83 2 mins 2 weeks

By Ged

7th February 2020

This week the UK Government announced it will ban the sale on new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035, a full 5 years before its original plan. So, what does this mean for the average motorist?

Firstly, we must look at the cost of these new cars we are now expected to buy along with considering the your old car and what would it be worth if you try to part exchange or sell it.

Your old petrol, diesel or hybrid car will be worth next to nothing when you part exchange or resell it as no one will want it as these types of car will be banned.

What prices are some of the Cheapest to mid-range EV cars?

Smart EQ Fortwo

£20,000 – 24,425 with a range of 70 miles

And for cars with a longer range of 100 miles to 250 miles

Renault Zoe

£29,179 – £32,870 with a range of 200 miles

Kia e-Niro

£36,495 with a range of250 miles


Audi e-Tron

Entry level £59,900 with a range of 204 miles


Read More

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 7 Average: 1.9]


  1. This is the Plan by our political elite on both sides of the pond. To ban the private use of the gasoline engine.

    1. Exactly.

      Noted, this week, Bill Gates, along with many other billionaires met up after flying in by private jets, to ram Global Warming down our throats?

      You couldn’t even make this shit up!

      “ Media and tech moguls descend on Sun Valley in private jets for exclusive ‘billionaire summer camp’ with Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and his Amazon successor Andy Jassy set to attend
      The annual invite-only conference in Sun Valley, Idaho is thrown by investment bank Allen & Company
      It brings together leaders in the worlds of film, technology, design and sports
      The event was cancelled in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic
      Attendees this year will have to be vaccinated, and provide proof of a negative Covid-19 test ”


      They are not only rubbing our noses in it, but blatantly taking the piss.

  2. I believe that both the headline And most of the story are wrong.

    The internal combustion car is not being banned in the UK as of 2035.

    The sale of — new — internal combustion cars there is being banned then.

    I don’t see any reason why you could not buy an internal combustion car in 2034 and continue to drive it for 20 years

    We are seeing rapid progress in battery and electric car technology. The cars 14 years from now should be much better than those of today.

  3. “ I don’t see any reason why you could not buy an internal combustion car in 2034 and continue to drive it for 20 years”

    Because they will tax you off the road, and out of existence.

    It’s that simple.

    I have a diesel company car, and I lose 99% of my married mans allowance in “benefits in kind” for the “privilege “

    Do you get it now?

  4. This is a policy freamed up by middle classes with money in the bank and a driveway. I can’t park my motor within 50 yards of my home. Many people live in apartments. How are millions without driveways going to charge up? How will the infrastructure handle millions of cars being plugged in each evening? How will Congolese children mine all the metals needed for the batteries?

    The more these policies are pushed, the more they look serious in claiming that one day no-one will own anything.

    1. “ 2035 tax policy has yet to be decided”

      Who cares?

      I pay tax now, in 2021.

      And it’s already horrific.

      I can’t see 2035 being much better.

  5. The goal of the Climate crowd is the banning of all Private use of the combustion engine…
    You can deny that all you want, but if you follow the incrementalism it is very obvious that is the goal.
    Motivation is multifold and well worth a good conversation about it… but those in Power have aligned themselves with this cult religion for multiple reasons and you will be forced if they have their way to give up your, car, truck, boat, motorcycle, lawn mower, etc.

    1. I will give up my fossil fuel 4 x 4 when the globalists give up their private jets.

      Fair deal.

  6. The post and headline are both still wrong

    Exaggerating destroys the point you might otherwise be making

    1. Google search

      First headline:

      Government confirms 2030 ban on petrol and diesel cars, unveils £20m electric vehicle package. The Government has officially confirmed that the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars has been moved forward to 2030, while also announcing a new £20m funding pot for electric vehicle (EV) innovation.10 Mar 2021

      Second Headline:

      As it stands, the Department for Transport (DfT) announced in November, 2020, that new petrol and diesel cars and vans will not be allowed to be sold in the UK from 2030. The sale of hybrid cars and vans that can drive a significant distance with no carbon coming out of the tailpipe will remain on sale until 2035.4 May 2021

  7. yes a title of “Incremental adaptation of Climate Change Policies are leading to the eventual banning of the combustion engine”

    That’s an attention grabbing title for a post…
    Why don’t you explain in detail how Posts and Stories should be written? We await your sage advice and wisdom Phantom.
    Write it out here or in a post…
    Instead of trashing others, which you are free to do. You could write it out how it should be done.
    I’ll wait

  8. The post and the headline are factually incorect

    I recommend saying things that are correct .. or at least making some effort to be accurate

    You guys bitch and moan and snivel about fake news media and then you write fake things and then get arrogant when called on it

    1. what is incorrect? or is it you? you are the only one bumping there gums, I clearly state in the article that its the ban on new car sales, however the point of the article was to show journeys you do now will not be possible in the same time frame with electric cars

  9. Bear Bryant was a greaf football coach here

    He said that you should do three things after making an error

    Admit it

    Learn from it

    Don’t do it again

    That’s my advice to you guys

    You won’t take it, but you’d be more persuasive if you did

  10. You could say Phantom that This post is wrong because…. and list the reasons.
    Now I don’t factually check other writers…. Everyone stands on their ow what the write. But have you done that? I haven’t seen where you have.
    In a 30 second look I found out 2 things and only one that makes me question the validity of the post.
    The post is based on an Article in the Guardian it’s a short commentary from our sister site that was referring to this Article
    Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040
    This article is more than 3 years old
    Plans follow French commitment to take polluting vehicles off the road owing to effect of poor air quality on people’s health
    Now I didn’t read the full article, so I can’t account for the difference of 2035 from 2040… but the article spells out the banning of cars and all private combustion engine vehicles. What is covered by the law, what is still left to be spelled out, how this ban will be implemented etc etc
    Is the Guardian wrong, or just our reporting of what the guardian said? Did we misrepresent what was said in the original story?
    Now a person that wanted to interact and convince others that what they were saying was correct and the post is wrong and this is why… would spell it out. I could punch holes in anyone’s post even if I agree with it… in 2 lines you’ve seen me do it…

    but you don’t do that… my question is why?

  11. Was this headline edited today after this discussion began

    Was the first paragraph edited today after this discussion began

    I believe that both have been changed retroactively…

    1. Phantom IF you opened your EYES you can see this POST and the one on Alt News Media are the same, I have no reason or ability to change the one on ANM. This post on ATW is a copy of my article from ANM, But you know that and are just trying to pick a fight over something in your head

  12. As George Dubya Bush famously said, the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone. The fossil fuels age is coming to an end, and much faster than was thought possible even five years ago.

    Get over it guys and quit with the whining.

  13. The point of the article I wrote was to show as it stands you will not be doing long journeys, if you ready the article I give an example of a journey over 700 miles long, with a petrol/desial car that could be done with one stop for fuel in around 13hr. With a electric car it would take you days to complete the same journey. So I would say the plan is to STOP people traveling keep people in there home town/cities. If you check out the UN Agenda 21 program you will see thats the plan, ever heard of smart cities???? these are cites you never leave, the land between cites and town will be give back to nature. You will be banned from these locations never to be entered never to leave the place you was born


  14. What was the nature of the last edit of the headline and of first paragraph

    What was changed

  15. The most recent car batteries have a range of 500 miles and can be recharged in fifteen minutes.

    1. Really, and what price for a car that can do that, You clear think everyone can afford 50/60K more for a car Pete, when in fact most people are running around a car that cost a couple of hundred pounds to a couple of thousands. I gave an example in the article but clearly you didnt READ it

    2. Peter a simple Google search shows you are wrong: The time it takes to charge an electric car can be as little as 30 minutes or more than 12 hours. This depends on the size of the battery and the speed of the charging point. A typical electric car (60kWh battery) takes just under 8 hours to charge from empty-to-full with a 7kW charging point.

  16. The electric car of 2035 will have a much longer range than today’s e vehicles

    Trust me on this

    All of the best auto engineers are working on this

  17. Patrick
    You can buy a petrol or diesel car in 2034 and keep it on the road for 20 years if you look after it. And I have no doubt that many Trumpists like you will do just that. Electric vehicles are already another front in the culture war.

  18. Peter the US alone has enough oil and natural gas by itself to power the world for the next 200 years.
    Gas is only going away by force…..
    We don’t want your electric toys no matter how neat they are, we want the V8, we will not bow to a fake religion that one moment says we’re gonna freeze and the next we’re gonna bake sorry… you’ll come to Christ long before you will EVER get Americans to give up their cars, trucks, motorcycles, and boats….. and we don’t believe your non-scientific science
    Now where is your post why I am wrong?

    1. Too Right Paddy, They have been telling you for 50yrs + we only have oil to last another 100 year but they were saying that 50/60 years ago

  19. I didn’t change Sh** which headline? The one here, the one on ANM, or the Guardians… ? Please be specific Phantom and I’m not f’ing with you I can’t answer if you don’t ask SPECIFIC questions. I promise I will always answer and answer honestly.

  20. “Peter the US alone has enough oil and natural gas by itself to power the world for the next 200 years.”

    So what? Renewables are already cheaper in most of the sunbelt. Trumpist Texas is leading the charge into wind and solar.

  21. “we don’t believe your non-scientific science”

    You mean that you don’t believe in science. You and your Trumpist party reject Darwin, never mind the physics of AGW. So quit lecturing me about science, you have zero credibility.

  22. here is the guardian angle
    and you are on this page. If there has been manipulation of data please point it out.

    as I’ve said I have not read geds or the guardians pieces completely so I don’t know why one says 2035 rather than 2040…

    but there is all the source material dating back to February… please cite what altering of what you are talking about please.

  23. No Peter Climate Science doesn’t follow the scientific method and is voodoo science based on ginned up models.

  24. You didn’t write the post

    The original headline referred to a ban on internal combustion cars after 2035

    This headline is completely different and it refers to ban on sales of such vehicles after 2035

    Who changed it and at what exact time did they change it

    1. The headline of MY article has NEVER changed, if the Guardian article has changed over time thats there call

    2. This headline refers to a BAN on SALES of NEW car from 2035, its simple Phanton. The UK Govt is to ban the sale of NEW internal combustion engine car from 2035, what this issue there

    3. Are you really that STUPID, the headline refers to a BAN ON SALES OF NEW cars SALES from 2035, My headline has never changed

  25. the price of gas/petrol is artificially inflated here in the US. And even if they made what we pay comparative to what you pay we still won’t give up our vehicles.
    curios what is your current cost for Petrol for your car?

    1. If you waste what could possibly be the most expensive fuel in the world searching around.

      Approximately £1.35 a…Litre, that’s more or less £6.75 a gallon, or a tad under $10.

      68.84% Of that is tax.

      At least Dick Turpin, the Highway Robber, wore a mask before he robbed people.

      1. Remember Harri Taxation is theft, taking money you have not earnt by force is theft

        1. Council tax is definitely theft, and on my council tax bill, it definitely states 2.6% added for Social Care.

          Now apparently, central government want to add more tax on PAYE for Social Care.


          What they need to do, is stop faffing it all up the wall what they already take from us poor overtaxed saps.

  26. can’t answer that Phantom but if it was change here I’m sure it was Ged it’s his post…. Now my question is the post on AltNewsMedia that GED wrote in February 7, 2020 over a year ago is EXACTLY the same as this post…. so since this is a post based on something a year and a half old what would be the purpose of playing with the wording?
    Now I don’t speak for anyone but me, and I don’t even make excuses for myself, but comparing this post to the year old one…. I take you at your word that things were changed… did he not type it out correctly when he created the post and then noticing it wasn’t right and fixed it? I don’t know, I don’t know what changes occurred, I have no before and after.
    I do know Ged and I consider him an honest honorable man, so I will be shocked if he did change something it wasn’t to correct something and not to deceive. I am sure when he get’s back to the thread if he changed something he will say why. It is after midnight on Sunday over there.

  27. “No Peter Climate Science doesn’t follow the scientific method and is voodoo science based on ginned up models.”

    No it’s not. If anything the climate models have been too conservative. The polar ice is melting much faster than predicted even in 2017 and the temperatures recorded in the US Pacific North West and Canada last week were well outside the most pessimistic models. Those temperature records weren’t just beaten, they were annihilated. The woke oil-head Justin Trudeau is looking an even bigger fool than usual. And of course Fox is in full-on denial lies as always, on the eve of launching its weather channel. LOL.

  28. so you admit the models are wrong…… their too conservative…

    Peter 2 questions very basic…. at this moment what is the exact amount of radiation being applied to the earth as a whole, and what is the exact amount of water molecules in the air?
    is there any way to measure those 2 numbers?
    If not,,, and there isn’t….cause as smart is we are, we aren’t smart enough yet to figure out how to take those 2 measurements.
    and without those 2 numbers every model is just a projection of how the programmer weights whatever imaginary factors they want to get the answers they want to get… GIGO the fundamental rule of all computing. Garbage in Garbage out.

