This means governments must make robust and realistic decisions.

 Transport largest emissions source 

Transport is the UK’s largest source of direct carbon emissions. The continued sale of petrol and diesel cars for a further twenty years would mean continuing with increased levels of emissions and pollution far into the future - not just for the next twenty years, but for at least a decade beyond, as people go on using older cars for longer.

If the governments are serious about taking action, then an earlier exit from petrol and diesel is needed.

WWF assessment

A study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) calculates that a 2030 phase-out could help the UK meet legal air pollution limits, support the Paris Agreement on climate change, whilst securing a bright future for the UK auto industry.

The WWF says while countries across the world raise ambition on electric vehicles and clean transport, the UK Government is aiming for just half of new car sales to be low-emission in 12 years.

This shows a failure of climate leadership and ambition to clean up our air.

“To become a global leader in clean and smart transport, the UK needs to promise bigger and bolder action ahead of the Zero Emission Vehicle Summit in September. A 2030 end date for petrol and diesel vehicles sales would send a strong signal, while supporting around 100,000 UK jobs in electric vehicle production.”

2030 phase out


A 2030 phase out will get us closer to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, bridging roughly half of the gap to the UK’s legally binding 2030 carbon targets and taking 7 million petrol and diesel cars off the road.

Ending the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles a decade earlier is likely to attract new manufacturing investment into electric vehicles helping to add £3bn to the UK economy and create 14,000 jobs in the auto industry.

The social cost of UK air pollution will be slashed by around £300m in 2030, reflecting lower levels of disease, avoided healthcare costs and improved productivity.

Under a 2030 phase-out, the cost of charging an electric car could be under £100 a year by 2030, thanks to smart charging and vehicle to grid, compared to an annual petrol/diesel bill of around £800.





Subscribe to The Thin End

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As