Karl McCartney MP: The Government’s Net Zero fuel and engines policy needs to change and change fast
By Paul Homewood
The Government needs to change its position on fuel and engines, and change it fast.
It needs to be far more pragmatic, base its policy in the real world and stop listening to people who are out of touch. There are huge risks in stopping cars and vans being made from 2030 that use normal petrol and diesel engines, and, then only supporting electric fuels. The Government is ducking away from these risks at a cost to our economic well-being. Europe, and in particular the Germans and French, has recently woken up to this and changed course. So why can’t we?
The ‘Net-Zero’ credo has left us isolated and exposed. It shows how the Government and policy makers have been captured by the green zealots and the metropolitan elite – the EV evangelists as they have been termed. They have just unthinkingly accepted a so-called sense of inevitably. Current policies have no link to the real world and the lives of normal people and businesses across the UK, and particularly in Lincolnshire and outside of the London ‘metropolitan bubble’. It needs to change.
Labour’s plans will make matters even worse. Blocking all new domestic oil and gas developments if it wins power at the next General Election will play into Putin’s hands. Their ‘build wind-farms everywhere and anywhere’ policy shows how narrow-minded the debate has become.
I am a long-standing member of the Transport Select Committee and for the past 18 months we have been asking what the Government’s plans were on how we are as a nation are going to fuel transport in the future. This is against the backdrop of the Government’s position on Net Zero by 2050 and that no new cars or vans can be manufactured that use combustion engines from 2030. In effect, the end of petrol and diesel fuelled cars going forward. By 2050 all cars will be electric.
When the Committee published its report in March 2023 (‘Fuelling the Future: motive power and connectivity’) it questioned whether our country was ready for such a seismic change. This was also based on a lack of consistency and pragmatism at the very heart of Government policy. In some areas such as aviation, the Government said it had no hard view on the future of fuels, but on cars, taxis and vans it was clear that electric was the only game in town. They would not support any alternatives, even though developments in environmentally-friendly sustainable and synthetic fuels (e-fuels) are moving quickly. It was also unclear whether it could give a guarantee that enough affordable electric cars will be available or there will be enough charging points that could fuel such cars very quickly. There has to be no difference in charging times than filling a fuel tank. If there is, then the country loses productivity. It is obvious.
The Government response to the Select Committee’s report was even more vagueness, so the Committee has written back again asking for clarity. Why is this so hard, if the direction of travel is meant to be clear?
There is also a risk from China. A significant concern of mine about battery powered electric vehicles being the only solution for cars is that it is hugely risky. It does not match the reality of the technology in terms of cost and availability. There is no guarantee the number of batteries or charging points needed will be ready given worldwide demand especially from China. It is also worrying to see China’s growing ownership of the companies mining and processing the raw materials such as lithium, graphite and cobalt. And we are not even considering the working conditions and environmental impact of the mining of such raw materials. Why rely on going down a path that plays into China’s hands?
The EU’s auditors recognise this as they have posted a note of concern this month that the EU could fall short of its 2035 net zero goal on vehicles. This is due to ‘insufficient access to critical raw materials, rising costs and intense global competition’. All of which threatens to hinder investment in battery production capacity.
At least they have started down a pragmatic path with their current, unchanged as yet by Germany or France, policy. Their petrol and diesel engine ban for cars starts from 2035. Even then cars and vans can still be made using normal combustion engines so long as their fuel is synthetic and carbon-neutral. Common-sense and pragmatic, plus leaving room if needed if events change.
Full post
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Investment in battery technology. Whatever for?
So this guy has no future in the Commons, he is way out of line! He is of course exactly right.
The only things he hasn’t mentioned are the dangers of fire and then end of life disposal/recycle.
Good man.
no new cars or vans can be manufactured that use combustion engines from 2030
The UK government can only really dictate what can be sold, not manufactured, as the majority of vehicles are sourced from abroad and other countries have their own rules. But the chances of chaos in the car market look high only a few years from now under current policies.
I cannot see that any UK government will.allow the sale of new ICE cars and vehicles past the ban on manufacturing. The UK manufacturers would be – rightly – furious and the Greens apoplectic. Of course there will be loopholes, but not for thee and me, only for the right sort of people.
I guess there is no reason why the government’s transport policy should be any less stupid than any of their other policies such as energy. While Nut Job Zero is a very serious issue for country, it is looking like immigration – both legal and illegal – is going to be the main issue at next year’s election as Sushi fails to meet his promise on reducing the illegal dinghy flow. While it is still over a year away, it is looking like there is likely to be a Tory boycott of the election in the same way last many Labour voters couldn’t bear voting for Corbyn.
I continue to wonder what is the point of Sunsak and why he wanted to be PM anyway? We’ve had May, who was simply wrong on every single issue, Johnson who demonstrated once again his utter lack of ability to stick to his principles and now Sunak, possibly the most wishy-washy PM ever. He seems to have as his guiding principle making everything just a bit worse.
