UK’s Rishi Sunak considers weakening key green policies
bbc.com
bbc.com
The rubber is about to really about to hit the road between climate policy and geopolitics. China is increasing dominating ~all the industries required for the green transition. At this point there'd be no remotely plausible way to enforce a 2030 EV car requirement than to wind up with 70% of your auto market being Chinese EVs. It would be government mandated seppuku of basically all US / UK / European auto makers other than Tesla.
It would not only stir huge "populist" anger domestically but critically undermine the direction leaders want to take geopolitically towards China. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place and the only solution is to re-learn how to do advanced industrial production domestically at scale and price-competitive. It's no longer clear that's possible on any relevant timeframe though.
I have long been of the opinion that the (first voluntary, now forced) push to EV is ultimately part of about making China into the next world superpower.
To what end? Fucking beats me, I'm not a part of the Powers That Be(tm).
I'm sure lots of people got big quarterly bonuses along the way but eventually, reality catches up. So here we are, with China dominating: batteries, EVs, Wind power, Solar PV, HVDC transmission, UHVDC transmission, nuclear, hydro, high-speed rail, electrolyzers and probably others I've missed.
Amazing what you can achieve when you actually try over multiple decades rather than hoping you'll be retired and/or dead by the time things come to a head.
You could probably quibble about how close they will be but I don't think automakers are anywhere near as worried about a 2030 Chinese takeover as you are.
I think battery raw materials and processing is a different story but even there auto mfgs have been investing heavily in battery production.
This is selling our children's future in an attempt for the Tories to cling to power. This is short-term thinking at its very worst and it's the kind of regressive policy that has led to us not investing enough in renewables and thus driving up the cost of heating fuel.
> "Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
That is just a bare-faced lie - he's doing the exact opposite whilst also demonstrating that the Tories cannot be trusted to stick to previous commitments and instead they just point the finger at each other like a bunch of shit-flinging apes and declare that they're only thinking of the people struggling with the cost of living. Of course, they pretty much created most of the cost-of-living problems whilst they funnel money towards oil companies instead.
It seems like the "short term thinking" was committing to banning diesel and petrol sales by 2030 anyway. It was obvious to everybody with half a brain that this was completely impossible and unrealistic. The UK doesn't have the needed infrastructure, electrical supply, or anything else to support this move. We're not going to have every lamp post in our major cities kitted out with an EV charger in 7 years, and we won't have built the additional generation capacity needed. Especially when various green lobbies are eg delaying Sizewell C with legal challenges - see the news yesterday about that.
It probably is electioneering by Sunak, but it is quite a smart move. They've made labour promise to overturn it when they come to power, which would then make them extremely unpopular if they did so.
Rather than trying to appease people who will only ever hate you anyway, with unrealistic targets, it is much better to be realistic about what is achievable.
A lot of people assume that EVs only mean car shaped objects which require heavy investment of roadside chargers as well as the various issues around pollution due to their increased weight. The smart way to improve transportation is to enhance public transport so that it's usable (i.e. not just run for profit) and to encourage as many people as possible to use active travel. There's also the lesser known EVs such as e-bikes and e-scooters which are a far better choice for city travel due to their lack of weight and reduction in road congestion.
There's also the issue of increased particulate pollution from electric cars as their weight increases tyre and brake wear. But then, electric cars were invented to save the car industry, not the planet.
Edit: Here's some relevant quotes regarding the 2030 target:
A spokesperson for Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) said:
> JLR is investing £15 billion over the next five years to electrify our luxury brands, which is key to JLR reaching net zero carbon emissions across our supply chain, products and operations by 2039.
> Our plans are on track and we welcome certainty around legislation for the end of sale of petrol and diesel powered cars.
A spokesperson for BMW, which owns the Mini brand, said:
> Mini has already announced that it will become a purely electric brand from 2030 globally and this will not change.
The former Aston Martin boss Andy Palmer told Radio 4’s World At One:
> The industry is already determined that we’re going to have electric cars.
> And countries like the US are protecting their industry, whereas countries like China are projecting their industry. And the real risk here is that by not having an aggressive strategy, we’re just opening the door to basically Chinese sales.
Ian Plummer, commercial director at online vehicle marketplace Auto Trader, said:
> Pushing back the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel sales by five years is a hugely retrograde step which puts politics ahead of net zero goals.
> This U-turn will cause a huge headache for manufacturers, who are crying out for clarity and consistency, and it is hardly going to encourage the vast majority of drivers who are yet to buy an electric car to make the switch.
And Steve Gooding, director of motoring research at the charity RAC Foundation, said:
> With the car industry confident about its ability to make the switch away from pure petrol and diesel engines by 2030 whilst still meeting the appetite of the UK market for new cars, it is hard to see why anyone in No 10 thinks now is a good moment to row back.
Whilst I agree with your general point, I have two issues with that last clause.
1) We're arguably not a European country anymore.
2) There are socialist European countries that have excellent provision for active travel and public transport.
A few European countries NOT in the EU:
- Albania.
- Azerbaijan.
- Georgia.
- Liechtenstein.
- Montenegro.
- Serbia.
- Turkey.
China certainly will. Running AC cables to your lamp-posts is literally the lowest-hanging fruit of the EV changeover.
A BEV used in a city needs to be charged about once a week. People who've never used one think cars are like cellphones.
Companies Stall Climate Action Despite Promises: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37582952
Global coal at record usage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2023/09/04/global-coal-...
If the UK eliminated all industry and commerce we would delay the climate catastrophe for all of about 30 seconds.
All of the industrial growth (powered by coal) is for exporting all the stuff to western countries.
THIS WAS POINTED OUT 40 YEARS AGO.
https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?si=U0oK1Vlx2yNW1Gr6
The entire point is that we have failed. Now please stop repeating the obvious and fix the problem.
The UK and Europe had an early lead in these technologies. The only real question is whether they'll keep it, or let the most important future industries be completely dominated by China.
it’s actually a pre-election ploy. as it stands right now governments will have to ask their citizens to change their habits. this will invariably lead to citizens voting for parties that won’t force them to do anything. this announcement tests the waters by pre-empting that situation.
It's not even a story about doing something. It's a kite-flying, anonymously-sourced story about considering doing something.
What about this story gratifies any intellectual curiosity?
Per the guidelines:
> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Setting aside whether "peak green" is or not a bad thing, if you consider the premise of the green transition according to its supporters- government hastening a change that would otherwise be too slow- then the phenomenon is inevitable. If initiative followed (lagged) capabilities (technological-economic, geopolitical, social) then we would probably see a smoother, slower transition. Any attempt to go faster than capabilities allow will result in a "peak green" moment (there can be many).
In summary, in a green transition not driven primarily by market forces, expect to see several of these "setbacks".