phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[peterboat]

5 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I am certainly not a climate change denier but I do wonder what impact the early UK reduction will actually have in practice, given  that it was mentioned in a recent radio programme that the UK is only responsible for about 1% of the world's man-made CO2 emissions.  It's like the UK being responsible for one hole in a collander. Even if we close our hole  completely, it will have no real impact when other countries are actually making new holes by cutting down rain forests or building coal-fired power stations. 

 

There is also the unexpressed assumption thst there is such a thing as a normal climate and a normal temperature. I must admit to not being a professional  geologist, but  have always taken a great interest in the subject since my schooldays   Even in our present  post-glacial era, Europe's mean temperature has not been steady but has fluctuated from century to century with negligible assistance from man.  Things were significantly warmer in the Roman era, when grape vines were easily cultivated in Britannia. In the  Viking era, say from about 1200 years ago, the coastal regions of Greenland were warm enough to support viable colonies - calling the newly-discovered land "Greenland" was not entirely Viking spin to attract colonists. By the 1600's Europe's climate became colder.  Trees no longer grow in regions of Ireand and Scotland where they used to thrive, as evidenced by tree roots found in bogs. 

 

It is sometimes asserted that government policy (in general) l is supported by the figures. When I was a Civil Servant I once attended a senior management course that included a session on statistics. Now when I was at University I learned how to use statistical methods to establish the truth about things:  batch sampling to ensure that manufactured items were within specified tolerances,  how long is something expected to last before it develops a fault, etc.  Analyse the data first, and then make objective conclusions based on the data.

 

Not so with the government. I learned that the usual procedure was to put the cart before the horse by deciding policy first and then requiring their civil servants to produce figures in support of that policy afterwards. In real life, figures from different sources rarely agree, and you can nearly always find something  to support your view. As an exercise, all participants were given identical sets of genuine official statistics and the same policy statement. Half were asked to present figure showing the statement was true, the rest that it was false. We were each able to produce figures supporting the two opposite policies.

 

So you will understsnd my cynicism whenever I hear a minister refer to what the figures show: I muse on the supressed figures that could well point to a different conclusion, or indeed the figures that have not been collected at all for the same reason.

 

When countries lead others follow! We arnt the only country phasing out fossil fuel and getting rid of ICE vehicles some earlier than us

[Tony Brooks]

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

When countries lead others follow! We arnt the only country phasing out fossil fuel and getting rid of ICE vehicles some earlier than us

No but you can bet your life that in any country it will be ordinary people who suffer most from such  government policies. Its too little too late. think how many homes built over the last 10 years could have been draft free, super insulated, and with super efficient heating systems if the governments had altered the building regulations to ensure it was so.

[1st ade]

16 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Taxing car use and car ownership was first suggested over 100 years ago ( I can look up exactly when in Plowden, The Motorcar and Politics which is on the shelves in my office). Successive governments have toyed with the idea and all have failed save for the Road Fund Licence, tax on fuel and the odd toll road. It's not as if taxing cars to oblivion is a new idea, it's just that it's one that no one has dared implement and as far as they have (fuel duty, road tax increments) it's made bugger all difference

In my humble opinion, taxing also hits the wrong people. High tax's are unlikely to affect the company car brigade or the "more money than sense status symbol*" but will hit the careful person on a small budget who continues with ICE because of one medium journey a week that public transport can't fill

 

[ * - we live in a narrow street of terraced houses - front door straight onto the pavement. One house has a husband and wife pair who, once a year, trade their twelve month old Skoda SUVs (plural) for an identical newer pair. They have two cars worth probably £60k, but are content to leave them blocking the highway. And they don't (IMHO) need ruddy great SUV's! ]

 

[Victor Vectis]

I wonder if they are used on a school run?

 

Two Ton School Run

 

I love Tim Hunkin's stuff!

Edited December 5, 2020 by Victor Vectis
Capital 'T'

[Murflynn]

23 minutes ago, 1st ade said:

In my humble opinion, taxing also hits the wrong people. High tax's are unlikely to affect the company car brigade or the "more money than sense status symbol*" but will hit the careful person on a small budget who continues with ICE because of one medium journey a week that public transport can't fill

 

 

 

AFAIK company cars are heavily taxed.

 

 

 

PS: have you read "Eats Shoots and Leaves" ?