With China restricting exports of germanium and gallium, it is a warning shot, next lithium, cobalt, neodymium, and the other rare earths. They have waited until we are well down the the BEV route and are now going to stick the knife in, I think they should have waited a few more years for maximum strategic damage to our economies. Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War in around 500bc, it is worth a look, here is one of the strategies.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
So as we do not have any friendly sources of these raw materials essential in BEV’s and wind generation (in the motors/generators and batteries) and it would take 2o years to set up mining and refining in the west, presuming we can find deposits, we have to stick with what we have got FOSSIL FUELS.
An urgent stop to Net Zero madness and the rapid investment in gas, oil and coal is all that will save the west from economic destruction.
Spot on!
“The Supreme Art of War is to subdue the enemy without fighting”
Put simply, the Chinese leadership are mercantilists. Unfortunately for them, and us, it’s a dumb and discredited policy.
Both BP and Shell have just announced they have changed tack from investment in upstream and downstream renewables, back to all out world wide exploration and development of mega scale projects in oil and gas.
Hardly surprising after the disgraceful govt. theft by windfall tax of profit, and both companies assessment of charging points investment viability for the future.
Do not be surprised if they both relocate from the London bourse in the near future.
Very good article which mirrors my thoughts. Good to see that not all MP’s are not subservient to the green lobby. Problem is that Government and the Labour Party have closed their ears and are hell bent on causing the greatest damage to the UK that they can. It is obvious that the future is not to rely on electric cars and air or ground source heat pumps or for the National grid to rely on intermittent and varying output of wind and solar generation.
There may be a time in the future when the output of wind and solar can be stored in sufficient quantity to cover for their variability. But this seems to be a long way off.
No ICE vans, eh? Bet white-van man will be obeying the rules to the letter – the letter being ‘F’ – followed by ‘O’.
Yes white van man will continue to drive his ICE van beyond 2030 but, on current Govt policy, to be made worse by the likely Labour Govt, he won’t be able to buy a new one from 2030 onwards whether he says FO or not. So expect an increasingly aged white van fleet and increasingly angry white van men.
I would not take the FO view of white van man for granted – I have a relation who is a ‘Gaffer’ on a number of TV productions and he is totally converted to EV. Any attempt by me to speak against the whole charade has no effect. The “experts” say we must convert to BEVs so that’s what he has to do. End of discussion.
Politicians need to stop ALL the meddling in the market.
Users / consumers are perfectly capable of making their own choices whether they need ICE or EV or anything else. Those that are PRACTICAL will succeed. It is none of the government’s business to force less practical vehicles. The market must decide.
Absolutely this. Today’s politicians are no nothing imbeciles, everything that they touch turns to shit. The best thing that they could do for the country is absolutely nothing.
Absolutely true, but try telling that to Milliband and Starmer. If only the Tories had the guts to abandon net zero they might stand a chance at the next General Election. Continuing as Labour Light will just ensure their total defeat
Labour are Lavour because they believe they know best what we should buy and value. The Tories are supposed to be Tories because they don’t believe that but seem to have lost the plot sometime around 2000, with the success of Blair, our eorst PM by far.
It seems to me, Karl is a firm believer that CO2 is evil. Various statements – “There has to be no difference in charging times than filling a fuel tank.” – isn’t a condemnation of going to EVs. Neither is the interest in synthetic and carbon-neutral fuel.
He and others on the Select Committee must have gotten their slide rules warmed-up and determined certain things won’t work. The Law of Holes popped into someone’s mind.
Still, a bit of common sense from some MPs is progress.
We need >300 MPs with brains and commonsense. It’s not going to happen.
At the rate they’re carrying on we will end up with the best part of 650MPs without brains.
We already have MPs without brains who voted the insane “Climate Change Act” into existence in the first place.
Absolutely true, but try telling that to Milliband and Starmer. If only the Tories had the guts to abandon net zero they might stand a chance at the next General Election. Continuing as Labour Light will just ensure their total defeat ³
If EVs are to be charged at the same rates as filling a car with petrol/diesel then 50kWh will need to be supplied in 5 minutes, and this will take you about 100 miles. That is a charging rate of 10kWh per minute. Is this achievable?
Fast chargers are currently rated at 480 volts, so how many amps are flowing through the charging cables to deliver that amount of power in the time expected.
If the voltage is increased to reduce the amperage, how safe will this be?
1000 volts plus looks like an accident waiting to happen.
If EVs are to have the same range per charge as ICE vehicles then the amount of charge will need to increase by a factor of 4 to 6, which I expect will cause additional problems.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
There are some 150kW chargers at a station only a few hundred meters from where I am sitting. I believe there are 250kW chargers in existence also.
