Skip to content

Ban Hybrids As Well, Say MPs

October 20, 2018

By Paul Homewood




A bit more detail on that new report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee, which recommends banning all sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2032.

One of their complaints about current government policy is its vagueness. As I pointed out when Michael Gove made the original announcement about a 2040 target, there was much confusion, not least within the government itself, as to whether hybrids would be included in the ban.

The BEIS committee is quite clear about its own recommendations:

We recommend that the Government aim for zero emissions, in line with its longstanding 2050 target, and phase out non-plug-in and all but the cleanest plug-in hybrid vehicles. This should include more stringent zero emission range requirements for plug-in hybrids to ensure that vehicles deliver on targeted emissions reductions.

 Zero should mean zero. We recommend that the Government prioritise overarching policy goals on climate change and air quality over sectoral interests, and bring forwards a clear, precise target for new sales of cars and vans to be truly zero emission by 2032.

[“Cleanest hybrids” refer to cars with a long distance battery capability]


Currently non-plug hybrids account for 60% of EV sales, and would be included in the proposed ban.

True zero emission cars, as defined above, only account for 2.3% of total car sales so far this year.

This indicates just what a revolutionary change will be needed in the space of effectively a decade. Given that change is not going to happen overnight, and that EVs would need to be dominating market share well before 2032, we are arguably looking at little more than five years.

Five years in which the UK car industry is expected to wind down existing car production, and build EV capacity from about 50,000 a year to 2.6 million.

Is this really feasible?

Let’s examine some of the obstacles facing the car manufacturers.

If the 2032 target is applied now, all further investment in new conventional models would likely cease immediately. After all, such investment is based around a long term cycle, so where would be the point on spending hundreds of millions on a new model, when it will soon have to be phased out.

As a result of this withdrawal of investment, UK built cars will quickly become uncompetitive against imported models, leading to loss of market share, production cutbacks and financial losses.

In theory, of course, increased EV sales should balance these losses. But will they in the short or even medium term?

This would presuppose that millions of drivers are happy and willing to switch to EVs in the next few years. But what will have changed between now and, say, 2025?

Nearly half of all households have no off street parking, and therefore cannot readily charge up at night.

And even those that can are unwilling to risk travelling on long runs. It is all very well having batteries that can give you 200 miles, but what do you do when you get to your destination? How can you be sure there will be somewhere you can recharge there?

These are all the sorts of dilemmas facing ordinary motorists, who have voted with their feet and carried on buying proper cars.

The government talks about installing thousands of new charging points, but with potentially tens of millions of EVs on the road, that frankly is spitting in the wind. It is easy to see a scenario where cars are queuing up for hours, waiting for their turn at the charger.

We are also faced with a chicken and egg situation – motorists will not buy EVs until they see a comprehensive charging network, but who will invest in the latter when there is no demand?

All of this could lead to car manufacturers facing a cliff edge, where they have lost traditional sales, invested billions in building EV capability, but only seeing a slow take up of demand.


It is true that many drivers may opt instead for plug-in hybrids, but this raises the question as to whether they will simply continue to fill up with petrol, instead of plugging in. If so, it rather defeats the objective of the government’s policy.



Two other items of note:


1) The committee notes that the National Grid projects that the increase in peak demand from EVs is likely to be in the region of 8 to 11 GW by 2040.

This will, of course, have to be both low carbon and dispatchable, meaning effectively nuclear. Much of this extra capacity will need to be in place by 2030 if the 2032 objective is to be met.

Given that even Hinkley Point still leaves us short of dispatchable capacity on current demand, it is not clear where this extra 11 GW will come from.

2) Real concern was expressed to the committee that the EV transition could plausibly lead China to dominate global car manufacturing in the longer term.

Effectively the UK and EU car makers would be giving up their long won technological advantage in the internal combustion engine, and instead be starting from a level playing field with battery powered cars.

I suspect that battle will only have one ending.


Above all, the committee has produced a lot of hot air and lists of demands for things that the government should be doing. But nowhere have they attempted to put a cost on any of it.

Subsidising millions of EVs, loss of fuel duty, expenditure on charging networks and grid upgrades. Do they think money grows on trees?

  1. CheshireRed permalink
    October 20, 2018 3:52 pm

    Not for the first time these clowns promote policy first with no idea whatsoever how to deliver on it. Ridiculous and not a little insane.

