Producing 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions, the transport sector has a huge contribution to make in achieving our Net Zero and 1.5^o targets.  Here Daniel Scharf presents the case for how our approach to the private motor vehicle needs to evolve in response to this challenge.  The piece is an adaptation of Daniel’s submission to the government inquiry on this subject.

The Government is carrying out a consultation on “Phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and support for Zero Emission Transition” with responses required by 18 February 2025.  This raises a number of issues addressed by GreenSpeed which, for the last 30 years, has campaigned for a lowering of the national speed limits to 55mph and 20mph that accords with a number of expert views, including the VIBAT Study 2006 and recommendations of Environmental Audit Committee Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport 2005/6 backed up by a Spokesman for the Department for Transport at Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Annual Meeting 2010:

 “Meeting carbon reduction targets will be difficult if not impossible without lowering the national speed limit which is politically impossible”

The combined impact of every transport system comprises three elements: volume, mix and speed. The current proposals focus on the ‘mix’ on the understanding that the proportion of ZEVs in the national fleet could reduce the carbon emissions from the transport sector.  This analysis is simplistic and deficient to the extent that it fails to take into account the role that both the volume of traffic and the regulation of speed (which are also under Government control) could and should play in the ‘zero emissions transition’.

Carbon emissions from road transport have become of extreme importance given the requirement of the High Court, following two failed attempts by the predecessor Government, to produce a carbon reduction plan that can be shown to comply with the Climate Change Act 2008.

There is the additional problem of reducing the demand for low and zero carbon electricity as an increase from the use of commercial and domestic heat pumps for space and water heating is being planned, the demand for making ‘green steel’, a huge expansion of data processing including AI, and electrically powered Modern Methods of Construction will be required to reduce the upfront/embodied carbon emitted in building houses. This is notwithstanding the need to upgrade the grid.  The Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions concluded that the possibility of complying with the officially agreed carbon reduction targets depends on a reduction in overall demand by about 50%.

The consultation that is mostly about the promotion of EVs does not ask for opinions on the possibility of repowering ICE cars.  This is either an unfortunate oversight, or a sign that the Government is relying on uncontested views on unfeasibility from car manufacturers?  Re-powering or refitting is becoming more common in the case of vans, trucks, buses and coaches.  In the case of cars this is already operating at a small scale, but neither the SMMT nor a number of volume manufacturers have responded to enquiries about the feasibility of re-powering at scale through dedicated production lines.

The phasing out of ICEs in the zero emissions transition will only be seen to be effective when a systemic view is taken of both the transport system and the electrification of the whole economy. The continued use of ICEs will limit the contribution the increased use of EVs might have to the critical matter of the overall reduction in emissions long after their manufacture and sale have been restricted.  This ‘long tail’ can be addressed in three ways: a lower national speed limit and the repowering or scrapping of ICEs.

A lower speed limit will itself have two main benefits; reducing any competitive advantages that the ICE might be perceived to enjoy over EVs, and to reduce the emissions from ICEs remaining in use. A lower national speed limit would increase range and reduce anxiety, reduce the need for en-route charging (fewer charge points, less power requirement and shorter charging times). A 55mph limit would reduce emissions from ICEs and have other co-benefits of power shift (eg to EVs), modal shift (eg coach and train), shorter planned journeys and a reduced number and severity of road accidents. 

The repowering of ICEs would have even more direct benefits. For every EV created in this way an ICE is actually taken off the road.   Although some materials from a scrapped ICE can be recycled, there are carbon emissions from these processes (some steel might come from greener production). It would be far less energy intensive to use the body (inc windows), chassis (requiring some strengthening) and interiors (involving significant plastics) calculated at over 60% saving of emissions compared to new manufacture.

In terms of the volume of vehicles, if the Government ‘followed the science’ the Fair Lifestyle devised by Scientists for Global Responsibility suggests that to maintain a good quality of life within 1.5 degrees C of warming, by 2030 there should be little if any private car ownership. Reducing the number of cars would have the benefits of reducing air pollution from tyres and roads, less congestion, saving time and reducing accidents. 

The High Court is expected, as a matter of law, to require assurances that the carbon budgets produced on behalf of the Government are credible and likely to be achieved. It is unlikely that carbon reduction targets will be achieved without taking a systemic approach both to transport and the economy as a whole, including re-powering ICEs and the virtuous circle triggered by lower speeds and lower traffic volumes. So the car manufacturers should be encouraged to fulfil the mandate by repowering ICEs to take the place of new EVs.  

Daniel Scharf

For more on this subject, see this video ‘Transport: A Fare Free Future?’ Green Left meeting 15 January 2025 . https://youtu.be/eZdatzOG5Xk

This meeting was part of the Green Party of England and Wales ‘Policy Fest’, and speakers included GJA Secretary Tahir Latif on the same subject, the future for cars, as well as Simon Pirani: Fare Free Transport and George Arthur: Better Buses South Yorkshire.  Chair was Peter Murry: Green Left.