So not quite 10kWh per minute, but then again you can put enough charge in to take you 50 miles in 5 minutes.
Average mileage is only 7,000 a year apparently.
EVs are a product that has a market niche. They will suit many people just fine, but not others. I just wish they’d leave it to market forces.
50 miles is pathetic. In 10 minutes (from empty), I would get around 750 miles for my diesel i.e. 325 miles for 5 minutes. Approx the same time for petrol with admittedly less range than diesel but still much more than any EV.
>>you can put enough charge in to take you 50 miles in 5 minutes.
Anyone who believes in net zero should stop exhaling CO2, right now.
There is no guarantee the number of batteries or charging points needed will be ready given worldwide demand
Unless the idea is to reduce vehicles on the road, in which case scarcity of materials and corresponding high cost of entry are just what you need.
The problems spread out like a virus. Much of our world, industry or shopping for examples, revolves around personal transport so they are not just looking at change in the area of transport. It’s a total re-structure. Back to the “good old days” or some other fantasy.
After all, ramping up the cost of energy makes no sense unless your “end game” is de-industrialisation …
Let’s not go to de-population by attacking energy, transport, agriculture simultaneously eh?
On the up-side, which “wit” suggested that one should never wage a war on two fronts, let alone dozens …
The problem isn’t only the number of charging points. The real problem is that electric cars need recharging much more often and that each of those recharges take a long time.
Admittedly very simplified, but I can get ten hours of actual use out of my diesel and it takes me ten minutes (ONCE) to get another ten hours. How many hours does it take to recharge an EV multiple times to get the same ten hours of actual use?
Then again, lots of people can charge at home on their drive. They don’t have the chore of going to a filling station at all.
At filling stations these days, you often have to queue, some pumps won’t be working and you have to wait for the woman in front to mine to the bottom of her handbag to find her purse. All that pain is gone from your life.
How can stopping at a filling station as and when you need to (i.e. range left drops below 100 miles) be a “chore”? You are already in your vehicle en route somewhere.
>> They don’t have the chore of going to a filling station at all.
Realist, I told you a number of reasons why it can be a chore.
Another one is the fuel price on the motorways. Only people claiming it back on expenses can use the fuel on the motorways, the rest of us have to turn off and find a supermarket.
There are far fewer filling stations than there used to be, to serve an ever increasing vehicle population. A lot of the time you end up queuing.
Seriously? Not here, I can fill up in seconds here, and I can easily plan to fill up in a supermarket when we go shopping in one.
Nobody normal fills up on a motorway. You simply fill up before you set off, and I can get from here to John O Groats with a full tank
No need to “plan” for diesel and petrol vehicles. Just keep an eye on the fuel gauge and start looking for the next filling station when you only have 100 km left. Waiting for the warning light is a bit risky, but very unlikely you will not find a filling station within 50 km of wherever you are at any given time.
>>easily plan to fill up
You need to stop assuming that people go from wherever they happen to be to a filling station only to fill up and then return to where they started without going anywhere else.
>> I told you a number of reasons why it can be a chore.
Paul, keep up the good work. I am in fact a net zero sceptic, but one with an ear for the arguments from the other side.
If you have a driveway or garage on your property you can charge your EV at home very conveniently and also very cheaply. There is an overnight tariff of 7.5p/kWh available for EVs.
If you live in a block of flats with no parking you are knackered though,
I think some people are labouring under the misapprehension they have the right to own a car and also to use it for transport. Our government has no such misapprehensions.
Very true in New Zealand anyway. Snobbery comes in to it too. Walking to a shop or taking a short bus ride is impossible for some.. suburban. ladies.. to consider wthout a shudder.
Although bus services are adequate for workers to get to work in said shops.in the morning.
I take exception to the term “Metropolitan Elite ”
Surely “Metropolitan Numpties” is nearer the mark !
Regarding the conflict between UK ICE ban by 2030, plus hybrid ban by 2035, how do those positions fit with the EU’s ICE ban not coming until 2035…but Northern Ireland sharing EU / UK market access?
Does that mean ICE can be registered in ‘EU NI’ up to 2035? If so what’s stopping an NI registered vehicle then being shipped into the British mainland, and thus implying a de facto British ICE extension to 2035?
“The Government should not have a position on fuel and engines.”
Fixed it.
‘Current policies have no link to the real world and the lives of normal people and businesses across the UK’
Yes, Press Secretary Marie Antoinette said, “Let them drive EVs.”
I wonder if he was at a cake party 18 months ago?
Betamax Britain
What about thousands and thousands of large 12 wheeler lorries – why no mention? What’s the point of EVs? Are ICE imports to be banned? Haven’t heard. And UK emits one per cent global CO2. Our virtue signalling is laughed at by Asia. Lord Deben has skin in the game. Net Zero will crash our economy , overrun by unabsorbrd unemployable illiterate young male illegal immigrants