UK PM Puts Back ICE Vehicle Phase Out Date

Recently, the UK’s PM Rishi Sunak, announced that he was rolling back on some of the UK’s commitments to cut carbon emissions. The biggest of these turnarounds was on the phase out of the sale of ICE vehicles, which was due to occur in 2030. This came as a major surprise, as it was only a few days previously that he had reaffirmed his commitment to the 2030 date, and his government had made guarantees to BMW that it would not relax those targets in order to persuade the German automaker to invest £600 million in the UK to build electric powered Minis.

Many other automotive companies in the UK have already invested large amounts to prepare for the 2030 phase out, and BMW is not the only vehicle manufacturer upset with the UK government. Ford openly criticized the decision, with the chair of the company’s UK operation, Lisa Brankin, saying, “Ford has announced a global $50billion commitment to electrification, launching nine electric vehicles by 2025. The range is supported by £430 million invested in Ford UK’s development and manufacturing facilities, with further funding planned for the 2030 timeframe. Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three. We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong.”

The original date for the changeover to EV sales was set by Sunak’s fellow Conservative predecessor Boris Johnson, who also criticized the change, saying that, “Business must have certainty about our net zero commitments. This country leads on tackling climate change and in creating new green technology. The green industrial revolution is already generating huge numbers of high-quality jobs and helping to drive growth and level up our country. Business and industry – such as motor manufacturing – are rightly making vast investments in these new technologies. It is crucial that we give those businesses confidence that government is still committed to net zero and can see the way ahead.”

Sunak claims that the UK is already leading among its peers in cutting carbon emissions and that with the ongoing cost of living crisis, it was the wrong time to force people into costly changes. He also said that the UK was on schedule to meet its overriding commitment of the country being Net Zero by 2050. He pointed out that the new figure was in line with the majority of other developed countries globally, including the US, France and Germany. His supporters have also stressed that the investment in the UK’s infrastructure that is needed for the switch-over has not come as quickly as hoped to support the changeover. There may be a semblance of truth in these statements, but upsetting major foreign employers who are willing to invest in the country may not be the correct way to go about things.

Sunak’s political position is perilous at the moment, with the PM trailing badly in polling for next year’s general election and a number of right-wing back benchers submitting letters to the 1922 committee. If enough letters are submitted, a leadership contest will be triggered, which could see Sunak replaced even before any election. Rolling back Net Zero promises will have the effect of appeasing that group of MPs, at least in the short term. In all likelihood, Sunak will be out of power after the next election and the opposition Labour party, led by Kier Starmer, will reimplement the 2030 timescale, although Starmer has so far only criticized the PM’s decision without making a solid commitment to reintroduce the original date.

Whether you think that this is a nakedly political move to shore up his support in his own party and in some key voting demographics at the expense of vehicle manufacturing in the UK, or a genuine concern that the UK has reached too far, too soon in its commitment to reducing carbon emissions to the detriment of its own industry and economy, it is a major set back in the fight against climate change. It will also remove the sense of urgency in getting the infrastructure in place, and who is to say that in five years time the required infrastructure will be any closer to completion?