    • Adrian permalink
      October 20, 2018 6:08 pm

      Nope it all makes sense. I used to think virtually all of our contemporary (well last thirty yrs at least) political class were indistinguishable from cretins.

      BUT, think this thro’. We leave URP and their green diktats. We can then have cars. URP won’t have any. We then all earn currency driving them around, UK will be rich.

      It is possible though I suppose that all this asinine sh.t being spouted from the mouths of these idiots has driven me mad.

      • October 21, 2018 3:12 am

        What is the URP and why use acronyms? They rarely make any message easier. Australian comedian Jimoiwen was told “We will call you Jim for short”, replied “You can but it won’t save you much time”, geddit?

  2. David Richardson permalink
    October 20, 2018 3:53 pm

    “Do they think money grows on trees?”

    Don’t worry Paul they can always print it??!!

    Politicians have been close to useless in my lifetime and I will likely be gone before the real end game of all this stupidity.

    Is it really the case that only the current POTUS amongst world leaders questions the agenda of those proposing all this??

    It isn’t a conspiracy theory to see that the BEIS proposals via the EU and UN have the destruction of the western economic system, including our industries as its aim – after all many of the UN leading lights have told us so.

    Surely this all borders on malfeance in public office. Are our politicians really this stupid or are they part of the scam?

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      October 20, 2018 10:04 pm

      They love it, it gives them control over us , the People whom they are bound to serve, a service they refuse to supply. Just out of interest, if CO2 is not to be available, how can we grow crops of any kind, this gas is required to give plant growth, no CO2 no growth!

  3. October 20, 2018 4:02 pm

    If you want to know why the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee produces these insane reports, then you have to look at the MPs on the committee. I haven’t checked the qualifications of the MPs, but it doesn’t take a genius to expect that they are not exactly knowledgeable about anything to do with technology. I haven’t the time to check out their CVs

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 20, 2018 6:08 pm

      Here goes:
      Rachel Reeves — PPE Oxford, MSc LSE,
      Vernon Coaker — Economics & Politics Warwick, History Teacher,
      Drew Hendry — Ex-Councillor, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the digital economy,
      Stephen Kerr — “Attended” Stirling Univ. Elected 2015,
      Peter Kyle — Doctorate in “Community Development”, Sussex,
      Ian Liddell-Grainger — Farmer, TA Major. Heads the APPG on Energy Studies,
      Sir Patrick McLoughlin — ex-miner. Considerable ministerial experience,
      Albert Owen — ex-Merchant Navy, BA Politics York,
      Mark Pawsey — Degree in Estate Management Reading,
      Antoinette Sandbach (wonderful name!) — Nottingham Univ (degree unspecified). Sat on the old Climate Change Committee,
      Anna Turley – ex-civil service, ex-public relations, ex-New Local Government Network.

      To be fair, we don’t expect our MPs to be experts. They have civil servants to advise them. On the other hand I am firmly of the belief that these Select Committees were one of the biggest parliamentary mistakes ever since they simply give backbenchers the opportunity to interfere (at our expense) in things they don’t understand.
      Kyle has an interest in youth unemployment and employment conditions generally and was the one who had a run-in with Ashley when the Committee “summoned” him to appear. “Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs” comes to mind.

      • HotScot permalink
        October 20, 2018 7:20 pm


        A lot of work, thank you.

  4. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 20, 2018 4:18 pm

    MPs and their staff show show the way; lead by example. They should all be driving Nissan Leafs, or equivalent (even Teslas – but limited to average price list), and not vote on banning ICEs until they have racked up two years or 20,000 miles of use.

  5. Ian permalink
    October 20, 2018 4:25 pm

    Actually, if you’re going down that road, ie trying to reduce CO2 generation, thybrids should be banned. I see plenty of road tests and real world fuel economy isn’t much better than I can achieve, plus they’re dragging 200+kg extra weight around, with resultant extra wear and tear and particulates.

  6. October 20, 2018 5:26 pm

    All they have to do is make the MoT emission testing so severe that hardly anything other than electric-only can get a pass.

    • bobn permalink
      October 20, 2018 9:25 pm

      Time for concerted civil disobedience to stop these fascists. If they rig the MoT then we should all ignore it and drive what we like. Time for 10 million of us to ignore the laws of these imbeciles.

