Two alternatives to the ICE car ban

There is a lot of push back against the proposal to ban Fossil fueled Internal Combustion Engined (ICE) cars in 2030, 2035, 2040 or whenever. 

For context, small vehicles are one of the lowest hanging fruit in terms of climate mitigation. 

It is listed as part of the first step (A) on the electrification staircase from Michael Liebreich and fellow experts in electrification. 

It is low-hanging fruit because there is already an alternative (Battery electric vehicles) which are a better vehicle in almost every way. I've got an EV and it is much nicer to drive, much cheaper to own and much more convenient when you can charge it outside your house. 

The only downsides of EVs are 

1. They can cost slightly more up front (though the gap is rapidly reducing and in some cases there is already price parity)
2. They cannot be refueled as quickly (except when the vehicle is plugged in while the user is doing something else, which is how EVs are usually refilled). 

From a liberal perspective banning things isn't ideal unless the product is really dangerous. Climate change is of course very dangerous, but the impact of emissions aren't immediate - it will affect people at some point in the future. 

Why not abandon the ban and just make passenger cars net zero in another way? 

I've got two alternative proposals for that...

Option 1: Require all fuel on sale to be net-zero e-fuels

People assume that they can continue to pollute without paying the cost. That is essentially the problem here. 

My first alternative proposal is to insist that all fuels for sale get made in a clean fashion. 

It is possible to make synthetic e-fuels (hydrocarbons) out of air (carbon), water (hydrogen) and renewable electricity. 

Essentially, this means reversing the combustion process. 

It would require huge amounts of renewable energy sources (wind and solar), of course. That might not be popular. 

However, it is possible and it is the net zero future for combustion vehicles. 

How much would it add to the cost of fuel? 

The basic issue is that clean fuel would cost at least 2x (probably 3-5x) the cost of petrol at present. 

The reason is physics. Combusting hydrocarbons releases a huge amount of energy, so doing the opposite requires a lot of energy. 

Nature has made the fossil fuels for us. To make it ourselves will require huge amounts of renewable power and will cost a fortune. 

The cost difference between running an efficient EV on cheap clean electricity and running an inefficient ICE car on expensive clean fuels will be such that you'd have to be an idiot to prefer the ICE car. 

To make things worse, ICE cars would still cause more local pollution in noise and air pollutions (though e-fuels should have fewer impurities so might burn cleaner). 

If people want to drive fossil cars so much then giving them the option to drive on e-fuels and let the various powertrains compete on a level playing field. 

Makes sense to me. 

However, the problem is that this proposed regulation could be removed just as easily as a carbon price might be removed by a future pollution-happy government. 

Option 2: Add the carbon charge to the up-front cost

The second option would get around the problems of the reliance on future enforcement of a carbon taxation or clean e-fuel regulation. 

 

This is to place an up-front carbon charge on all ICE cars. 

Essentially, this would add on the cost of future emissions generated to the purchase price of the vehicle. This could be used to invest in carbon sequestration to offset the carbon that the vehicle will emit over its lifetime. 

Calculating the up-front charge

It would be necessary to make assumptions in order to calculate an up front charge. 

We don't know how many miles a car will drive. It might be written off in an accident after 200 miles, or it might last for decades and do 150k miles. It would be necessary to pick an 'anticipated milage' charge for each vehicle. 

Different vehicles have different efficiencies as well, which could be factored in to mean that different vehicles would have a different charge. 

The other factor would be the cost of carbon to input into the calculation. 

But let's assume for my purposes here that an ICE car will generate 39 tonnes of CO2, going by this IEA analysis.

The big question, then, is how much it will cost to sequester a tonne of CO2 during the life of the vehicle. 

That is also speculative. 

At the moment, CO2 "carbon credits" are relatively cheap. This is because there is - again - low hanging fruit available. 

Replacing coal or gas electricity with solar and battery reduces emissions and is also economically sensible. 

As time goes on, those easy wins will be exhausted and we will end up having to suck carbon out of the atmosphere (with trees or big machines), turn the CO2 into a stable element (like a liquid, such as a fuel). 

How much would it add to the cost of a car? 

I'll give some rough figures depending on what the carbon price is...

• At £100 per tonne it would add £3,900 to the cost of a petrol car. 
• At £256, then the charge would be £10,000.
• At £500, the charge would be £19,500. 
• At £1,000 per tonne of carbon it would add £39,000 to the cost of the vehicle. 

How much is the cost of carbon going to be in the future? 

