Whenever government launches something like an electric vehicle incentive scheme, it raises entirely legitimate questions from the public about the justification, the sums of money involved, the timetable and so on. I’ve had emails from members of the public and there’s been comment on social media. So here are a few thoughts answering some of the issues that have been raised. I’ll try and add to it as more comments come in.
First, let’s see if we can all agree on some common ground. My starting point is the need to decarbonise the economy as described in the carbon neutral roadmap, with the aim of reducing emissions by 68% by 2030 and 78% by 2035 (compared to a 1990 base level). I think we can agree that these are exceptionally demanding targets, given the current slow rate of decarbonisation. We also know that transport accounts for around 40% of the island’s emissions (it fluctuates each year), with on island transport (essentially road transport) accounting for a large majority of that amount. Therefore, decarbonising road transport is a very high priority.
So, how do we decarbonise road transport? I could take the easy way out and point out that the policy package we’ve announced to incentivise EV adoption is nearly identical to that which was outlined in the carbon neutral roadmap and adopted overwhelmingly in the Assembly (one vote against) in 2022. The EV incentive package (and related EV charging incentive) should not come as a surprise. However, let me tackle some of the points that have been raised afresh.
Why are we subsidising car ownership, when the greater need is to remove cars from the roads and promote other alternatives?
It is absolutely true that we need to reduce car usage through promoting active travel, public transport and shared transport options (such as Evie). And we’re doing all of those things (although I accept that we need to do more). But whatever mix of active travel, public transport subsidy and shared ownership we pursue, it is absolutely clear that many thousands of people will continue to need cars (and vans) to go about their normal business. I’m one of them. There are lots of journeys we make as a family that would not be possible without the use of a private car. I say that as someone who has cycled from St Brelade to work (in town) every single day since I was elected.
So yes, we need to reduce the number of car journeys. Yes, we need to improve public transport, Yes, we need to promote shared ownership. Yes, we need to get more people on bicycles. But still, many people in Jersey have a legitimate need for cars and will continue to do so whatever we do to promote alternatives. Therefore, the question is how to decarbonise this form of transport. It’s not either/or – we need to incentivise ALL forms of carbon reduction in transport. An EV incentive is one of a suite of measures that we are putting in place to help decarbonise transport.
Why are you giving money to people who are already able to afford EV’s?
Unfortunately, the plain truth is that all these people who supposedly have the money to buy EV’s are simply not doing so. Jersey’s EV adoption rate is pitifully low (around 2%, compared to say China at 5% or Norway at 25% plus). For whatever reason (and the evidence certainly points to high initial cost as a major factor), the public are not choosing EV’s over ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles in anywhere near the numbers we need if we are to even begin to make a dent in our transport emissions. Worse, every ICE car bought now makes the task of decarbonising harder in the future, by putting another new petrol/diesel car on the roads with a long life, further extending the life of the ICE fleet. We simply have to start getting EV’s on the road in more numbers, “steepening the curve” of EV adoption, if we are to make inroads in our transport emissions. The incentive we’ve announded is effectively a “nudge”, working in the same way as the Ebike “nudge”, to persuade people that with some “free” money from government, this is the time to make the purchase.
Experience in other jurisdictions shows that the formula for increasing the uptake of EV’s is in many way quite simple. Reduce the cost of EV’s and raise the cost of ICE vehicles. That’s what we’re starting to do. It’s not widely known, but we have considerably increased Vehicle Excise Duty on ICE cars (an 80% plus increase on the most polluting cars last year, with another increase in the offing this year). We also fund the Climate Emergency Fund out of a 9p a litre “levy” on fuel prices (albeit this levy was frozen last year because of the cost-of-living crisis), which is effectively an additional carbon tax. So, we are starting to ramp up charges on polluting vehicles. However, I do not think it fits the principles of the just transition to go any further down this route without offering incentives to help avoid these charges. That’s where the EV incentive comes in.
It’s also critically important to remember that the EV incentive is one part of a whole range of measures to which we are committed, as detailed in the CNR. Some of these will take longer than others, some of them I’m frustrated that we haven’t moved quicker. But we’re working on all of them, and when you add all the measures up, it makes for a socially just, environmentally positive suite of measures that will benefit not just the island’s decarbonisation objectives, but also cleaner air and healthier lives.
But we still need cars.
Addendum: Why Jersey matters
There’s been some comment along the lines of: Jersey makes an infinitesimally small contribution to global emissions, so we shouldn’t spend tax payers money on decarbonising because it will make no difference. This argument is based on a fallacy. It’s wrong in principle, but it’s also wrong on practical, hard headed grounds.
Taking the principle first, climate change is a global problem. It requires everyone to take action, or else the work of those who do take action will be fatally undermined by those who backslide. The world is full of small communities like ours; any one of them could take the same view as us. In fact, even much bigger countries could take the same view. The UK for example. And even China, which everyone says is the key to tackling global emissions (because it’s the largest emitter) could argue that it only accounts for 1/3 of emissions (and far, far less than this when you add up the cumulative total of emissions, since we’ve been emitting carbon for much longer than they have) and therefore others need to do their bit.
Emissions reduction is a classic case where anyone can argue that they don’t count, but if one person argues this, then so can everyone else, and then nothing happens. No. The plain fact is, we all have to do our bit. Jersey has historically been a heavy emitter of carbon, so we have our moral responsibility as well.
In practical terms, we have signed up to the Paris Agreement, which mandates reductions in emissions. This is a global agreement. Backsliders are unlikely to be popular, and particularly within Europe. The EU is already imposing a border adjustment tax on imports that do not have the full cost of carbon accounted for within them. This is only going in one direction. Jersey would be an easy target if we were to deliberately go slow on emissions reductions, particularly when we start with so many advantages (an already decarbonised electricity supply, for example).
I think of it as a bit like voting in an election. One vote makes no difference (unless there’s a tie, which has never happened in my knowledge). But we do it, because cumulatively the votes add up, and lots of people banding together in a common cause adds up to something much bigger. Or like throwing litter. You might say it doesn’t matter if I throw a plastic bottle out of a car window. But anyone could say that, and before you know it the roadside is thick with rubbish.
There’s one final point though. Carbon reduction isn’t just a cost, it’s a huge opportunity. Decarbonisation and electrification are two mega trends that are going to dominate the next 30-50 years. Embracing those shifts will position Jersey as a forward thinking, environmentally friendly jurisdiction, just when these things are being valued. It aligns with Jersey’s “brand”. And almost all the things we do to reach net zero are good for us anyway: better air quality, healthier lives, better housing. I want Jersey to march confidently into the future, not engage in a futile rear guard action to hold off the inevitable.
Jonathan Renouf 