  7. October 20, 2018 6:04 pm

    Woolly thinking reigns supreme in this virtue-signalling and grandstanding space, for example the problem of off-road parking is to be “solved” by charging points in lampposts and similar, but this forgets the large number of people that live in blocks of flats, with no chance of being able to run cables to their cars parked in garages and communal parking areas.

    MPs need to face “consequences” for daft suggestions, there needs to be some sort of widely known name-and-shame system for them, which worked well for the recent expenses scandal.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 20, 2018 6:36 pm

      While Claire Perry is (nominally) in charge, it will only get worse. She has no clue – and still needs to deny her links to George Monbiot.

      She really needs to tell THIS country what the results of ‘zero carbon’ would mean to what is a GLOBAL problem (for those who want it to be). But her Green controllers won’t let her and she is too thick to work it out for herself. She also needs to get up to speed on what increase in power generation would be needed to charge so many EVs. She hasn’t a clue.

      It’s also rather coincidental that the new ‘zero carbon’ target is precisely the year (2030) that China has determined that it will (might) start to tackle its emissions ‘problems’ – no matter how far they will have risen by then. Perhaps courses in Mandarin (Chinese traditional) might be in order by then. Be interesting to hear Perry talk about 全球暖化 by then. Then, as now, no-one will understand her.

      • HotScot permalink
        October 20, 2018 7:34 pm


        Love to hear more on Perry’s links to George Monbiot.

        And to be fair to George, he’s all for nuclear energy to answer the (fictitious) effects of atmospheric CO2. He’s also a very good Zoologist, but should stick to it because he knows eff all about politics.

        Not that I know much more than him, but the unique quality of politics that no other profession retains is that everyone is allowed a political opinion and can’t be criticised for lack of qualifications.

        George can be politically criticised because of his lack of objectivity, thanks to his outspoken green credentials but it’s difficult to confront him on his opinions on the environment.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        October 20, 2018 8:10 pm

        I can give Monbiot the benefit that he is a zoologist – that’s his degree, I believe. But if you need to know his link to Perry check out her Wiki entry (check first para).

        I’ve written to her a couple of times and her replies leave me with no confidence that she knows what she’s talking about, although that could be her Green-keepers writing her replies for her. But, when I challenged her on Monbiot (they were at Uni together) she told me not to believe everything I read on Wiki – which, if she disagreed with it, she could have got a Spad to change easily (knowing Wiki).

        All that aside, whenever I’ve seen her on TV I just get the feeling that here is a person who does not know what she’s talking about, especially when she talks about ‘zero carbon’.

        As for Monbiot, he is a London-centric gob-on-a-stick who seems to be unable to equate his beliefs with those in the country outside the capital. And has he actually ever done much with his degree?

  8. October 20, 2018 6:12 pm

    Or the solution is in the dilemma: private vehicles cease to exist by 2030. Everybody rents an EV or uses public transit. Personal long-distance and spontaneous travel end.

    Welcome to 1910.

    Have you considered THIS is the goal?

    Government control of your travel amounts. You get a chit for X kilometers and a year-end tax charge for the additional amount.

    Suddenly the 24% of travel CO2 falls to 12%. What is the Gummers of the world not to like? The rich can do whatever they want and the poor, well, all these limitations are in their best interest, aren’t they?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 20, 2018 6:38 pm

      Orwellian, truly Orwellian.

      • October 21, 2018 10:11 am

        In future there’ll be a fleet of electric cars for hire at every former filling station. Just drive up in one rented car, dump it and drive off in another one. Or maybe it will drive itself.

        Then you woke up.

    • David Ashton permalink
      October 21, 2018 11:37 am

      During the build up to the 2005 general election one of the TV channels held a debate between leaders of the minor political parties. The green spokesperson (a woman but I don’t recall it being Lucas) said it was Green party policy to double petrol duty immediately then increase it every year by 10% above inflation until it became unaffordable. A member of the audience said the trains wouldn’t be able to cope with demand. She replied; you don’t understand we want to stop people aspiring to travel. That remains Green party policy, they just don’t articulate it as widely now.

    • waterside4 permalink
      October 22, 2018 5:23 pm

      Yes David, look up Agenda 21 or the new ‘much improved’ Agenda 30 version.
      As I get older I am truly amazed at George Orwell’s prophetic abilities.