  29. So it’s water vapour that’s melting the glaciers and CO2 has **** all to do with it? What a relief, that means we can go on burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate every year just as we have been doing since about 1800. Until NYC and London and Shanghai and Tokyo disappear under the rising oceans. Sure, our grandchildren will curse us for our greed and stupidity but wtf do we care about that? We’ll be long gone by the time it happens.

    1. So glad you mentioned the rising oceans as yes they are rising but NOT at an increased rate in fact the rate has almost flatlined over the last few thousands of year, but you know that but choose to ignore it

    1. 13 inches LOL what a clown the last time sea levels rose at such a high rate was just after the last ice age, over the past few thousand year the level of rise has been constant, however its not 13 inches. The sea is LEVEL and in some locations the level is falling this is because the land is rising, in other locations the level is rising and this is down in the main to land sinking Its a shame I can not post the chart showing this here but it will come in a new post soon. I see you have posted an article to support your propaganda

  30. I will be sure to tell Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution that some bloggers say that they are wrong, because they say that everything is wrong.

    Sea Level Rise

    1. Please do, but lets remember these people you are quoting ONLY get there MONEY when they agree with the BS of man made climate change, if your a scientist and don’t agree you get NO funding. Thats some incentive to push a narrative MONEY. One more thing thats every scientist even if your research is not in climate change, you will only get funding if you in could it and agree with man made climate change

  31. “ Please do, but lets remember these people you are quoting ONLY get there MONEY when they agree with the BS of man made climate change,”

    Nail, hit squarely on head.

  32. You’re going to quote Woodshole for Climate…. do you know what Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is ?

    I doubt it….

  33. Ballard is how to describe him….. The King of Underwater Spies…. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution gets it primary funding off books.

    The Titanic was found during the recovery a Russian Nuclear Missile Sub that Ballard was running…. he had the equipment and finished ahead of schedule and he used the Titanic as a cover story for the real work they were doing…. Please name one city that is underwater due to the rise of Sea Levels.
    NYC was supposed to be underwater by first 2000, then 2010, then they finally stopped saying it.

  34. Phantoms one link says
    These two factors have combined to produce a rise in sea level of 2 millimeters per year over the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    His other says
    Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm)
    You refer to both as “proof” but they don’t agree…. so which is lying?
    The Answer BOTH!

  35. Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen previously predicted that much of New York City would be underwater by 2008.

    1. They have been saying we only have 12 years to save the planet, shame they have been saying that since the early 70’s 🙂

  36. I didn’t use the word proof, and I don’t see why anyone would think that these people were lying.

    1. They are lying as its the only way to get funding is to keep the fearmongering going its that simple really

      1. All the scientists are lying villains, James Bond villains.

        You can only trust right wing politicians, coal company execs, and conspiracy bloggers. They’re always right.

        1. BRAVO, that didn’t take you long before you started spouting Coal Companies, etc thats what all climate alarmist do 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  37. I don’t see why anyone would think that these people were lying.
    since 1969 they’ve been saying the oceans are going to rise and the cities will be flooded… name one that has.
    the two links you provide give 2 different rates of ocean rise…. one of them is lying or the reality is both are wrong.
    when they’ve been screaming doom and gloom for 50yrs and none of it has happened…. somebody is lying.

  38. No Phantom… you can’t trust Science that does NOT follow the Scientific Method….
    but you can trust human nature for people to lie to keep their funding.

  39. You should understand this idiotic gesture politics announcement is having a chilling effect on the economy. I could easily afford to buy another car. My 2017 car would probably be part exed by now. But why bother when it’s going to be 2035 soon enough. The choice is be left with a 25k unsaleable car in 2035 or be left with a 1k unsaleable car. So I’m keeping my money. Multiply that by millions and the motor trade (and the economy) will suffer. All avoidable.

  40. don’t look for logic in this DIG the car you have now will be illegal to drive by then at this rate…

    1. Plug in hybrids?

      Apart from a generous BIK “Benefits in kind” tax dodge?

      There is no benefit, 60+ K for a hybrid plug-in, which, if I don’t use anything else electronic, ie, radio, heater, air-con, heated seats, heated steering wheel, etc: will do an incredible 34 miles on a full charge of rather expensive home electric charge. Electric is not cheap, and becoming ever more expensive. + VAT.

      So, apart from the BIK incentive?

      What’s the point?

Comments are closed.