The debate over electric vehicle (EV) targets has reignited as the government reviews its 22 per cent EV sales mandate, rising annually to a 2035 petrol and diesel ban.
Supporters see the targets as vital for tackling climate change and boosting green innovation, while critics call them unrealistic without stronger government backing.
When we asked for your views, readers highlighted the need for clear policies, financial incentives, and better infrastructure.
Some pointed out the lack of affordable EVs, warning of competition from cheaper imports. Meanwhile, calls for long-term guarantees, like trade-in schemes and future-proof charging networks, were common.
Sceptics questioned EVs’ environmental benefits compared to hydrogen or dual-fuel vehicles.
Stellantis’s plant closure, risking 1,100 jobs, was cited as evidence of the economic risks tied to EV rules, with £15,000 non-compliance fines also sparking criticism.
Here’s what you had to say:
‘Listen to business people, not politicians’
My vote goes to listening to business people, instead of weak politicians who bend to whatever is in the press or some unknown Scandinavian school child appearing on TV. Let car makers make the decision, based on global scientific advice where necessary, linked to realism and not star gazing.
— BlueButton
‘Vanity drive’
It’s costing jobs all around the world. This is a biggie that won’t happen for decades to come, if ever. There are far too many things wrong with electric cars. It’s such a huge leap with not much benefit to the planet—too many people are on a vanity drive. The government should have chosen hydrogen. They chose electricity but are doing very little to help.
— Ordinarybloke
The future of clean fuel
The combustion engine will continue into the future as clean fuel comes online, rendering EVs expensive and with limited range. There is no real future for them, and the carbon footprint will be much bigger than leaving clean fuel cars on the road, whose carbon footprint is much lower. This EV exercise is an effort by governments to make more money from higher-cost EV cars. It’s a phoney exercise. You can buy a clean dual-fuel car, petrol/LPG, for a third the cost of a medium EV. For example, Dacia makes sense to me.
— Nestoras
Targets need financial support
Targets support aspirations. The government (of any persuasion) cannot rely on car manufacturers, infrastructure providers, and consumers to deliver the results it wants and for which it will take credit if the targets are attained. For this to succeed, the government will have to help all three groups with financial incentives. I’ll leave it for others to decide how that can be achieved.
— LeftOfZen
Gap in the market
Whilst I understand the reasons for EVs currently costing more than their fossil-fuelled counterparts, it seems that all manufacturers want to go high-end/luxury, presumably because it is more profitable. The problem with that, of course, is that not everyone can afford it. Ford is a classic example—it phased out its affordable and popular Fiesta and Focus models without really replacing them and is now struggling. At the moment, there is a gap in the market for a cheap, affordable EV runabout, and if European manufacturers are not careful, that gap will be flooded with imports from other countries, China in particular.
— Soverytired
‘Incentives needed’
Targets are needed, but so are some incentives to make it work. I’m looking at getting an EV, but it’s the uncertainty of the future of EVs that’s stopping me buying. There are a few things that could help—a clear statement from the government, car industry, and environmental groups that EVs are the future, with explanations why it’s not hydrogen or synthetic/biofuels (it would be interesting if all those groups could agree on a simple, clear statement or if we’d get different views, like yes to EVs as long as they are not SUVs?).
A major programme to educate people on EVs would help (address the myths, cover how best to use an EV, but also highlight the limitations and be realistic on range!). Much more support is needed to expand charging infrastructure—not just sticking chargers in a corner of a car park but major support for anyone building proper charging hubs.
Finally, I want to keep my car for 10+ years. I accept that battery tech will probably go through 2-3 step changes, but I want to know the charging network will still support my car in 10 years. Perhaps the government and industry could come up with a trade-in scheme that guarantees a future minimum value for my then-obsolete car.
— SlowJogger
Covert subsidy
Under no circumstances should buying carbon credits be allowed. It was a covert subsidy to Tesla by the US government, and at the moment, anything which benefits Musk is a threat to both democracy and this country.
I do think that the £15,000 per vehicle incentive is grossly excessive. It simply encourages manufacturers to push towards more expensive vehicles which have higher margins. A carbon tax would make more sense. People will continue to buy petrol and diesel cars, so they need to be encouraged to buy smaller, less polluting ones. A combination of a carbon tax and a vehicle weight tax would be much fairer since there are many people in cities who realistically cannot use EVs at the moment or for several years to come.
Smaller, less expensive EVs are on the horizon—Renault 5, Hyundai Inster, Leapmotor/Stellantis TO3—and only once they are available in volume should the oil tax go up, surely?
— Erbium
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.
The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.