  9. Mack permalink
    October 20, 2018 7:05 pm

    Yes Paul, it’s the magic money tree. A model perfected in Venezuela most recently on the back of Robert Mugabe’s ‘sterling’ efforts to make Monopoly money an actual commodity, albeit worthless. The climate change lemmings can’t race to the cliff edge fast enough it seems.

  10. A Man of No Rank permalink
    October 20, 2018 7:58 pm

    At least the committee didn’t ban diesel driven Heavy Goods Vehicles. Wouldn’t like my shopping habits to be ruined!

  11. HotScot permalink
    October 20, 2018 8:02 pm

    According to an earlier BBC report on the subject, “Zero emission vehicles make up just 0.6% of the market, meaning consumer appetite would have to grow by some 17,000% in just over a decade”


    That is simply not commercially credible. If it were, every pension fund in the world would be invested into the UK. That kind of lala land number can only be accomplished with draconian government intervention and industry will simply baulk at the practicalities because it’s undoubtedly entirely unaffordable for them. Even if it were affordable, the time constraints are entirely insane.

    How insane? I was looking into small displacement, petrol ICE turbocharging in the 1970’s. The benefits were obvious and achievable, even with rudimentary digital engine management. We are only now beginning to see universal adoption of the concept, nearly 50 years later.

    Quite how the UK government believes a similar transition to EV’s can be accomplished in around 15 years boggles the mind.

    I mean, someone in the government must read the BBC (if not, wtf is the point of it), see that number of 17,000% and think, “gosh, that sounds a bit ambitious”, but clearly the real nut job politicians don’t!

    That number alone ought to be the qualification criteria for any government minister of any description. If the answer to the question of how achievable it is, is “very” disqualification from the post they are applying for should be a prerequisite. Certainly for any right leaning politician.

    For the left, however, it would be a defining promotional prerequisite in order that taxpayers money could be spent on yet another futile communal project.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 20, 2018 8:15 pm

      Hotscot: Like I said, That’s exactly how Perry is playing it. I just wish she would have the guts to talk to someone….like you!

  12. mikewaite permalink
    October 20, 2018 8:39 pm

    According to Google there were 31million family size cars on the roads in UK in 2016.
    let us assume they are of middling power, 70kW(94bhp).
    Apparently the average annual mileage is 8000 miles and from my personal experience , mixing urban and motorway driving, that means 8000 miles at about 40mph , ie an average annual traveling time of 200hours .
    Hence the UK consumes approx 31 x 10^6 x 70 x200 kWh in personal car use.
    This is about 43 x 10^4GWH in a year..
    Now average daily power demand, excluding car and lorry use, is about 40GW , so in a year that amounts to about 37x 10^4 GWH.
    So, moving to all electric transport for family cars means that we have to double our power
    capacity. If this is to be from solely wind/solar this actually means a 6 fold increase in nameplate capacity. Where will we put all these wind/solar farms?
    Also , assuming that the replacement vehicles are similar in price to Nissan leaf , UK families have to find £31^10^ X 25 X103 or £800 billion over the next 12 years to stay as mobile as they currently are .
    Please, please tell me my calculations are rubbish (they took 5 mins, the time Claire Perry takes to put on her lipstick each morning), because if not then the future is far from appealing.

    • mikewaite permalink
      October 20, 2018 8:43 pm

      Sorry some typos : cost of replacing family car fleet with Leaf equivalents would be
      31×10^6 x 25 x 10^3 sterling, or £800 billion , £60-70 billion/year , to what end?

  13. John Ormandy permalink
    October 20, 2018 10:35 pm

    No mention of how they intend to recover the £billions in tax currently provided by fuel duty & excise licences. No mention of the phasing out of the current subsidies to EVs. No mention of motorbikes, vans, trucks, coaches, buses, motor homes…..?
    Total blathering nonsense; why do they bother!

  14. October 20, 2018 11:26 pm

    A true story:

    Back in circa late sixties we removed our children from the state education system on the grounds that it wasn’t working. A colleague of mine remarked in the pub: “ Never mind your kids what about those left behind? – They will be running this country in 40 years time.”

    How prescient!!

  15. Europeanonion permalink
    October 21, 2018 8:05 am

    The best carbon trade, with the effects shown immediately, is to improve the road network. To re-engineer and by so doing allow cars to run at their most economic speed, which for most domestic vehicles is about 50 mph. But as we see from the daily grind on our roads, the desperate un-cooperativeness of companies allowed to dig-up our roads (lack of coordination), the same queues in the same old places, the lack of police at contentious traffic situations, the irritation that the callous disregard for motorists engenders; the state is totally blase about its failings on the issue as the cost is against you and therefore something that they can be blase about (while enabling them to criticise the outfall of their own neglect and to pursue policies that would, otherwise, have diminished effect.

    As human beings are exhaling carbon on a daily basis, my other suggestion would be for us to have a breath suspension day. Whereby the people of the globe are asked to hold their breaths until passing-out one day a week and so interrupt the flow of that notorious gas.

  16. Phil permalink
    October 21, 2018 8:49 am

    I’m a normal person, doing a normal job, and driving a normal car. The cost of a new EV is roughly what I earn in a year, after tax. How the hell to these idiots think that I will be able to get to work in their brave new world of insanely expensive transport? 6 a.m. starts, so public transport is out. And I live in a normal house with no off-road parking, so even if I could afford one of the damn things I’d have to trail a lead across the pavement to charge it. Not sure the they have really thought this through…

    • October 21, 2018 10:10 am

      “Greens” have an answer for that, largely wishful thinking, but here it is: Those evil car manufacturers, being nasty large corporations, are keeping the price of EVs artificially high, to ensure that their investments in dirty smelly fossil fueled vehicles keep paying off.

  17. bobn permalink
    October 21, 2018 10:02 am

    You’re right Phil – they havent thought it through, indeed they haven’t thought at all.
    Concur on costs. We bought our commuter car, second hand for £9000 – thats what i’ll pay for a replacement when it dies. My other vehicle is a 4×4 for work which needs to tow 3 tonnes. What is the towing power of these magic EVs?

  18. Kestrel27 permalink
    October 21, 2018 10:07 am

    I entirely agree that this report inhabits a fantasy world. As ordinary MPs, including those on select committees, aren’t supported by civil servants, the abject failure to address any practicalities is down to them alone on this occasion. It’s a bit reminiscent of the old Soviet planning system where you pluck a target bearing no relation to reality out of thin air and grandly announce that it must be met. And of course the Government is doing that too.

    Another point. I run an average 2004 car with 160gm emissions and pay handsomely in road tax for the privilege. How many miles do I need to drive before I have emitted the same amount of ‘greenhouse gasses’ as would be emitted in making the EV I don’t intend to buy? I have no idea but have long thought that if the aim of these policies is to prevent climate change rather than to create cleaner urban environments, it may make sense to encourage people to hold on to older cars. Bad for industry of course.

    • Kestrel27 permalink
      October 21, 2018 11:10 am

      By coincidence I’ve just seen a post by Philip Foster on ‘the Conservative Woman’ saying that making the battery of a Tesla emits 17.5 tons of CO2 and that an average motorist takes 8 years to emit that amount. My EV replacement would be a Leaf rather than a Tesla and my car probably emits more than the current average; on the other hand I only do about half the average mileage and he’s only talking about the CO2 emitted from making the battery. This suggests to me that it would take me quite a lot of years to emit the amount emitted in making a Leaf.

      I don’t know whether his figures are right of course.

    • J Martin permalink
      October 21, 2018 8:28 pm

      According to the world’s largest motoring organisation, the German ADAC, you would have to drive an electric car 363,000 miles before it broke even on co2 with a diesel car. How many people notch up that sort of mileage over the lifetime of the average family car ?

  19. Rudolph Hucker permalink
    October 21, 2018 11:16 am

    Sadly Phil, we are talking about very clever people here apparently very brainy but almost totally devoid of business nous and common sense!!

    • bobn permalink
      October 21, 2018 11:57 am

      No. They are not clever nor brainy. A ppe degree is as demanding to get as reading a cornflakes packet. These morons dont have high level Maths, Physics, Chemistry, History or anything that demands brainpower. So no brains, no cleverness, no deep learning, no nous as well as no common sense. They probably can’t change a tap washer or spark plug either!

  20. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 21, 2018 11:42 am

    Trying to get to sleep last night I did some back-of-a-pillowcase calcs to see what an all electric future would look like but, with the added problem that pre-2032 cars would still be allowed (one assumes) on the roads. It goes like this:

    The fuel station at my local Sainsbury’s has room to refuel 24 cars. There are times when it is full and cars are queuing for the pumps but as the average refill takes around seven or eight minutes the wait for a free pump is around a couple of minutes at worst. Now, if all those cars were electric they would be taking at least 30 minutes to charge and the queues would be ’round the block’. And that does not take into account the need to still refuel old clunkers (as they will be).

