North Yorkshire Climate Coalition

​

Thirsk Friends of the Earth   |   Zero Carbon Harrogate   |   CPRE North and East Yorkshire   |   Climate Action Stokesley and Villages   |   Richmondshire Climate Action Partnership   |   Ryedale Environmental Group   |   Nidderdale Climate + Environment Group   |   Climate Action Northallerton   |   Clapham Sustainability Group   |    Thirsk Churches Ecology Group   |   North Yorkshire West Federation Women's Institutes Climate Change Action   |   Pickering Environmental Group   |   Project Purple Hovingham   |   Malton and Norton Environmental Group   |   Kirby Misperton Environmental Group   |   Action on Climate Emergency (ACE) Settle and Area   |   Malhamdale Environmental Group   |   Climate Action Skipton  |  Kirkbymoorside Environment Group |  Fossil Free North Yorkshire  |  Community Climate Action Group – Sand Hutton, Claxton and Surrounding Villages  |  Circular Malton and Norton   |  Our Zero Selby |  Knaresborough and Harrogate Friends of the Earth

​​​

Submission to the government consultation on the ZEV mandate

 

​​North Yorkshire Climate Coalition, representing 24 climate and environmental groups across North Yorkshire, wishes to make the following representations in response to the government consultation on proposals to weaken the ZEV mandate to 2030.

It is our view that current Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate of 80% by 2030 is robust, pragmatic and achievable. Diluting the mandate under any of the proposed options would create a profound policy contradiction, undermining both the UK’s statutory net-zero obligations, its long-term economic competitiveness and public health.

 

Climate impacts

The UK’s interim carbon target for 2030 is a  68% reduction in GHG emissions.

The current EV mandate is acknowledged to be Britain’s biggest carbon-reduction policy of this decade.

Road transport accounts for a massive portion of the UK's carbon footprint. According to analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), lowering the 2030 target to 50% would effectively remove approximately 5.8 million electric vehicles from UK roads by 2030.

ICE vehicles sold between 2026 and 2030 would remain operational for an average of 14 years. Delaying their displacement would therefore lock in over a decade of unnecessary tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO₂) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) emissions.

As the 2035 target remains unchanged, the government's proposed dilution options appear to assume that slower progress now can simply be corrected through steeper cuts up to 2035. However, climate modelling (e.g. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Chapter 3: Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals) shows that the total warming effect (i.e. from cumulative emissions) is determined by the area under the emissions curve. Two pathways can end at the exact same net-zero target year (in this case 2035), but a pathway with slow, delayed cuts will have a much larger area under the curve. Shifting from an aggressive linear adoption path to a delayed, back-loaded curve would expand the total volume of CO₂ released into the atmosphere. According to modelling by the Green Alliance, this would make it much more difficult to comply with the UK's legally binding carbon budget. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) June 2026 Progress Report to Parliament notes that ‘There is now a significant gap between the plan’s projected emissions reductions and the UK’s 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement’. The pace of progress is currently too slow to close this gap without accelerated action. Weakening the ZEV mandate would widen this gap further.

 

Economic considerations

Regulatory certainty

The current mandate provides regulatory certainty. This is crucial in order to stimulate long-term capital expenditure in manufacturing and charging networks. Our view is that weakening the mandate would create policy volatility, driving capital flight to more stable regulatory jurisdictions.

More widely, backtracking on the mandate risks slowing billions in economic investment – capital vital for reindustrialising the country with 21st-century sectors such as lithium mining and refining and battery supply chains.

 

Infrastructure

By driving up utilisation rates and therefore shortening payback periods, the current mandate provides an incentive for operators to expand EV charging infrastructure. A weakened mandate  would suppress demand, disincentivising capital investment given the risk of charge point operators being left with underutilised, semi-stranded assets.

 

Secondary market

A strong mandate of 80% will support the emergence of a robust second-hand market, lowering upfront costs for lower-income households.        Weakening the mandate would restrict the supply of used EVs and therefore slow progress towards widespread EV adoption.

 

Trade and competitiveness

The current mandate is aligned with wider international market shifts (e.g. in the EU). Weakening the mandate would leave the UK automotive sector producing vehicles based on technologies of the past rather than the future, damaging international competitiveness.

 

Macroeconomic cost of inaction

Proponents of weakening the mandate point to current macroeconomic headwinds and cooling retail demand. However, this perspective overlooks systemic costs:

1. Fossil fuel dependency: A slower EV transition would prolong UK reliance on volatile, imported fossil fuels, leaving consumers vulnerable to geopolitical energy shocks.

2. Long-term GDP drag: Even under current policies, climate change impacts are projected to cause a 7.4% loss in UK GDP by 2100. Any short-term savings for underperforming vehicle manufacturers are vastly outweighed by the macroeconomic damage of failing to meet climate goals.

​

​

Public health impacts

Taking diesel and petrol traffic off our roads offers a swift and effective way to simultaneously slash air pollution and climate-heating greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEV mandate is a key lever to drive that change.

Analysis commissioned by the Clean Air Fund suggests weakening the ZEV mandate could increase health costs by £882 million and result in thousands of life-years lost.

​​

Conclusions

In our view, the proposal to lower the ZEV mandate is an economically counterproductive measure disguised as pragmatic flexibility. The push to lower targets comes from motor industry lobbying rather than market reality. Electric vehicle sales are already growing, and the mandate is a crucial lever that forces manufacturers to make cleaner cars more affordable.

Scientifically, any weakening would expand cumulative emissions (total area under the curve) at a time when the UK is already off track to meet its 2030 NDC. Economically, reducing the mandate would penalise early movers, stall infrastructure deployment and risk isolating the UK automotive sector from global supply chains.

To protect both the environment and future industrial growth, the government should maintain the 80% target while aggressively deploying targeted structural remedies, e.g. equalising public/private charging VAT rates, making home charging easier for those without a drive, expanding grid capacity and offering targeted consumer incentives that address the underlying demand constraints.

For the reasons set out above, North Yorkshire Climate Coalition is therefore opposed to any weakening of the current 80% target by 2030.

 

22 October 2026

North Yorkshire Climate Coalition