[1st ade]

1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

PS: have you read "Eats Shoots and Leaves" ?

Yes - but some time ago... (and it show's shows)

2 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

AFAIK company cars are heavily taxed.

Yes, but the company (in many cases) then just up's the ante in an apologetic way to the employee "We're sorry we have to tax you so highly, we'll make it up some other way"

 

I'll lay money that if say road duty was doubled for company car's there would not be much of a drop off - except for the "one man bands" with a company van who'd struggle. But the CEO's and Board Members who get a car "because they are important" wouldn't notice.

 

Perhaps I'm (alright, I am!) bitter and twisted since, as a lifelong civil servant I've never had one. But I like the Danish model where company car's are kept at company HQ except when out on Company business. After a business trip you take the car back to HQ and then go home by whatever is your preferred method of travel. There are exceptions for those on call but you have to show a genuine expectation that there might be a call at 2AM on Sunday that needs you to travel if you want that company car outside your house.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

AFAIK company cars are heavily taxed.

 

 

 

PS: have you read "Eats Shoots and Leaves" ?

 

My last company car (getting on for 20 years ago) cost me almost £5000 per year in additional tax (not tax on £5k, but £5k paid)

It was a Land Rover Discovery.

 

Looking at todays figures, for the base 2.0 model I see they are still £639 per month for a high band tax payer

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, 1st ade said:

Perhaps I'm (alright, I am!) bitter and twisted since, as a lifelong civil servant I've never had one. But I like the Danish model where company car's are kept at company HQ except when out on Company business. After a business trip you take the car back to HQ and then go home by whatever is your preferred method of travel. There are exceptions for those on call but you have to show a genuine expectation that there might be a call at 2AM on Sunday that needs you to travel if you want that company car outside your house.

 

In an effort to reduce my tax payments I suggested to the compnay that I do exactly that, but they refused saying that they did not have the space or secure parking for everyone to leave their cars 'at the office'. It was a requirement of the job that you took the car home.

 

How does the 'Danish system' work for a saleman who needs a company car and operates from home ?

Does he have to drive 100's miles from his last call of the day to the office, leave the car and then make the trip back home, reverse the journey the next morning, repeat repeat .........

 

Travel from home to the office was then (I don't know about now) considered by the 'tax-man' as private travel and you were taxed on that journey also.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[1st ade]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In an effort to reduce my tax payments I suggested to the compnay that I do exactly that, but they refused saying that they did not have the space or secure parking for everyone to leave their cars 'at the office'. It was a requirement of the job that you took the car home.

 

How does the 'Danish system' work for a saleman who needs a company car and operates from home ?

Does he have to drive 100's miles from his last call of the day to the office, leave the car and then make the trip back home, reverse the journey the next morning, repeat repeat .........

 

Travel from home to the office was then (I don't know about now) considered by the 'tax-man' as private travel and you were taxed on that journey also.

I'll be honest - i don't know the details.

 

In a previous (civil service) life I did a lot of business with Danish companies - stories varied but a typical example was me and three colleagues visiting a company - the Technical Director would check out a car, pick us up from the hotel, take us to work, maybe out for an evening meal, then drop us at the hotel, take the car back to work, and drive home. When I queried this he said: -

• If I declare the car as being at home overnight I'm taxed on 1/730th the value per night. The car is assumed to have a company lifetime of two years
• If I don't declare the car as being at home and get caught it will be assumed that every night the whereabouts of the car was unknown, it was on my drive

I offered to drive - offer accepted - I took my colleagues to the Danish Company, picked up the TD if we went for a meal, stayed sober, dropped him at home and left the car in the hotel car park. Next morning, pick him up and repeat.

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

... his last call of the day to the office, leave the car and then make the trip back home...

And therein probably lies the assumption. your office is near home...

[1st ade]

1 hour ago, 1st ade said:

In my humble opinion, taxing also hits the wrong people. High tax's are unlikely to affect the company car brigade or the "more money than sense status symbol*" but will hit the careful person on a small budget who continues with ICE because of one medium journey a week that public transport can't fill

 

[ * - we live in a narrow street of terraced houses - front door straight onto the pavement. One house has a husband and wife pair who, once a year, trade their twelve month old Skoda SUVs (plural) for an identical newer pair. They have two cars worth probably £60k, but are content to leave them blocking the highway. And they don't (IMHO) need ruddy great SUV's! ]

 

On the same street is a guy who works for Western Power Distribution. His company "car" is a white Land rover with winch, roof ladders, sign-written with the "WPD - call 105 in an emergency" and packed with low tech kit (spades, barriers) for looking after underground and overhead cables. I have absolutely no problem with his company car on the street.

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, 1st ade said:

In my humble opinion, taxing also hits the wrong people. High tax's are unlikely to affect the company car brigade or the "more money than sense status symbol*" but will hit the careful person on a small budget who continues with ICE because of one medium journey a week that public transport can't fill

 

[ * - we live in a narrow street of terraced houses - front door straight onto the pavement. One house has a husband and wife pair who, once a year, trade their twelve month old Skoda SUVs (plural) for an identical newer pair. They have two cars worth probably £60k, but are content to leave them blocking the highway. And they don't (IMHO) need ruddy great SUV's! ]

 

 

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

AFAIK company cars are heavily taxed.

 

 

 

PS: have you read "Eats Shoots and Leaves" ?

Company car tax is emissions based so it incentivises EVs since the driver isn’t directly subjected to the high purchase cost but can benefit from reduced tax compared to an equivalent petrol - or diesel - model.

 

That’s why we are - probably - soon to have our first EV in our household. (Not an SUV, not to be parked on the public highway and not be used for school runs).

[Rob-M]

A friend of mine has a Tesla as his company car because it was the lowest in tax being an EV.

[Momac]

7 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

 

 

So you will understsnd my cynicism whenever I hear a minister refer to what the figures show: I muse on the supressed figures that could well point to a different conclusion, or indeed the figures that have not been collected at all for the same reason.

 

I studied analysis of statistics at A level then again as part of my degree.

I recall on the degree we analysed the data in 4 or 5  different ways  all of which were proven and accepted as valid.

 

I asked which method we should use in practice . The answer was to use the method that gives the result you prefer to hear .

 

.....

 

 

I am doubtful of  that electric vehicles are any less polluting than ICE vehicles when  everything is taken into account including fuel production (including electricity production) .  However  I do see the use of electricity for powering vehicles rather than fossil fuels to be a benefit providing the electricity production does not use fossil fuels. Unfortunately  electricity does presently require the use of fossil fuels (including nuclear) since fossil  fuels are used in the construction and day to day operation of the power station even if not directly as a fuel for driving a generator. The power station near me runs on gas. One of the larger power stations , further North ,runs on bio fuel but that fuel is harvested and  transported using fossil fuels.

 

Fossil fuels are used in the production of electric cars not only for the mining of resources including metals  , the smelting of steel but also in the production of components such as metals , tyres and paint .

 

I would not doubt electric vehicles will become the norm but I don't think existing  ICE  vehicles should be forced off the roads (nor should boats be forced off the canals for that matter). It would seem to me environmentally acceptable for  existing ICE cars to remain in use without financial tax penalty  for as long as people wish to do so.  Similarly  the pollution from leisure boats must be minimal in the overall scheme of things. 

 

 

 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

No but you can bet your life that in any country it will be ordinary people who suffer most from such  government policies. Its too little too late. think how many homes built over the last 10 years could have been draft free, super insulated, and with super efficient heating systems if the governments had altered the building regulations to ensure it was so.

They could even have their roofs covered in solar panels from new build, but that still is not happening

[Tony Brooks]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

They could even have their roofs covered in solar panels from new build, but that still is not happening

Of course not, that would probably hit building companies' profits and directors bonuses. Much better to set up subsidy systems for retrofit that allows ordinary folks go be subject to sales calls from dubious setups pretending to be government agencies.

[bizzard]

Hundreds of private light aircraft up today mostly just doodling about for fun, polluting ''Flightradar24.  Never seemed to be mentioned.

[cuthound]

5 hours ago, 1st ade said:

Yes - but some time ago... (and it show's shows)

Yes, but the company (in many cases) then just up's the ante in an apologetic way to the employee "We're sorry we have to tax you so highly, we'll make it up some other way"

 

I'll lay money that if say road duty was doubled for company car's there would not be much of a drop off - except for the "one man bands" with a company van who'd struggle. But the CEO's and Board Members who get a car "because they are important" wouldn't notice.

 

Perhaps I'm (alright, I am!) bitter and twisted since, as a lifelong civil servant I've never had one. But I like the Danish model where company car's are kept at company HQ except when out on Company business. After a business trip you take the car back to HQ and then go home by whatever is your preferred method of travel. There are exceptions for those on call but you have to show a genuine expectation that there might be a call at 2AM on Sunday that needs you to travel if you want that company car outside your house.

 

For most of the 80's and the beginning of the 90's, BT had an arrangement with car hire companies to deliver and collect cars to the employees home address whenever a car was needed on business.

 

However in the early 90's they changed their policy to that of most companies, and included a company car as part of the renumeration package.

 

 

[IanD]

4 hours ago, MartynG said:

I studied analysis of statistics at A level then again as part of my degree.

I recall on the degree we analysed the data in 4 or 5  different ways  all of which were proven and accepted as valid.

 

I asked which method we should use in practice . The answer was to use the method that gives the result you prefer to hear .

 

.....

 

 

I am doubtful of  that electric vehicles are any less polluting than ICE vehicles when  everything is taken into account including fuel production (including electricity production) .  However  I do see the use of electricity for powering vehicles rather than fossil fuels to be a benefit providing the electricity production does not use fossil fuels. Unfortunately  electricity does presently require the use of fossil fuels (including nuclear) since fossil  fuels are used in the construction and day to day operation of the power station even if not directly as a fuel for driving a generator. The power station near me runs on gas. One of the larger power stations , further North ,runs on bio fuel but that fuel is harvested and  transported using fossil fuels.

 

Fossil fuels are used in the production of electric cars not only for the mining of resources including metals  , the smelting of steel but also in the production of components such as metals , tyres and paint .

 

I would not doubt electric vehicles will become the norm but I don't think existing  ICE  vehicles should be forced off the roads (nor should boats be forced off the canals for that matter). It would seem to me environmentally acceptable for  existing ICE cars to remain in use without financial tax penalty  for as long as people wish to do so.  Similarly  the pollution from leisure boats must be minimal in the overall scheme of things. 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of being doubtful you could always look at the facts.

 

Which clearly show that even allowing for the total cost of fuel/electricity production and the steel (and lithium etc) that goes into cars, the lifetime CO2 burden of BEV is far lower than ICE.

 

And no I'm not going to provide you with a nicely curated list of references, go and do your own research. Start here...

 

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=lifetime+CO2+cost+of+BEV+and+ICE

Edited December 5, 2020 by IanD

[blackrose]

On 14/11/2020 at 12:55, rgreg said:

Here's a webinar presentation by the IWA Sustainable Propulsion Group:

 

 

This was an interesting watch for me. I'm still a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to this sort of thing. However, I'm sure others have mentioned it somewhere in this thread, despite what he seemed to be saying if you recharge batteries by simply plugging into the mains although you certainly reduce diesel emissions  it's not carbon free/carbon neutral because about half of the UK's electricity is still produced using fossil fuels. To that you also have to add all the inefficiencies in electricity distribution in the grid. 

 

The other thing as shown by his own figures is that using a diesel generator to charge batteries to power an electric motor is really hardly any more efficient in terms of fuel consumption than just having a diesel propulsion engine.

 

I think I read another post somewhere maybe from Alan saying that diesels will gradually be phased out and that's a good thing because if good diesel engines are ripped out of boats and new systems are installed only for a boat to sit in a marina as many currently do, than the overall environmental impact will be negative. The same may actually be true in the case of early adopters of new technologies, which then turn out to be intermediate steps and all the "new" propulsion systems they have installed have to be ripped out and replaced. So we mustn't forget about all the embedded energy and emissions involved in producing new equipment.   

 

I can see the benefits when it comes to cars and commercial road vehicles due to their shorter lifespans, quicker turnover and greater use, but I'm less convinced when it comes to leisure boats.

Edited December 5, 2020 by blackrose

[Murflynn]

5 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

Of course not, that would probably hit building companies' profits and directors bonuses. Much better to set up subsidy systems for retrofit that allows ordinary folks go be subject to sales calls from dubious setups pretending to be government agencies.

did I imagine it, or did Boris recently announce that in the very near future it will be illegal to install gas fired central heating in new homes?

[Tony Brooks]

1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

did I imagine it, or did Boris recently announce that in the very near future it will be illegal to install gas fired central heating in new homes?

I heard that and guess who will be paying for expensive heat pump systems or in so many cases wasting electrical heating through inadequate construction standards over the years. You may also may have heard how noises are being made to ban solid fuel/wood stoves at the alter of pollution. Talk about legislating for effective monopolies - that is heat electric or freeze. Still it will reduce the number of old people who die because they can't afford to heat their home.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

This was an interesting watch for me. I'm still a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to this sort of thing. However, I'm sure others have mentioned it somewhere in this thread, despite what he seemed to be saying if you recharge batteries by simply plugging into the mains although you certainly reduce diesel emissions  it's not carbon free/carbon neutral because about half of the UK's electricity is still produced using fossil fuels. To that you also have to add all the inefficiencies in electricity distribution in the grid. 

 

The other thing as shown by his own figures is that using a diesel generator to charge batteries to power an electric motor is really hardly any more efficient in terms of fuel consumption than just having a diesel propulsion engine.

 

I think I read another post somewhere maybe from Alan saying that diesels will gradually be phased out and that's a good thing because if good diesel engines are ripped out of boats and new systems are installed only for a boat to sit in a marina as many currently do, than the overall environmental impact will be negative. The same may actually be true in the case of early adopters of new technologies, which then turn out to be intermediate steps and all the "new" propulsion systems they have installed have to be ripped out and replaced. So we mustn't forget about all the embedded energy and emissions involved in producing new equipment.   

 

I can see the benefits when it comes to cars and commercial road vehicles due to their shorter lifespans, quicker turnover and greater use, but I'm less convinced when it comes to leisure boats.

You're missing the point that plugging a battery [car, boat, whatever...] into the mains *does* have a lower CO2 impact -- typically about half -- because the overall "well-to-wheel" efficiency is about 2x that of ICE, even including all the generation/distribution/charging losses -- suggest you go and look up the numbers instead of speculating, there are plenty out there.

 

This is true even if all the electricity comes from fossil fuels. If some of it comes from renewables (like today in the UK, on average) the difference is even bigger.

 

You're correct that a series hybrid (diesel generator ==> batteries ==> electric motor) saves very little or no fuel/CO2 compared to just using a diesel. If some of the power comes from solar that helps, if some comes from plugging into the mains (where?) that helps even more, if all of it comes from solar (unlikely for a narrowboat) that's the best of all.

 

Scrapping an existing diesel to replace it with something plug-in with lower CO2 might or might not pay off in the long run -- true for cars but probably not for boats, just as you say.

 

For a new car the position is clear, for a new boat you're right that it's not so obvious -- unless/until there's a network of charging stations, in which case electric (even with a generator for backup when plug-in power isn't available) is clearly better. Unless you have a *lot*of solar and are willing to wait to recharge between cruises (like Peter's widebeam) so you can go solar-only even without plugging in, but this won't work for many people especially on narrowboats and in winter.

 

And this ignores the fact that inland waterways boats in the UK contribute maybe 10000x less CO2 than cars (1000x more of them with 10x the fuel usage), so you can get the same CO2 benefit as turning every boat electric (expensive and difficult) by improving the efficiency of cars by 0.01%. I know the slogan says "every little helps", but here it really doesn't...

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I heard that and guess who will be paying for expensive heat pump systems or in so many cases wasting electrical heating through inadequate construction standards over the years. You may also may have heard how noises are being made to ban solid fuel/wood stoves at the alter of pollution. Talk about legislating for effective monopolies - that is heat electric or freeze. Still it will reduce the number of old people who die because they can't afford to heat their home.

Gas central heating is cheap to buy and ruin, and is responsible for a significant part of UK CO2 emissions. The world (and our government) very much want/need to reduce CO2 emissions. Heat pumps (with energy partly from renewables) are expensive but have much lower CO2 impact. Better insulation should be essential on new houses but can be difficult to retrofit to old ones.

 

The UK used to burn huge amounts of dirt cheap coal in domestic fires which was terrible for both pollution and CO2 emissions, over the years this has disappeared and been replaced by gas which is cleaner and lower CO2 but more expensive to both fit and run. Exactly the same will happen again with the shift from gas CH to renewables (which means heat pumps), but it will take time and cost money because burning fossil fuels is the cheapest and easiest energy source.

 

We have to to everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions including better insulation *and* reducing fossil fuel consumption, in this case meaning gas for heating. What would you have the government do, ignore the gas CH problem and let things carry on as today?