    But then, assuming there are still 20 fueling (now, charging) stations and that EVs tend to be around 80kW, if all stations are occupied charging cars then Sainsbury’s would need to install a heavy-duty power cable capable of supplying something like THREE MWhrs. Bearing in mind there are three other mega-stores with fuel stations within the same 10 sq miles that’s a lot of power required.

    If my calcs are reasonable, should we be worried?

    • bobn permalink
      October 21, 2018 12:01 pm

      Actually we shouldnt be worried because none of this pie in the sky cowcrap is going to happen. Just like we wont have cruise ships anchored at the North Pole in 10yrs time despite Al Gore saying its possible. Its all garbage that wont happen. Problem is a lot of taxpayers money might be wasted trying to start this unicorn farm before the nation’s inevitable bankruptcy kills it off.

    • October 21, 2018 1:32 pm

      My local Sainsburys has had electric charging points in the car park for several years, never ever used as far as I know.

  21. Gamecock permalink
    October 21, 2018 12:13 pm

    2032? 2040? 2050?

    Government has influence over . . . the present. Only the present. Talking about distant future is silliness at the highest levels. The future will decide what the future wants to do.

  22. Stonyground permalink
    October 21, 2018 1:36 pm

    I would have thought that electric cars wouldn’t even be considered until the entire rail network has been electrified. If these imbeciles are going to spend huge mountains of other people’s money, at least spend it on proven technology that actually works.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 21, 2018 6:20 pm

      Good point, Stonyground. With the range-limiting capability of EVs long distance trains will come into their own. Travelers will then need to be able to pick up an EV at their destination for the short onward, local journey. Which makes me think, Boris Bikes is a model for this and EVs could be a great business for someone in 20 years’ time.

      • Russ Wood permalink
        October 24, 2018 2:10 pm

        Yes, but last century, a certain Mr Beeching removed all of the ‘unprofitable’ branch lines on the railways. As a teenager with a bike, I was able to get from Birkenhead to the Welsh town of Bala. The right-of-way of most of the old lines are now farms or linear parks. Cutting off ICE vehicles means returning all of the small towns back to the 17th century!

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 21, 2018 6:23 pm

      Good point, Stony. EVs could be the Boris Bikes of the future so that long distance travelers can complete their journeys with an easily available EV.

  23. October 21, 2018 5:38 pm

    Looks like the reintroduction of the Sedan Chair is in the offing, to own one workers must be able to self drive.

  24. tom0mason permalink
    October 21, 2018 6:18 pm

    “Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker…
    My right honorable fiend, the member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, would seem to say that members of the public who are unable to afford electric vehicles should have to resort to horse drawn vehicles, just as in times of yore.
    That, I contend, would at the very least ensure that the public highways would eventually have an equal amount of horse shit on them, as there appears spoken in this House of Commons.”

  25. Jack Broughton permalink
    October 21, 2018 8:25 pm

    Another, little discussed, aspect of EVs is standardisation. The voltage and connections to mains may well be different for different countries and hence manufacturers, possibly deliberately of course. This will alter export potential, again probably deliberately.

    The ignorance and stupidity of our MPs regarding basic technical matters is truly frightening.

  26. J Martin permalink
    October 21, 2018 8:34 pm

    The UK will start to look like Cuba as people keep their conventional fueled vehicles running for ever.

    If they pass a lunatic act to stop all car sales that are not electric, then it will lead to mass unemployment as many people will no longer be able to get to work. The hard soulder in motorways will resemble a car park, so many of them will run out of power on hot summer days and cold winter evenings.

    As many others have observed, it simply can’t be done in that timeframe or dvdnnin a much longer timeframe. The MPs are basically insane and will be voted out.

  27. Chips permalink
    October 23, 2018 7:04 am

    Oh dear, carbon dioxide is such a precious gas, everything living is made from it thanks to the wondrous chemistry of photosynthesis. For the last 50 million years it has been steadily declining, during the last ice age it was very close to the threshold at which photosynthesis ceases. When/ if this happens life on Earth will cease.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: