Más de la mitad de los países no se han comprometido a proteger el 30% de sus tierras y mares para 2030 en sus planes de biodiversidad presentados a la ONU, a pesar de que hace menos de tres años firmaron un acuerdo global para hacerlo, según revela una investigación de Carbon Brief y the Guardian.
En diciembre de 2022, casi todas las naciones acordaron proteger “el 30% de la tierra y el mar de la Tierra por la naturaleza” a finales de la década. Este compromiso, denominado “30×30”, es el objetivo principal del Marco Mundial de Biodiversidad de Kunming-Montreal (MMB), a menudo comparado con el “Acuerdo de París para la naturaleza”.
Sin embargo, 70 de los 137 países (51%) que han presentado planes a la ONU en los que describen cómo cumplirán los objetivos del MMB no se comprometen a cumplir la meta “30×30” dentro de sus fronteras, según el análisis de estos documentos realizado por Carbon Brief y the Guardian.
Dentro de estos países, hay unos que se comprometen a proteger un porcentaje menor de su territorio para la naturaleza y otros que no se comprometen explícitamente a alcanzar un objetivo numérico.
El análisis muestra que los países que no se han comprometido a la meta “30×30” en sus planes de la ONU representan poco más de un tercio de la superficie terrestre.
La lista incluye algunas de las naciones con mayor riqueza natural del planeta, como Indonesia, Perú y Sudáfrica, además de países desarrollados como Finlandia, Noruega y Suiza.
En declaraciones para Carbon Brief y the Guardian, una nación dijo que cumplir con la meta “30×30” dentro de sus fronteras sería “extremadamente difícil” de lograr, mientras que otra dijo que los países en desarrollo, en particular, no deberían enfrentarse a una “carga innecesariamente pesada” para alcanzar la meta global.
La investigación muestra que “muchos países no han sido lo suficientemente ambiciosos con sus compromisos nacionales de conservación y, como resultado, actualmente no estamos en camino de alcanzar colectivamente la meta global de 30×30”, dijo un experto.
Un tercio de la Tierra
En la cumbre sobre la naturaleza COP15, realizada en 2022, los países acordaron el Marco Mundial de Biodiversidad Kunming-Montreal (MMB), un amplio conjunto de objetivos y metas con el propósito general de detener y revertir la pérdida de biodiversidad para 2030.
La meta 3 del MMB, que establece que los países deben garantizar que “al menos” el 30% de la Tierra esté en áreas protegidas o regida por otras medidas de conservación para 2030 “30×30”, es considerado por muchos como el objetivo insignia del acuerdo y se ha comparado con el objetivo de temperatura de 1.5°C del Acuerdo de París en artículos de prensa y discursos que subrayan su importancia.
Se pidió a todos los países que enviaran sus planes al Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Diversidad Biológica en los que se describiera cómo cumplirían los objetivos del MMB en sus territorios antes de la cumbre de la naturaleza COP16 en 2024. Dichos planes se conocen como estrategias y planes de acción nacionales en materia de diversidad biológica, o “EPANDB“.
Una investigación independiente de Carbon Brief y the Guardian realizada el pasado mes de octubre reveló que el 85% de los países no cumplieron el plazo para presentar sus EPANDB, y algunos argumentaron que el plazo era demasiado complicado o que no pudieron acceder a fondos para ayudar a preparar sus documentos.
A los países que no pudieron presentar sus EPANDB se les pidió que, en su lugar, presentaran objetivos nacionales a la ONU. Se trata de simples listas de metas que los países intentarán alcanzar sin un plan de acción que los acompañe.
Para el 24 de febrero de 2025, 44 países y la UE habían presentado sus EPANDB a la ONU, mientras que 124 partes habían presentado metas nacionales. (Dado que algunos países enviaron objetivos nacionales y EPANDB, esto significa que, en total, 137 países han presentado algún tipo de plan).
Para investigar si los países se han comprometido con la promesa “30×30” dentro de los límites de sus planes, Carbon Brief y the Guardian analizaron el texto completo de cada EPANDB, así como cualquier objetivo que fuera etiquetado como relacionado con la meta 3 del MMB.
El análisis revela que, de los 137 países que han enviado planes al CDB, más de la mitad (70 países, es decir, el 51%) no se comprometen a proteger el 30% de sus tierras y mares para 2030.
De estos, 21 países no proporcionaron un objetivo numérico para proteger su superficie terrestre, 26 establecieron objetivos de protección de la tierra inferiores al 30% y ocho establecieron objetivos de protección de la tierra iguales o superiores al 30%, pero objetivos de protección del mar inferiores al 30%.
De los países restantes, 13 no presentaron ningún objetivo relacionado con la cobertura de las áreas protegidas. Otros dos establecieron objetivos más allá de 2030.
Otros 10 países, es decir, el 7%, no dejan claro en los planes que presentaron si tienen o no un compromiso que cumpla las condiciones de “30×30”. Entre ellos se encuentran: países que especifican que protegerán el 30% de las “zonas de especial importancia”; países que dieron un objetivo de mejora, pero no proporcionaron una base de referencia; y países que entregaron solo una o dos metas.
Solo el 42% de los países (57 en total) se comprometen a proteger el 30% de la superficie terrestre y marina para 2030.
La siguiente gráfica muestra los países que han entregado sus EPANDB y/o metas nacionales a la ONU. En la gráfica, los países están agrupados según el porcentaje de tierra que se han comprometido a proteger y el tamaño de cada burbuja representa su superficie terrestre. (Los países agrupados alrededor de la línea del 30% y marcados en gris se han comprometido a proteger el 30% de la superficie terrestre).
Los países agrupados debajo de “sin objetivo” son aquellos que no se han comprometido a una meta numérica para proteger su tierra o aquellos que han elaborado un plan, pero no han incluido una meta de área protegida.
El análisis muestra que, en conjunto, más de un tercio de la superficie terrestre está cubierta por un compromiso que no cumple la meta “30×30”, mientras que alrededor de la mitad está cubierta por un compromiso “30×30”.
El análisis también revela que siete de los 17 países “megadiversos“, que en conjunto albergan el 70% de la biodiversidad mundial, no se han comprometido con la iniciativa 30×30. Entre ellos se encuentran Indonesia, Malasia, México, Perú, Filipinas, Sudáfrica y Venezuela.
Otros 61 países no han presentado una EPANDB ni metas nacionales, por lo que no se han evaluado en el análisis. Entre ellos se encuentra la nación con mayor biodiversidad del mundo, Brasil.
Las cifras tampoco incluyen a EE. UU., que, aunque es un país megadiverso, no forma parte del CDB y, por lo tanto, no está sujeto a los objetivos y metas del MMB.
El expresidente de EE. UU. Joe Biden comprometió a su país con el compromiso “30×30”. Sin embargo, el plan de políticas Proyecto 2025, que Donald Trump está siguiendo en gran medida, pide que se elimine el objetivo.
La UE entregó una EPANDB que abarca sus 27 Estados miembros y se compromete con el 30×30.
Sin embargo, los países individuales también son parte del CDB y se espera que entreguen sus propios planes nacionales. Para el propósito de este análisis, se consideró que los Estados miembros de la UE cumplían con el compromiso “30×30” solo si presentaban su propia EPANDB o su objetivo nacional que lo hiciera.
‘Extremadamente desafiante’
Carbon Brief y the Guardian contactaron a países megadiversos y naciones desarrolladas para preguntarles por qué habían optado por no comprometerse con el “30×30” en sus planes de la ONU.
Indonesia, un país megadiverso que alberga la tercera selva tropical más grande del mundo, no dio una meta numérica sobre la cantidad de su territorio que puede proteger para la naturaleza en su EPANDB.
Un portavoz del gobierno afirma que Indonesia considera que “no es esencial declarar explícitamente que el objetivo de protección del 30% es para las áreas terrestres y marinas” de su territorio, y explica:
“Indonesia considera que todos debemos entender que el Marco Mundial de la Diversidad Biológica es realmente global. Y, al ser global, es natural que este marco se aplique de forma global y colectiva, sin imponer una carga innecesariamente pesada a algunos de nosotros.
“Indonesia se ha comprometido a alcanzar objetivos ambiciosos pero prácticos para el MMB, haciendo hincapié en el hecho de que no todas las partes están al mismo nivel si los objetivos se evalúan numéricamente”.
El portavoz añade que “gestionar la biodiversidad no es una tarea fácil” y que “se debe mantener el equilibrio de los aspectos económicos, sociales y medioambientales, especialmente en países en desarrollo como Indonesia”.
En su Estrategia y Plan de Acción Nacional sobre la Diversidad Biológica, México, una nación megadiversa, se compromete a proteger el 30% de sus océanos, pero solo el 22% de su tierra.
La Dra. Andrea Cruz Angón, coordinadora de estrategias y políticas de biodiversidad de la Conabio, la comisión de biodiversidad del gobierno federal, afirma que las metas aún están “siendo revisadas y ajustadas” por las agencias federales correspondientes.
Añade que los objetivos se elaboraron tras la celebración de talleres “con gobiernos subnacionales, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas y comunidades afromexicanas” para identificar “barreras y oportunidades para que estos actores se comprometan voluntariamente con los objetivos”.
Finlandia, uno de los estados miembros de la UE, aún no ha publicado una EPANDB, pero en agosto de 2024 presentó a la ONU sus metas nacionales para cumplir los objetivos del MMB. En estos planes, Finlandia no se compromete con el “30×30”.
Un portavoz del gobierno finlandés dice que todavía estaba preparando su EPANDB y que, por lo tanto, ninguno de sus objetivos es definitivo, pero añade:
“Lograr un aumento del 30% en el área protegida para 2030 sería extremadamente difícil, ya que para alcanzar esta meta, por ejemplo, el área protegida en las zonas terrestres tendría que aumentar unas 700,000 hectáreas al año”.
En su Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad, Noruega se comprometió a proteger el 30% de su territorio para la naturaleza para 2030, pero afirma que todavía está evaluando su meta de protección de los océanos y “volverá con un plan sobre cómo lograr un objetivo futuro de manera que también facilite el uso sostenible de las zonas marinas noruegas”.
Un portavoz de Noruega afirma que la nación está “comprometida a contribuir al objetivo 30×30”, y añade:
“Aún no se ha establecido una meta nacional de conservación para las zonas marinas noruegas. Esto se debe a un proceso nacional en curso para evaluar qué zonas marinas pueden ser reconocidas como protegidas a través de ‘otras medidas efectivas de conservación basadas en áreas’ (OECM), de acuerdo con los criterios [de biodiversidad de la ONU].
“La conclusión de este proceso aclarará el estado actual de conservación de las aguas noruegas y, en consecuencia, nos permitirá establecer una meta nacional”.
‘Volver a empezar’
Inger Andersen, directora ejecutiva del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, declara a Carbon Brief y the Guardian que “30×30” es una “meta global y la forma en que los países lo asuman a nivel nacional será diferente en todo el mundo, dependiendo de las circunstancias nacionales”.
Ella refiere el Informe Planeta Protegido 2024, que muestra que solo el 17.6% de la tierra y el 8.4% del océano se conservan actualmente para la naturaleza, a solo cinco años de llegar al plazo de “30×30”, y añade:
“A medida que el mundo se enfrenta a una crisis de pérdida de naturaleza y biodiversidad, está claro que debemos ir mucho más lejos, mucho más rápido. Esto no será posible sin apoyo financiero, técnico y de capacidad para muchos países”.
En respuesta a la investigación de Carbon Brief y the Guardian, Brian O’Donnell, director de la Campaign for Nature, un grupo que aboga por la meta 30×30, dice:
“Muchos países no han sido lo suficientemente ambiciosos con sus compromisos nacionales de conservación y, como resultado, actualmente no estamos en vías de cumplir colectivamente la meta global de “30×30”. Esto es preocupante y hay que tomar medidas para poner al mundo en buen camino”.
Para encaminarse hacia el “30×30”, los países desarrollados deben “financiar directamente” la meta para permitir que los países en desarrollo protejan más de sus territorios para la naturaleza, dice, y añade que el compromiso “30×30” también debe ser defendido a un nivel superior por los líderes mundiales y la ONU.
Añade que los países que no se comprometan con “30×30” en sus planes de la ONU “deberían volver a empezar y actualizar sus planes con otros en los que la conservación esté a la altura del desafío de la pérdida de biodiversidad y las necesidades de las comunidades”.
El análisis completo de Carbon Brief y the Guardian puede encontrarse aquí.
The post Revelado: Más de la mitad de las naciones no protegen el 30% de la tierra y el mar en sus planes de biodiversidad de la ONU appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Starting on Monday, about 10,000 government negotiators, scientists, journalists and campaigners will gather at a purpose-built venue in a national park in Mongolia’s capital Ulaanbaatar to discuss how to stop land turning into desert as the world warms.
Drought is currently sweeping much of the Northern hemisphere, leaving normally green urban parks looking like dry savannah, causing crops to fail, food prices to rise and billions to be shaved off economic output.
On Wednesday, Britain’s prime minister chaired an emergency meeting of the government’s Cobra committee. These are usually reserved for wars, terrorist attacks, riots and pandemics – but this one was on the extreme heat and drought the UK has been suffering since May.
With many countries facing far worse with fewer resources than the UK, the issues to be discussed at the UN’s COP17 summit in Mongolia – often overlooked – should be nearer the top of policy-makers minds.
But what is COP17? What will be decided and announced there over the next two weeks? How does it relate to climate change and how will it help restore the lands on which we all rely for our food, water and other essential resources? Climate Home News explains all below.
What is COP17?
It is the conference of parties (COP) to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The parties are 196 governments, which includes all of the countries recognised by the UN.
The convention was conceived at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, at the same time as the other two larger “Rio trio” conventions on climate and biodiversity.
While the climate convention’s COP takes place every year, the UNCCD COP happens only once every two years. COP17 will be its seventeenth gathering.
What is desertification?
It is the process by which land degrades and becomes more like a desert, making it harder – and sometimes impossible – to grow crops or graze livestock there.
Climate change and other human activities – like excessive irrigation which depletes ground water – are making this process worse, causing poverty, hunger, health problems, forced migration and loss of species.
It’s a widespread problem. The UN estimates that half a billion people live within areas that have experienced desertification since the 1980s and that two-fifths of the world’s land is degraded.
What has it got to do with climate change?
The planet’s climate is heating up, mainly due to humans burning fossil fuels, and drying out its land. This kills plants and exposes the soil which can then be blown away by wind and washed away by water.
Without a top layer of soil, plants struggle to grow again and the land gets closer to being a desert. So combating desertification is a way of adapting to climate change.
It is also a way of lessening the pace of climate change, as land degradation releases carbon dioxide previously stored in healthy soils and plants.
What will be negotiated at COP17?
The main issue is what form a new initiative to tackle drought could take. The last COP saw Africa push hard for this to be a protocol – a kind of binding sub-treaty to the UNCCD.
But the US, Europe, Argentina and others argued that would take too long to set up, cost too much and take money away from what can be spent on the ground. They prefer a legally weaker alternative – a framework instead of a protocol.
Negotiations went late into the last night of talks in Riyadh, with the Saudis hosting informal consultations, but eventually governments had to agree to disagree and pick up talks again in Ulaanbaatar.
As Earth dries out, countries fail to reach drought agreement
Governments will also negotiate a new policy on protecting rangelands and pastoralists from degradation. Rangelands are areas where animals graze. They cover around half the Earth’s land and include almost everything other than forest, deserts, farms, glaciers and cities. Pastoralists are people who herd animals on these rangelands, often moving from place to place to find fresh pasture.
COP17 host country Mongolia has a lot of both – and pushed successfully for the UN to declare 2026 the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists. It is keen to agree a decision at COP17 bringing those issues more to the forefront of the UNCCD.
Negotiators will also debate the UNCCD’s post-2030 strategic framework, which they hope to adopt at COP18 in 2028. Campaign groups like the World Wildlife Fund want a stronger focus on biodiversity and nature-positive food systems.
What will happen when?
The COP will formally open with a ceremony on Monday August 17, followed by opening statements by governments and the adoption of the agenda.
Negotiations will begin, mostly behind closed doors for two weeks until the closing plenaries on Friday August 28.
While talks rumble on in the background, the second week will see senior government representatives including ministers get involved, with a “high-level segment” running from August 24-26.
They will discuss issues like drought resilience, finance and pastoralist communities. This is likely to be when any announcements – of new funding, for instance – are made.
On Monday August 24, there will also be an open dialogue between government officials and civil society members. Here, local practitioners are likely to share stories of how they are helping their communities reverse land degradation. UNCCD prides itself on being a bottom-up convention.
Unlike climate COPs, which often end a day or two over time, UNCCD COPs usually finish on the evening of their last day and – while they have gone late into the night – have never run into the next day.
What else should we watch out for?
At the last COP two years ago, host Saudi Arabia led the creation of an initiative called the Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership to help 80 of the poorest nations deal with drought.
It received $12 billion in pledges, mainly from Gulf-based development finance institutions. Saudi Arabia is expected to report back on whether these pledges have been delivered and how the money will reach those in need now.
There are also hopes that governments will announce financial support for Mongolia’s Rangelands Flagship Initiative, which aims to mobilise investment in projects to fight land degradation.
Who will preside over COP17?
While the last five and the next two climate COPs have been or will be presided over by men, COP17 will be woman-led with Mongolia’s foreign minister, Battsetseg Batmunkh, as president.
This will also be the first COP for the UNCCD’s new executive director Yasmin Fouad. Before being appointed environment minister in her native Egypt, Fouad was a scientist and lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on desertification. She played a key role at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt in 2022.
Although Saudi Arabia’s UNCCD COP presidency is ending, the Gulf power house will likely continue to be influential. It has supported the COP financially as part of the Riyadh-Ulaanbaatar action agenda and will be following up on initiatives announced two years ago.
While Saudi Arabia is often blamed for obstructing progress at climate talks, as a desert nation it is generally thought to have played a constructive role at UNCCD COPs.
What are the negotiating dynamics?
The UNCCD has six main negotiating groups: Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Northern Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe, and developed donor countries. Governments can also speak in their own capacities.
While divisions between the Global North and Global South do exist at UNCCD COPs, they are not as stark as at climate COPs. The Global South’s umbrella group – the G77 and China – usually only speaks on finance issues, on which developing countries tend to be united.
-
When taps run dry in the Caribbean, it’s not enough to blame El Niño
Climate change means El Niño is heating already hotter land and sea, causing devastation across the region and the world -
“We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs
During troubled talks, fossil fuel-producing nations have pushed for a global pact to tackle only plastic waste rather than reducing the size of the problem -
China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste
Long-term contracts guarantee coal plants buyers regardless of demand, crowding out renewables, report finds
Civil society groups are present but not as vocal or as confrontational as at climate COPs. There are generally no protests and campaigners tend to try to hold governments accountable more quietly. There are likely to be far fewer journalists than at climate COPs too.
What role will the US play?
While the US has left the UN’s climate convention, it remains in the UNCCD and is expected to bring a delegation of officials from its departments of agriculture and state. It is likely to resist any renewed push from Africa for a drought protocol.
The post Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia?
Helen Phillips’ book, ‘Hum’, is set in a dystopian near future, in a city suffering the effects of climate breakdown and with dire air quality. Robots (the Hums) press advertising messages during conversations, meetings and even as they carry out medical procedures.
The Hums are vehicles for these ad messages, which are often for products like cosmetics, sweets or anything that might be relevant during interactions with humans. This advertising is poorly disguised, and merges with sentiments that lean towards concerns of well-being, convincing people how much better off they’ll be if they make a purchase.
While the novel is futuristic, the insidious way advertising permeates daily life is resonant of how adverts show up in our world today. And these ads are directly contributing to the worsening future climate Phillips describes in her book.
-
As fires burn and temperatures soar, it’s time to imagine a world beyond GDP
Environmental destruction, like clear-cutting a forest, can boost gross domestic product but it reduces a country’s real wealth
Already by the summer of 2026, Europe had seen a 57% increase in wildfires in just four years with western Europe recording the hottest ever June and July on record. We’re facing droughts and floods, as well as predicted hikes in food costs or even chronic food shortages – and that’s before the expected additional effects of a strong El Niño later this year.
Frequent flying and bigger burgers
A portion of this climate breakdown is fuelled by over-consumption in richer countries, particularly of products that are high carbon – for which advertising can take some of the blame. Research shows that adverts drive citizens to consume about a third more goods and services in general, over and above what they might have purchased.
Yet despite a clear link between promoting high-carbon behaviours and climate breakdown, little advertising regulation exists in the UK. Take frequent flying for instance, one of the most carbon-intensive activities we can partake in.
EasyJet’s latest ad campaign is called “Drop Everything”. It encourages consumers to book cheap flights departing within the next 48 hours for presumably short or weekend getaways. Rather than promoting a specific destination, “Drop Everything” promotes a mindset that encourages indiscriminate consumption of flying. The ads were shown on billboards with clever creative slogans, as well as on digital media and through influencer campaigns.
Overall, flight numbers are increasing. The UK Civil Aviation Authority reported the highest number of UK passengers in the first quarter of 2026 (more than 61 million, breaking previous records for travel between January and March). It seems we’re still not joining the dots between flying and a worsening climate.
And how about meat consumption? Scientists advocate for less meat-eating, especially beef which has the highest carbon footprint of nearly all foods. Yet adverts from McDonald’s proliferate, helping make it one of the highest-volume sellers of fast-food chain beef burgers. In 2024, the outdoor advertising budget for McDonald’s UK rose to £86 million, an increase of 71% on previous years.
Small share for sustainability
While over half of UK ad professionals feel increasingly queasy about their profession and its effects on the climate crisis, the people running the show – the UK trade bodies – prefer to focus on the growth advertising brings.
In the first three months of 2026, they stated that UK advertising spend increased by 9.3%, reaching a total of £11.7 billion for that quarter, fuelling consumption and market growth.
But how many of those adverts actually promote low carbon goods and services? Kantar’s Sustainable Ads Tracker shows the percentage of ads featuring sustainability messaging in 2026 is around 4.3%. That’s woefully low, and much of this is made up of messaging that promotes recycling.
Additionally, the ad industry continues to happily produce adverts for the large oil and gas corporations that are fuelling climate breakdown. These adverts only narrowly pass the Advertising Standards Authorities’ advertising codes, allowing the continued greenwashing of the world’s most polluting brands.
There is essentially no leadership from the UK trade bodies, likely because they are directly funded by the brands and advertisers themselves. They are essentially ‘ad shushing’ – pushing for indiscriminate growth and directing attention to their sustainability awards, while confusingly denying that adverts drive higher consumption overall.
Let’s ‘un-shush’
Where does this leave us as we are subjected to hundreds, if not thousands, of persuasive advertising messages every day that support high-carbon lifestyles? Most ad professionals are unable to push back against this agenda at work, often due to the threat of job loss. The advertising trade bodies won’t take the lead as they work in service to big brands and advertisers.
NGOs urge Brazil to prevent fossil fuel capture of COP30 climate summit
So, who can push for the changes we need? Members of the public.