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Gas central heating is cheap to buy and ruin, and is responsible for a significant part of UK CO2 emissions. The world (and our government) very much want/need to reduce CO2 emissions. Heat pumps (with energy partly from renewables) are expensive but have much lower CO2 impact. Better insulation should be essential on new houses but can be difficult to retrofit to old ones.

 

The UK used to burn huge amounts of dirt cheap coal in domestic fires which was terrible for both pollution and CO2 emissions, over the years this has disappeared and been replaced by gas which is cleaner and lower CO2 but more expensive to both fit and run. Exactly the same will happen again with the shift from gas CH to renewables (which means heat pumps), but it will take time and cost money because burning fossil fuels is the cheapest and easiest energy source.

 

We have to to everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions including better insulation *and* reducing fossil fuel consumption, in this case meaning gas for heating. What would you have the government do, ignore the gas CH problem and let things carry on as today?

Ordinary people have to essentially buy/rent the homes they are offered and governments have had so many years to ensure new housing met the highest environmental standards but chose not to.

 

Just ensure that everybody can have highly insulated homes without drafts and as Brian said roofs full of solar. Also make sure that wherever you live a standard of life and movement available in cities is also available in rural areas at similar cost if private cares are to be discouraged. Naturally bringing homes and transport to  suitable standards will cost eye watering amounts of money but why is it that ordinary folk will be the ones expected to pay while those that profited form the lax standards pocket the money and get off scot free. That includes the politicians.

 

You can bet the Rees Moggs and P Greens etc of this world won't be the ones to suffer, they never are.

 

One thing governments could do is to pay 100% of the costs of the work needed with the residents only paying the money back by the proven  savings. After all it has now been proven there is a magic money forest available. This could be phased in and the existing heating & transport be retained until your turn for upgrade comes.

 

Edited to add. The government would have to take some steps with real teeth to stop the all too prevalent crooks using such a programme to cold call householders to sell them very expensive stuff that they do not need or that wont be fully covered by such a loan scheme. They would also need to ensure the charge stays with the property and would not case mortgage problems.

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Tony Brooks

[peterboat]

23 hours ago, MartynG said:

I studied analysis of statistics at A level then again as part of my degree.

I recall on the degree we analysed the data in 4 or 5  different ways  all of which were proven and accepted as valid.

 

I asked which method we should use in practice . The answer was to use the method that gives the result you prefer to hear .

 

.....

 

 

I am doubtful of  that electric vehicles are any less polluting than ICE vehicles when  everything is taken into account including fuel production (including electricity production) .  However  I do see the use of electricity for powering vehicles rather than fossil fuels to be a benefit providing the electricity production does not use fossil fuels. Unfortunately  electricity does presently require the use of fossil fuels (including nuclear) since fossil  fuels are used in the construction and day to day operation of the power station even if not directly as a fuel for driving a generator. The power station near me runs on gas. One of the larger power stations , further North ,runs on bio fuel but that fuel is harvested and  transported using fossil fuels.

 

Fossil fuels are used in the production of electric cars not only for the mining of resources including metals  , the smelting of steel but also in the production of components such as metals , tyres and paint .

 

I would not doubt electric vehicles will become the norm but I don't think existing  ICE  vehicles should be forced off the roads (nor should boats be forced off the canals for that matter). It would seem to me environmentally acceptable for  existing ICE cars to remain in use without financial tax penalty  for as long as people wish to do so.  Similarly  the pollution from leisure boats must be minimal in the overall scheme of things. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thankfully the people running industry and countries know you are wrong, yesterday I went to London and back it was business so allowed, my mate who went with me was amazed at how many electric vehicles he saw, the uptake on on electric vehicles since BIK was changed for EVs has prompted many purchases of them. Also the electric taxis where everywhere, he commented that since electric vehicles and boats were becoming the norm in Amsterdam the air quality had massively improved (air quality is part of his job). We also only saw 3 planes whilst passing Luton and Heathrow which will no doubt help London air quality. For the world to have a future fossil fuels have to go. As an aside according to splash 24/7 a marine letter 27% of new big boats are be powered by anything but bunker fuel! This is things like LNG, various other gases Hydrogen etc. and plans are afoot for small nuclear reactors for the big stuff,things are changing thankfully for my grandchildren to have a future.