It will gradually increase over time, but where will it stop? 

At some point the only option will be to suck carbon out of the air (direct air capture), convert it to a liquid or something and then to bury it underground. Essentially, this means making E-fuels and burying them in the places where we used to get fossil fuels from. 

How much will this cost? No idea, but it will be somewhere between £500 and £1,000 per tonne of CO2. I expect it will be at the upper end of that, but if it is the lower end then we are still talking about £20k added to the cost of an ICE car. 

Clearly no-one is going to buy an ICE car if they are charged even a few thousand pounds more for the privilege of polluting, let alone £20k. 

Conclusion

Economists would generally agree that charging for pollution is better than banning things. Then people can choose which option they prefer. 

The problem with carbon emissions is that people don't think that they will be charged for their carbon emissions because they haven't been in the past. People are used to passing on the costs of their pollution to future generations and poor people. 

Perhaps that is reasonable. Maybe politicians will continue to give in to short-termist pressure from voters to reduce pollution costs. 

Charging up-front for pollution is one way to achieve that. 

What do you think?

How should we go about achieving net zero when it comes to passenger vehicles? 

• Should we ban things that obviously have no future whatsoever in a net zero world? 
• Or, should we only allow for fuels are clean? 
• Or, should we add the cost on up front so that buyers doing make their choices expecting to avoid the cost of their pollution? 

 In 2025 I undertook the course Sustainable Cities: An Introduction taught by my fantastic and friendly colleague Dr David Howard. I wanted to share an updated version of the assignment from the course online in case anyone found it interesting.

Is Willowbrook Park a Sustainable Urban Development? 

Introduction

This essay reviews the sustainability of one of the ongoing green-field developments to the North-East of Didcot. Willowbrook park is one part of a major development of around 2,000 homes to the North of Didcot, being delivered by Croudace homes, alongside two other developers. Willowbrook Park was begun before the other developments and is nearly complete, with most sections built and inhabited. The wider development is part of a major extension of Didcot as part of the Didcot garden town masterplan (South Oxfordshire Council, 2017).

The developer claims that “Ecological and environmental aspects of construction are of the utmost importance” (Croudace homes, 2025a: 4). To assess this claim, I will first give an overview of the development in question and its context, provide a working definition of sustainability and then discuss how well the development fares according to the three pillars of sustainability. I will focus mostly on the environmental pillar.

Context

The extension of Didcot takes place in order to meet the acute housing need in Oxfordshire arising due to economic success and rapid population growth. South Oxfordshire has been the focus of a lot of job and housing growth, particularly arising due to research developments at Harwell, Culham and Oxford. As there are green belt restrictions around Oxford, Didcot has been the focus of housing growth due to its location.

Figure 1 Map with Didcot, Railway lines and Location of development marked with an X.

Didcot grew into a town as it is the junction station where the Oxford branch line deviated from the Great Western Railway Mainline (London to Bristol). The Oxford branch was soon connected to the North to allow North-South journeys. As a result, Didcot is a major passenger transportation hub with trains and buses. It is also a logistics hub, with the A34 North-South trunk Road complementing the rail connection.

Sustainability

What does it mean to say that a development is sustainable? This term can be used in many ways and so it is appropriate to ensure that the word is being applied in a meaningful and helpful way. Care should be taken because there are ongoing concerns about the potential for greenwashing by profit-seeking firms, who would get some value from being perceived to be sustainable.

A development exists within a wider context, of course. This complicates the picture because it is the wider context that often matters, and each development cannot change that all on its own. However, a development can make a positive (or negative) contribution to the overall sustainability of a community, region, country, and world.

An early and influential definition was needs-focused, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). An appealing later definition was that “there is some X whose value should be maintained, in as far as it lies within our power to do so, into the indefinite future” (Barry 1997, 101). This leaves it open what the X should be. Human capabilities are a useful metric for some purposes, and Helm argues that capabilities are what should be provided to future generations (Sen 1980; Helm 2023).

For the purposes of this essay, I propose that the urban environment should… “provide the capability of living well to the present and future generations, while contributing positively to the ability of the wider world to also achieve those aims.” Sustainable developments are those which help a city achieve these aims to a greater extent.

To make the task more manageable I will organise my discussion around the three pillars (Purvis, Mao, and Robinson 2019). I will focus mostly on the Environmental pillar even though there is no implied order or priority between them.