Through pressuring our city officials and governments, we can force through restrictions, such as the watershed bans on unhealthy foods on TV before 9pm in the UK. Through supporting the efforts of organisations such as Ad Free Cities and others, we can help achieve bans on outdoor advertising for fossil fuels, aviation, meat and even single-use plastics in cities and regions such as Amsterdam, The Hague, Edinburgh, Florence, Uppsala and many more.
If we’re serious about climate change and stopping big global brands pushing their high-carbon products onto us, then advertising restrictions are one of the best ways to achieve this. If we don’t want a world like the one Phillips describes in her book, we need to make our voices heard above the advertising noise.
The post Pushing the climate crisis: How advertising fuels high-carbon lifestyles appeared first on Climate Home News.
Pushing the climate crisis: How advertising fuels high-carbon lifestyles
An upcoming UK government consultation on weakening targets for electric vehicles (EVs) could cost consumers as much as £3bn a year by 2030, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
It could require the UK to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, raising expected net imports by 8%, as well as adding 2.5% to national emissions that year, the analysis shows.
After years of fierce lobbying by parts of the car industry – and despite the significant savings on offer for EV drivers – media reports suggest that EV targets could be “watered down”.
Under current rules, battery EVs – BEVs, those which run only on electricity – must make up a rising share of new car sales in the UK.
This policy, known as the “zero-emission vehicles” (ZEV) mandate, was introduced by the previous Conservative government and sets a goal for 33% BEV sales in 2026, rising to 80% in 2030.
(Carmakers are able to use “flexibilities” to help meet their targets, which reduces the effective target under the ZEV mandate to an estimated 25% of sales in 2026.)
Now, the government under new Labour prime minister Andy Burnham is reported to be considering a cut in the BEV target for 2030 to just 50% of new car sales, alongside options for 60% or 70%.
Carbon Brief understands that a consultation on weakening the ZEV mandate is being reviewed by the prime minister’s office in Number 10, ahead of being formally released.
If the mandate is weakened to 50% by 2030 – and if carmakers make more use of “flexibilities” – there could be up to 3m fewer BEVs on UK roads by 2030, according to the NGO T&E.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that BEVs are around £1,100 cheaper to run per year than a petrol car, thanks to far lower fuel costs.
Overall, BEVs are more than £1,000 per year cheaper to own than either petrol cars or plug-in hybrids (PHEVs, which can run on petrol or electricity).
This is according to analysis of the “total cost of ownership” by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), including purchase price, fuel costs, insurance and proposed pay-per-mile charges.
In total, Carbon Brief analysis shows that UK drivers could be hit with an extra £3bn in annual ownership costs by 2030, if the ZEV mandate is weakened, as shown below.
A weaker ZEV mandate could “put billions of pounds of committed investments at risk”, reports BusinessGreen, including in the EV charging network and battery supply chains.
Industry group Energy UK says that the mandate is “working in the way it was designed to work” and that it is the “single biggest driver of emissions reductions” in government climate plans.
However, Carbon Brief analysis shows that a weaker ZEV mandate could result in an extra 7.4m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (MtCO2) in 2030. This would add the equivalent of 2.5% to national emissions in 2030, under the UK’s international climate goal for that year.
In addition, a weaker ZEV mandate could result in the UK needing to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, equivalent to 8% of projected net imports that year.
Energy UK says that shifting to EVs will help to reduce household energy bills “for everyone”. This is not only through direct cost-of-ownership savings for EV drivers, but also by spreading the costs of upgrading the electricity system across a wider user base.
Car industry group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders claims that its members are spending “blilions…on discounts, finance incentives and marketing support” and that “natural” EV demand is below the level required to meet the current ZEV mandate. Its claims are disputed.
related
Q&A: Does the world need ‘carbon capture and storage’ to reach net-zero?
UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo
28 quotes from new UK leader Andy Burnham on climate, net-zero and fossil fuels
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
The post Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits