Since Donald Trump returned to the White House last year, his administration in the US has laid off thousands of scientists and frozen research grants worth billions of dollars.
The cutbacks have had far-reaching consequences for all areas of scientific research, extending all the way to Earth’s fragile polar regions, researchers say.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, polar researchers explain how Trump’s attacks on science have affected efforts to study climate change at Earth’s poles, including by disrupting fieldwork, preventing data collection and even forcing researchers to leave the US.
One climate scientist tells Carbon Brief that the administration’s decision to terminate the only US icebreaker used in Antarctica forced her to cancel her fieldwork at the last minute – with her scientific cargo still held up in Chile.
As US polar scientists reel from the cuts, Trump has caused a geopolitical storm with threats to take control of Greenland, the self-ruling island which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and located between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
Below, Carbon Brief speaks to experts about what Trump’s sweeping changes could mean for climate science at Earth’s poles
- Why is the US important for polar research?
- How has Trump affected US polar research in his second term?
- What could the changes mean for international climate research at Earth’s poles?
- What could be the impact of Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland on climate research?
Why is the US important for polar research?
The US’s wealth, power and geography have made it a key player in polar research for more than a century.
Ahead of Trump’s second term, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency that funds US science, was the largest single funder of polar research globally, with its Office of Polar Programs overseeing extensive research in both the Arctic and Antarctica.
The US has three permanent bases in Antarctica: McMurdo Station, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and Palmer Station.
In Alaska, which the US purchased from Russia in 1867, there is the Toollik Field Station and the Barrow Arctic Research Center. The US also has the Summit Station in Greenland.
US institutes operate several satellites that provide scientists across the world with key data on the polar regions.
This includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Joint Polar Satellite System, which provides data used for extreme weather forecasting.
Over the past few years, US institutes have led and provided support for the world’s largest polar expeditions.
This includes MOSAiC, the largest Arctic expedition on record, which took place from 2019-20 and was co-led by research institutes from the US and Germany. [Carbon Brief joined the expedition for its first leg and covered it in depth with a series of articles.]
The US has historically been “incredibly valuable” to research efforts in the Arctic and Antarctica, a senior US polar scientist currently living in Europe, who did not wish to be named, tells Carbon Brief.
“For a lot of the international collaborations, the US is a big component, if not the largest,” the scientist says.
“We do a lot of collaborative work with other countries,” adds Dr Jessie Creamean, an atmospheric scientist working in polar regions based at Colorado State University. “Doing work in the polar regions is really an international thing.”
How has Trump affected US polar research in his second term?
Since returning to office, the Trump administration has frozen or terminated 7,800 research grants from federal science agencies and laid off 25,000 scientists and personnel.
This includes nearly 2,000 research grants from the NSF, which is responsible for the Office for Polar Programs and for funding a broad range of climate and polar research.
Courts have since made orders to reinstate thousands of these grants and some universities have settled with the federal government to unfreeze funding. However, it is unclear whether scientists have yet received those funds.
As with other areas of US science, the impact of Trump’s attacks on polar research have been far-reaching and difficult to quantify, scientists tell Carbon Brief.
Key scientific institutions affected include NASA, NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado.
In December, the Trump administration signalled that it planned to dismantle NCAR, calling it a source of “climate alarmism”. At the end of January, the NSF published a letter that “doubled down” on the administration’s promise to “restructure” and “privatise” NCAR.
NCAR has been responsible for a host of polar research in recent years, with several NCAR scientists involved in the MOSAiC expedition.
“NCAR is kind of like a Mecca for atmospheric research,” the US polar scientist who did not want to be named tells Carbon Brief. “They’ve done so much. Now their funding is drying up and people are scrambling.”
At NOAA, one of the major polar programmes to be affected is the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which regularly issues updates about Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
Last July, Space reported that researchers at NSIDC were informed by the Department of Defense – now renamed the Department of War under Trump – that they would lose access to data from a satellite operated by the US air force, which was used to calculate sea ice changes.
Although the Department of Defense reversed the decision following a public outcry, the uncertainty drove the researchers at NSIDC to switch to sourcing data from a Japanese satellite instead, explains Dr Zack Labe. Labe is a climate scientist who saw his position at NOAA terminated under the Trump administration and now works at the nonprofit research group Climate Central. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It looked like they were losing access to that data and, after public outcry, they regained access to the data. And then, later this year, they had to switch to another satellite.”
He adds that the Trump administration’s layoffs and budget cuts has also forced the programme to scale back its communications initiatives:
“A big loss at NSIDC is that they used to put out these monthly summaries of current conditions in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic called Sea Ice Today. It was a really important resource to describe the current weather and sea ice conditions in these regions.
“These reports went to stakeholders, they went to Indigenous communities within the Arctic. And that has stopped in the past year due to budget cuts.”
Elsewhere, the New York Times reported that a director at the Office for Polar Programs found out she was being laid off while on a trip to Antarctica.
US polar research took another hit in September, when the NSF announced that it was terminating the lease for the Nathaniel B Palmer, the only US icebreaker dedicated to Antarctic research.
The statement gave just one month’s notice, saying that the vessel would be returned to its operator in October.
Creamean was among the scientists who were affected by the termination. She tells Carbon Brief:
“I was supposed to go on that icebreaker in September. I have a project funded at Palmer Station, along with colleagues from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. We were supposed to go set up for an 18-month study there. We have the money for the project, but we just didn’t get to go because the icebreaker got decommissioned.
“It was a big bummer. We shipped everything down to South America. All of our cargo is still sitting in Punta Arenas [in Chile].”
Elsewhere, other scientists have warned that the termination of the icebreaker could affect the continuity of Antarctic data collection.
In a statement, Dr Naomi Ochwat, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that decades of data on changes to Antarctic glaciers taken from the deck of the Palmer had been vital to her research.
For some, one of the most worrying impacts of Trump’s attacks on US polar science is on the careers of scientists, which will likely lead to many of them leaving the country.
All of the researchers that Carbon Brief spoke to said they had heard many stories of US polar scientists deciding to relocate outside of the country or to leave the profession altogether.
Creamean is one of the polar scientists to make the difficult decision to temporarily leave the US. She says:
“I’m actually moving to Sweden for a year starting in May. I’m going to do a visiting science position [at Stockholm University]. I’m hoping to come back. But if things are not looking good and things are looking more positive in Sweden, maybe I’ll stay there. I don’t know.”
Labe tells Carbon Brief that the “brain drain” of US scientists is the “biggest story” when it comes to Trump’s impact on polar research:
“I think one of the long-term repercussions is just how many people will be forced out of science due to a lack of opportunities. I think this is something that will grow in 2026. There were a lot of grants that were two-to-three years and, so, were still running, but they will be ending now.”
What could the changes mean for international climate research at Earth’s poles?
With all research at Earth’s poles relying heavily on international collaboration, Trump’s attacks on science are likely to have far-reaching implications outside of the US, scientists tell Carbon Brief.
One implication of budget and personnel cuts could be the loss of continuous data from US researchers, bases and satellites.
Many US polar datasets have been collected for decades and are relied upon by scientists and institutes around the world. This includes records for Arctic and Antarctica’s oceans, sea ice, atmosphere and wildlife.
Trump’s impact has highlighted to scientific organisations outside of the US how vulnerable US datasets can be to political changes, says Labe, adding:
“From a climate perspective, you need a consistent data record over a long period of time. Even a small gap in data caused by uncertainty can cause major issues in understanding long-term trends in the polar regions.
“Other scientific organisations around the world are realising that they’re going to have to find alternative sources for data.”
Creamean tells Carbon Brief that, while some datasets have been discontinued, researchers have made an effort to keep records going despite personnel and budget constraints. She says:
“I know at Summit Station in Greenland they had some instruments that were pulled out that had been measuring things like the surface energy budget for a long time. That dataset has been discontinued.
“Thankfully, some programmes have been able to somehow hold on and continue to do baseline measurements. There’s a station up in Alaska [Barrow] where, as far as I know, measurements have been maintained there. That’s good because some measurements up there have been happening since the 60s and 70s.”
Trump’s changes could also cast uncertainty over the US’s role in taking part and offering support to upcoming collaborative Arctic and Antarctic expeditions.
In addition to helping scientists better understand the impact of climate change on Earth’s polar regions, these expeditions have also enabled countries with testy geopolitical relationships to come together for a common goal, the US polar scientist who did not want to be named tells Carbon Brief.
For example, the MOSAiC expedition from 2019-20 saw the US and Germany work alongside Russian and Chinese research institutes to study the impact of climate change on the Arctic, says the scientist, adding:
“It was an international collaboration that involved people who should be geopolitical enemies. Science is a way that we seem to be able to work together, to solve problems together, because we all live on one planet. And, right now, to see these changes in the US, it’s quite concerning [for these kinds of collaborations].”
The retreat of the US from polar research might see other powers step up to fill the gap, scientists tell Carbon Brief.
Several scientists mentioned the Nordic countries as possibly taking a larger role in leading polar research, while one said that “China seems to be picking up the slack that’s left behind”.
China currently has five Antarctic research stations – Great Wall, Zhongshan, Kunlun, Taishan and Qinling – along with one Arctic station in Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard.
The Financial Times recently reported on China’s growing ambitions for Arctic exploration, involving its fleet of five icebreakers.
What could be the impact of Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland on climate research?
In recent months, Trump has whipped up a media frenzy with threats to take control of Greenland, the world’s largest island lying between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, which is self-governing and part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Last month, he clarified that he will not try to take Greenland “by force”, but that he is seeking “immediate negotiations” to acquire the island for “national security reasons”.
Trump’s interest in the island is likely influenced by the rapid melting away of Arctic sea ice due to climate change, which is opening up new sea routes and avenues for potential resource exploitation, reported the Washington Post.
His comments have sparked condemnation from a wide range of US scientists who conduct fieldwork in Greenland.
An open letter signed by more than 350 scientists “vehemently opposes” Trump’s threats to take control of Greenland and expresses “solidarity and gratitude” to Greenland’s population. It says:
“Greenland deserves the world’s attention: it occupies a key position geopolitically and geophysically. As climate warms, rapid loss of Greenland’s ice affects coastal cities and communities worldwide.”
A breakdown in diplomatic relations between the US and Greenland could prevent scientists from being able to carry out their climate research on the island, one of the scientists to sign the letter wrote in a supporting statement:
“Scientific access to Arctic environments is essential for research which secures our shared future and, directly, materially benefits American citizens. It is deeply upsetting that these essential relationships are being undermined, perhaps irreparably, by the Trump administration.”
Dr Yarrow Axford, one of the letter’s organisers who is a palaeoclimatologist and science communicator based in Massachusetts, told Nature that Trump’s comments could put Greenland climate research at risk, saying:
“We Americans have benefited from all these decades of peaceful partnership with Greenland. Scientific understanding of climate change has benefited tremendously. I hope scientists can reach out to Congress and point out what a wonderful partnership that is.”
In addition to the US-run Summit Station, there are at least eight other research stations in Greenland, operated by a range of institutions from across the world.
A major focus of research efforts in the region is the Greenland ice sheet, Earth’s second-largest body of ice which is rapidly melting away because of climate change.
The ice sheet holds enough freshwater to raise global sea levels by around more than seven metres, if melted completely.
Any political moves that could “jeopardise” the study of the Greenland ice sheet would be detrimental, says Creamean:
“Greenland is a ‘tipping point’ in that, the ice sheet melting, that could be one of the biggest contributors to sea level rise. It’s not like we can wait to study it, it needs to be understood now.”
The post Q&A: How Trump is threatening climate science in Earth’s polar regions appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How Trump is threatening climate science in Earth’s polar regions
Climate Change
Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began
The UK has avoided the need for gas imports worth £1.7bn since the start of the Iran war, as a result of record electricity generation from wind and solar, reveals Carbon Brief analysis.
The surge in wind and solar output is cutting the need for gas-fired generation, which has been nearly a third lower than last year and fell to record lows in both March and April 2026.
The figure below shows that wind and solar have generated a record 21 terawatt hours (TWh) on the island of Great Britain since the end of February 2026, when the US and Israel first attacked Iran.
Amid another fossil-fuel price crisis, the record wind and solar output since the start of the Iran war avoided the need to import 41TWh of gas – roughly 34 tankers of liquified natural gas (LNG).
Importing those 34 tankers of LNG would have cost around £1.7bn, given the high gas prices triggered by the conflict.
At the same time, record wind and solar helped to cut electricity generation from gas by around a third year-on-year to the lowest levels ever recorded for the months of March and April, as shown in the figure below.
Together, wind and solar have generated more than twice as much electricity as fossil fuels over the period since the Iran war began. The country’s electricity mix has now flipped: a decade ago, fossil fuels were generating more than four times as much electricity as wind and solar.
Indeed, wind and solar have generated more electricity than fossil fuels for a record 15 months in a row. As shown in the figure below, this included a full winter season for the first time in 2025-26.
This meant that gas was setting the price of electricity roughly 25% less often in both March 2026 and April 2026 than in the same month in 2022, when fossil-fuel prices spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
April 2026 also marked a series of other records for the GB electricity system.
For half an hour between 15.30 and 16:00 on 22 April, a record 98.8% of the electricity feeding into the country’s main “transmission” grid came from zero-carbon sources, according to the National Energy System Operator (NESO).
In addition, solar generation hit a series of new record-highs, ultimately reaching 15.4 gigawatts (GW) on the afternoon of 23 April. Wind set a new record of 23.9GW on 25 March.
The post Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began
Climate Change
DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
‘Leeway’ for fossil fuels
METHANE EXEMPTION: The European Commission is considering making changes to its flagship methane emissions regulation to give fossil-fuel companies “leeway to avoid penalties…in what would be a major win for the oil and gas sector”, reported Politico. According to new draft government guidelines seen by the outlet, “national authorities would be able to grant exemptions to companies on energy security grounds”. A separate Politico story said the move comes after the Trump administration “has intensified pressure on the regulation”.
GAS EXPANSION: The Guardian reported that the Norwegian government has been “heavily criticised for approving plans to reopen three North Sea gasfields nearly three decades after they were closed”, with the justification of helping to “fill the gap in energy supplies created by the Middle East war”. Oslo has also given its approval for oil and gas companies to explore 70 new locations in the North Sea, Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea, the newspaper added.
RENEWABLES INVESTMENT: The Financial Times reported that investors are “piling into clean-power funds at the fastest pace in five years as the Iran war accelerates a global push for energy security and alternatives to oil and gas, boosting a slew of stocks linked to the transition away from fossil fuels”. It added that more than £3bn has been invested in global funds linked to renewable energy in April, bringing their total net asset value up to $43bn.
Around the world
- SHIPPING TALKS: Nations are “back on track” to adopt a framework for curbing global shipping emissions, following the latest International Maritime Organization’s meeting in London, according to a Carbon Brief Q&A.
- SUPER El NIÑO: Global sea temperatures were the second highest on record for the month of April, “stoking concerns among scientists that an El Niño warming cycle is brewing that would intensify extreme weather”, reported the Financial Times.
- ROUND-THE-CLOCK: An International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report found that “solar and wind power paired with battery storage systems are already delivering reliable, round-the-clock electricity at a lower cost than fossil fuel-dominated energy systems in a growing number of regions”, said BusinessGreen.
- KENYA FLOODS: At least 18 people have died in floods and landslides driven by heavy rain in Kenya, reported Al Jazeera.
0.15C
The average amount by which trees lower summer temperatures in cities globally, according to research in Nature Communications.
Latest climate research
- Airborne microplastics and nanoplastics have the potential to contribute to warming by absorbing sunlight | Nature Climate Change
- A mega tsunami in Alaska in 2025 was “preconditioned by glacial retreat caused by climate change” | Science
- “Net-zero global power systems meeting universal electricity needs for decent living standards are technically feasible” | Nature Energy
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
The UK has avoided the need for gas imports worth £1.7bn since the start of the Iran war, as a result of record electricity generation from wind and solar, according to Carbon Brief analysis. The chart above shows that wind and solar have generated a record 21 terawatt hours (TWh) on the island of Great Britain since the end of February 2026, when the US and Israel first attacked Iran. The record wind and solar output avoided the need to import 41TWh of gas – roughly 34 tankers of liquified natural gas (LNG). Importing those 34 tankers of LNG would have cost around £1.7bn, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Spotlight
Tipping troubles
New research published this week shows how even small increases in global temperature, when combined with deforestation, could push the Amazon rainforest past a “tipping point”.
Crossing this threshold would trigger the gradual transition of vast swathes of the lush rainforest into dry savannah.
On the sidelines of the European Geosciences Uniongeneral assemblyin Vienna, Carbon Brief speaks to lead author Prof Nico Wunderlingfrom Goethe University Frankfurt and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Carbon Brief: Why does the Amazon rainforest have a tipping point?
Prof Nico Wunderling: All tipping elements have important feedback mechanisms that once a threshold – the tipping point – is crossed, kick in and a change in the system is self-amplified. For the Amazon rainforest, this important feedback mechanism is the atmospheric moisture recycling – meaning that the rainforest generates much of its own rainfall.
For eastern parts of the rainforest, moisture mostly comes from the Atlantic. The rainfall it receives then evaporates and is transported towards the west. And, just to give you a sense of how large this feedback can be, for parts of the rainforest, more than 50% of its rainfall is generated by the forest itself.
CB: How do global warming and deforestation both play a role in a potential tipping point?
NW: Both global warming and deforestation undermine this atmospheric moisture recycling. The direct way is deforestation – we cut down the forest, we lose major parts of the evapotranspiration, so you have less rainfall for the downwind forest. Also, global warming impacts the rainforest – it increases the number and intensity of droughts, which decreases the overall available rainfall and, therefore, can decrease the stability of the rainforest, which also leads to an undermining of the atmospheric moisture recycling.
Around 17% of the Amazon rainforest has already been lost. The critical threshold in our study is in the order of 22-28% of deforestation.
CB: Would such a transition be Amazon-wide? Or would it happen in pockets or regions?
NW: That actually depends on the other pressures that we expose the rainforest to. What we found is that, under climate change only [with no deforestation], the threshold kicks in at around 3.7-4C of warming. If that is crossed, then we find that around one-third of the Amazon rainforest is at risk of transitioning to a degraded ecosystem.
Then, if deforestation is also included [at 22-28%], this threshold comes down to well within the Paris Agreement limits – 1.5-1.9C of global warming. At the same time, the area at risk of transition increases from around one-third to around two-thirds to three-quarters.
CB: In your paper, you say that crossing a tipping point is “not inevitable” – can you elaborate?
NW: In a way, for the Amazon rainforest, we’re in a better situation than with other tipping elements, because we have multiple options for improving our situation. One is we can stop global warming – we can stop emitting and curb emissions before we reach the 2C target. That’s important for the Amazon rainforest. But crucial for the Amazon rainforest is that deforestation levels are halted below 22-28%.
And, indeed, current trends across the Amazon rainforest show that efforts to decrease deforestation are in place and they seem to work. If these trends continue, then I’m mildly optimistic that we will not reach 22-28%. But, if you would have asked me the same question five years ago, I might have said that, well, by mid-century, these values could be reached.
Watch, read, listen
AFRICA RENEWABLES: A CNBC Africa TV report examined the continent’s “renewables rise” and the “shift from climate policy to energy security”.
‘CLIMATE MONSTER’: New York Times writer David Wallace-Wells has a long read on the approach of “perhaps the most fearsome El Niño since before scientists even began modeling them”.
SANTA MARTA SUMMIT: For the Conversation, two political researchers lay out “four dynamics to watch” to determine whether the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia “becomes more than rhetoric”.
Coming up
- 8-9 May: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders summit, Cebu, Philippines
- 10-14 May: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III second lead author meeting for the seventh assessment report, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- 11-12 May: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ministerial council meeting, Paris
- 11-15 May: 21st session of the UN forum on forests, New York
- 12 May: Bahamas election
Pick of the jobs
- Carbon Brief, journalism internship | Salary: £14.80 per hour (London Living Wage). Location: London/hybrid
- Secure Energy Project, campaign director | Salary: $50,000. Location: Brazil (remote)
- Commonwealth Secretariat, adviser on climate change | Salary: £80,672. Location: London
- Politico, deputy editor, Congress (energy and environmental policy) | Salary: Unknown. Location: Arlington, Virginia
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
For several years, the UK car industry has been claiming that demand is not high enough to meet the government’s targets for sales of “zero emissions vehicles” (ZEVs).
To date, however, the car industry has actually beaten the targets under the government’s “ZEV mandate”.
This pattern of claiming demand is not high enough is being repeated in a regular cycle, following the publication of monthly statistics on new UK car sales by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).
Each month, this messaging is amplified by large sections of the media, which have published dozens of articles stating – incorrectly – that car companies are missing their ZEV targets.
Meanwhile, the car industry is lobbying for an “urgent review” of the targets, on the basis that “natural demand is still well below the level demanded by the [ZEV] mandate”.
UK car market has ‘over-complied’ with its targets
In 2021, the UK’s then Conservative government developed the idea of a “ZEV mandate” as a way to drive sales of electric vehicles (EVs).
The idea, inspired by a similar scheme in California, is to set a rising target for the share of new car and van sales that must be “zero-emissions vehicles” (ZEVs) each year.
For cars, these targets started at 22% of sales 2024, increasing gradually each year to 80% by 2030.
Towards the end of the first year of the scheme, in November 2024, the SMMT warned that the industry was “likely to fall short”, with EVs making up “just…18.7%” of sales. It said:
“The industry looks likely to fall short of the 22% EV market share demanded, potentially creating a £1.8bn bill for compliance.”
(If manufacturers fall short of their target, they can still avoid having to pay a “bill for compliance” by trading “credits” with other firms, or “borrowing” allowances from future years.)
But, contrary to the industry messaging on the headline 22% goal, the car market actually “over-complied” in 2024, according to official figures published in early 2026.
As such, all carmakers in the UK avoided fines for failing to meet their ZEV-mandate targets.
This was despite only 19.8% of new sales being EVs in 2024 – a final tally that was notably more than one percentage point higher than the industry estimate from November of that year.
The industry was able to “over-comply” with the ZEV mandate because the regime has a series of “flexibilities”, which have been created and added to after lobbying by carmakers.
These “flexibilities” allow individual firms to reduce their targets for ZEV sales by selling combustion-engine cars with lower emissions, such as hybrids or plug-in EVs.
When these “flexibilities” are considered, the car market met the equivalent of a 24.5% target, according to the government, with the surplus of 2.5% being “banked” for use in future years. This is shown in the figure below.
In May 2026, the SMMT again told Carbon Brief that EV sales in 2024 had been below the headline target.
When asked by Carbon Brief to confirm that – per the official figures – the UK car market had, nevertheless, “over-complied” with the ZEV mandate in 2024, it did not respond.
Car industry continues to lobby for weaker rules
In a January 2026 release on car sales for the previous year, the SMMT said the “gap between demand [for EVs] and ambition [in the ZEV mandate] is increasing rather than diminishing”.
At the time, Carbon Brief asked the SMMT if it recognised independent estimates from thinktanks and NGOs, showing that – on the contrary – the car industry had also met its ZEV-mandate targets for 2025.
In response, the SMMT sent Carbon Brief a quote from SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes saying that “no one will know” if the industry complied with the 2025 target until official figures come out in 2027.
While this is technically true, the official figures for 2024 showed that the thinktanks and NGOs behind the independent estimates for 2025 had been accurate with their previous forecasts of compliance.
The car industry continues to repeat similar messaging.
The SMMT stated in May 2026 that there is a “persistent gap of around six percentage points against the mandate target” of 33% in 2026 and 38% in 2027. Chief executive Mike Hawes said in the statement that “natural demand is still well below the level demanded by the mandate”.
The gap that the SMMT is referring to is between the headline ZEV targets and the expected level of EV sales, which the body says will reach 27% of all new cars this year and 33% in 2027.
The car industry continues to use these figures to call for a review of the ZEV mandate.
In its latest news release, it says the UK “needs an urgent review” and quotes Hawes saying this should be used to “align policy with market realities”.
These comments are reflected in media coverage, with the Independent, for example, running a misleading headline that says the car market is “still missing government EV targets”. The article adds:
“[T]he industry is still warning that EV demand is not growing quickly enough to meet government targets.”
What neither the SMMT press release nor much of the media coverage mentions is the existing “flexibilities” under the ZEV mandate, which were already expanded last year.
This means the headline 33% goal for 2026 can be met, even if EVs only make up around 25% of sales, according to an estimate of the “real” target published by thinktank New Automotive.
Again, the SMMT expects EVs to make up around 27% of sales this year, which would be comfortably ahead of the “real” target once flexibilities are taken into account.
The government has already pledged to review the ZEV mandate, with the results due to be published in “early 2027”.
In April, car sales platform Autotrader announced that new EVs are now cheaper to buy than petrol cars on average, “for the first time”. EVs were already significantly cheaper to own.
The post Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets
Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began
DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’
Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测