One approach which is positive for sustainability on all three pillars is to achieve a “fifteen-minute city.” This means that all major amenities can be found within a 15 minute walk (Moreno 2024). The development achieves this for some amenities (primary school, convenience store [when opened]), but certainly not all, meaning that many people will drive.

Social Pillar

In terms of social sustainability, as a green field development a new community will need to be formed. Some features should help with placemaking. At the Southern entrance to the development there is a square “neighbourhood park” which also serves as flood abatement infrastructure. A community centre is being built nearby with a public square outside which faces across to a primary school. This should offer a good meeting place (Whyte 1988). Hopefully the future community will find ways to use these flexible and accessible spaces according to their needs and wants (Ellery and Ellery 2019).

Another point that should encourage placemaking is that a lot of the buildings have balconies and are close to the street. This means that residents will be close to passing neighbours, increasing the likelihood of social engagement.

Economic pillar

The strong relatively South Oxfordshire economy is the underlying reason for the development, by attracting new workers to the area. South Oxfordshire benefits from many research and science enterprises in the “Science vale,” particularly those based at Harwell and Culham, employment sites at Milton Park. Didcot is also a dormitory commuter town for major employment centres of Oxford, Reading and London. The development should be economically sustainable to the extent that it relates to these local opportunities. However, the development is not within walking or wheeling distance of very many employment sites.

Many opportunity sites are reachable by car or bike and/or public transport. Two bus routes run through the site and towards employment sites. Didcot railway station can be reached relatively quickly by bicycle. From here trains and buses run to many major urban centres and employment sites.

Environmental

Nature and the built environment

The masterplan for the development retained existing field boundaries, hedgerows, ditches and many trees (See figures 2, 3 and 4). This will help the development to maintain and allow the continuation of local natural processes, ecosystems, species and biodiversity.

Figure 2: A retained field boundary with trees and shrubs.

Blue-grey development

The development is on flat land which was previously considered unsuitable for development due to its position at the foot of the local elevated land and little above the level of the nearby River Thames. Flood mitigation measures were therefore important, particularly since Climate change is expected to increase the intensity of rainfall in the future and therefore increase the likelihood of flooding (Kendon et al. 2025).

Care was seemingly taken to ensure that the hydrological measures would allow the urban and natural to co-exist to some degree. In figure 3 below we see that existing oak trees and a stream with reeds were retained at a lower level of elevation than the newly built roads, paths and housing.

 

Figure 3: natural features and flood mitigation.

Figure 4 features an impound pond at an elevation between that of the housing and the ditch/stream below. The trees and hedges alongside the ditch have been retained, and these form the boundary of the neighbourhood park mentioned above. This is an example of blue-grey-green development, where hydrological structures are built in such a way as to work alongside natural processes (Depietri and McPhearson 2017).

Wildlife [or ecological] corridors are an important feature of a sustainable city, as these provide sanctuary for species and a means to pass safely between different areas without being exposed to predators and vehicles. The continuation of existing hedgerows and ditches, may help provide wildlife corridors in the future. However, mesh fences may serve as a barrier to this. Open fences such as the ones in photo 3 should be less of a barrier.

 

Figure 4: flood mitigation impound pond alongside a ditch with trees and grass surrounding.

Figure 5: View from the neighbourhood park to a dense housing development

Housing sustainability

The developer makes strong claims about their sustainability record, with webpages, brochures and a sustainability framework (Croudace Homes 2025b). From my perspective they do appear to take sustainability much more seriously than their rival housing developers, though that may be to compare them against a low bar. The density of the development is high in some areas, as depicted in Figures 5 and 6, but low in others. I will give my impression having walked around the area.

A major source of greenhouse emissions and pollution comes from the energy used for heating and transport. All the housing appears to offer a parking space with an EV charger. This provides for a future in which cars are electric and thus much less polluting and expensive to run, which is preferable to combustion vehicles. This is increasingly the case as the GB electricity supply continues its rapid decarbonisation (NESO, 2025), with a government target for over 95% clean electricity by 2030 (DESNZ, 2025). On the other hand, vehicles are environmentally damaging to produce and get relatively little use compared to commercial or shared/hire vehicles, and so a more sustainable city is one in which cars are not necessary because everything is within easy walking and cycling distance.

Buildings often have solar panels, though the early houses in the development had one or two on highly suitable south-facing rooves that could have held many more. Subsequent buildings have more, though roof space is still not fully optimised for solar generation. This makes the installations appear as examples of box-ticking for regulation purposes and represent a missed opportunity for clean electricity generation.

In terms of heating, figure 6 contains some examples of heat pump usage. This is by far the most sustainable form of heating as it can run from zero carbon renewable electricity and operates at a positive efficiency level of up to 500% by absorbing heat from environment. However, these examples are sadly rare, as gas heating seems much more common. [Update: One large house appears to have had a large Octopus Energy installation recently, presumably of an Air Source Heat Pump, which may have received a government grant for £7,500 to remove a heating system that was virtually brand new. This points to the economic as well as environmental unsustainability of installing gas infrastructure that will need to be removed and replaced at great expense]. Housing heat efficiency regulatory standards have increased over time, and while the developer may be meeting and possibly exceeding these, they are not seemingly aiming for Passivhaus thermal efficiency standards.

Figure 6: Dense housing with heat pumps and EV charging

Conclusion

Overall, there are many features of the development which are positive in terms of sustainability. Some may have been driven by regulation or the site masterplan, though the developer appears to take sustainability more seriously than rival firms. That said, the development is not a 15 minute city and there are areas in which opportunities have been missed.

References

Online resources

Croudace homes, (2025a) Willowbrook Park Brochure url: https://www.croudace.co.uk/SiteFiles/905/Didcot%20overview%20brochure.pdf downloaded on 01/12/2025

Croudace homes, (2025b) “Sustainability” on website url: https://www.croudacehomes.co.uk/Sustainability [viewed on 12/12/2025]

DESNZ [Department for Energy Security & Net Zero] (2025) Policy paper Clean Power 2030 Action Plan: A new era of clean electricity url: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan/clean-power-2030-action-plan-a-new-era-of-clean-electricity-main-report

NESO [National Energy System Operator] (2025), “Carbon Intensity dashboard” url:  https://dashboard.neso.energy/  

South Oxfordshire Council (2017) Didcot Garden Plan Delivery Plan https://www.southoxon.gov.uk/south-oxfordshire-district-council/business-and-economy/garden-communities/didcot-garden-town/didcot-garden-town-delivery-plan/ Downloaded on 11/12/2025

Whyte, W.H. (1988) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Municipal Art Society. Available at: https://archive.org/details/CitySpacesHumanPlacesLinks to an external site.

 

Published resources

Barry, Brian. 1997. "Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice." Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (89): 43-64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802067.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem. 1987. "Our common future world commission on environment and developement."

Depietri, Yaella, and Timon McPhearson. 2017. "Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and risk reduction." In Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy and practice, 91-109. Springer International Publishing Cham.

Ellery, Peter J., and Jane Ellery. 2019. "Strengthening Community Sense of Place through Placemaking." Urban Planning; Vol 4, No 2 (2019): Public Space in the New Urban Agenda: Research into ImplementationDO - 10.17645/up.v4i2.2004. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2004.

Helm, Dieter. 2023. Legacy: How to build the sustainable economy. Cambridge University Press.

Kendon, Mike, Amy Doherty, Dan Hollis, Emily Carlisle, Stephen Packman, Svetlana Jevrejeva, Andrew Matthews, Joanne Williams, Judith Garforth, and Tim Sparks. 2025. "State of the UK Climate in 2024." International Journal of Climatology 45 (S1): e70010. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.70010. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.70010.

Moreno, Carlos. 2024. The 15-Minute city: a solution to saving our time and our planet. John Wiley & Sons.

Purvis, Ben, Yong Mao, and Darren Robinson. 2019. "Three pillars of sustainability: insearch of conceptual origins." Sustainability science 14 (3): 681-695.

Sen, Amartya. 1980. "Equality of What?" In The Tanner Lectures On Human Values. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Can economic growth be sustainable? Course and resources

I have recently released this You Tube video inspired by my upcoming online course Economics on a Finite Planet: Sustainability, Growth and Degrowth.  

The questions are along the lines of  How should we measure economic progress? What should economic policy aim at? Can Capitalism ever be sustainable? Is it time for degrowth? 

I wanted to share some other materials that would be useful for those planning to take the course, or just who are interested in the topic. 

Online Videos

An introduction to economics:

Doughnut economics explainers: 

This debate between Jason Hickel and Sam Fankhauser is highly relevant...

The Economist Dieter Helm has made two lecture series available on his website:

• The Sustainable Economy
• Climate realism

Online books, reports and articles 

Dasgupta, Partha. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. (HM Treasury, 2021)

Hickel, J. and Kallis, G., 2020. Is green growth possible?. New political economy,  25(4), pp.469-486.

Stern, Nicholas. Stern Review: The economics of climate change (UK Govt. 2006).

Podcasts

The most relevant podcast that I have found is "Economics for Rebels" which has many episodes. 

Thinkers from the course readings such as Jason Hickel, Diane Coyle, Kate Raworth, Tim Jackson, Dieter Helm and Daniel Susskind have appeared on several podcast episodes each. 

Something’s Got to Give [Dieter Helm and Diane Coyle] Past, Present, Future podcast (2023)

Other recommendations? 

If you want to recommend any resources on this topic do share them in the comments below! 

Useful Free Online Taxation explainers

Here are a list of materials on taxation that I share with my Political Economy of Taxation students as a primer to the subject.

Firstly, here is a video that I made to advertise the course: Why does tax policy matter?

I have also made a video discussing wealth taxes.  

Online lectures/videos/podcasts

Here are some lectures and videos:

Helen Miller “Where does the government get money from? ” Princeton Economics (2021)

James Hannam “Improving the public conversation about tax" Tax Research Network (2020)

Michael Keen and Joel Slemrod “Book Talk: Rebellion, Rascals, and Revenue: Tax Follies and Wisdom through the Ages"

Podcasts (also available as videos)

“When and how to raise taxes” IFS Zooms In (2021)

"Dan Neidle: Why Wealth Taxes Will Backfire Spectacularly" Institute of Economic Affairs (2025)

If you are interested in learning about this topic it would be great to have you on my course!

New video on wind power

 

I've put together a short video about the prospects for wind power in the UK.

It is only five minutes long. 

I didn't give the context but wind power provides up to 60% of UK electricity at present and new wind farms are being constructed all the time. The amount provided varies depending on supply (i.e. windiness) and demand. 

Indeed, the problem now is that when it is windy the wind farms have to be disconnected from the grid because there aren't enough connections between the areas with the wind generation (Scotland in particular) and the rest of the country. 

In the future, when wind is capable of powering the whole country the price of electricity will probably drop to zero. This is because there is no need for any fuel to run the wind turbines. 

The UK no longer uses coal to generate electricity, since it is so much more polluting than gas. 

All the wind, solar and batteries that we add to our grid in the UK means less purchase and burning of methane gas. 

How should I rename the CLIPH-rate tax

 A while back I developed and presented my tax proposal. 

Initially I called it the CIPH-rate tax. 

Then I added an L and made it the CLIPH-rate tax. 

That stands for Comprehensive Lifetime Income per hour.

The name is accurate but the invocation of a cliff is a very bad idea. Cliffs are dangerous things that people fall off and die.  

It is also extremely misleading - my proposal if is for a smooth tax-rate curve rather than the familiar thresholds with sharp changes in rate at those income points. 

Tax to reward work

I have been following with interest the enthusiasm among those on the US right for the "No Tax on Overtime" proposal. 

This is driven by a similar ideal to the one that drives the CLIPH-rate tax. 

People who work longer hours should pay lower rates of tax than someone who earns the same amount in less time. 

An overtime tax is a blunt instrument to do that, but it is interesting to see the enthusiasm for it. 

What would be a better name?

So, what snappy name can we come up with for my proposal that makes it sound less technical and avoid invoking the idea of a cliff?

Here are some initial ideas:  

• Work reward system
• Laziness tax 

There are downsides to the latter term, because it might end up punishing those unable to work for health reasons, which is certainly not my aim. Those unable to work should be much better off than they are at present. 

But those who are able to work and who do not do so should pay much higher rates of tax. I'm thinking here of those who live off inherited and other unearned wealth, rather than working for a living. 

Does anyone have any alternative name suggestions? 

A better way to map political views?

 I have found political debate frustrating for many reasons lately.

There are various ways to label political views, but I found them all too limited. Left and right is too simplistic. The political compass is better but still gives strange results and oversimplifies.

There are useful value axes surveys, such as 8values and 9axes. These are helpful to people in working out their own values, but not really in terms of giving them a label or relating them to others.

I’ve therefore had a go at developing an alternative political compass.

I thought the easiest way to explain it was to put it in a video, so that is what I did:

The basic idea is that there are certain points of appeal for people and it is a question of which one they value most. Some are strongly opposed to one another, hence the ‘magnetic poles’ or ‘gravity’ metaphors. Other poles are friendly to one another.

Thoughts and suggestions are very welcome!