Yes, this is the correct answer

Electric cars will never account for more than a third of the market and consumers should not be forced to buy them, the boss of Toyota has said.

Akio Toyoda, chairman of the world’s biggest carmaker by sales, said that electric vehicles (EVs) should not be developed to the exclusion of other technologies such as the hybrid and hydrogen-powered cars that his company has focused on.

Speaking to employees in a question and answer session, Mr Toyoda called for a “multi-pathway approach”, adding: “The enemy is CO2.”

Well, that very first assertion might not be correct. We certainly don’t know and we’d not try to impose our ignorance upon everyone else either. Which is exactly what our actual governors have forgotten. No one does know what is going to be the correctly different technology other than the internal combustion engine. It could even be that the ICE remains but powered by manufactured petrol from renewables derived hydrogen. Again, we don’t say it will be but it’s a viable technological path.

Among us here we know alarmingly large amounts about the lithium for batteries market, have actually worked in the supply chain of the fuel cells for those hydrogen cars, are up to date on renewables and Fischer Tropsch and so on - and we still don’t know.

Except we do know the right way for the decision to be made. Which is to have the one, technology independent intervention to deal with the externality. Then leave the market be to sort through all the potentially viable alternatives and see which one wins. Instead of the current system of people with a great deal less knowledge than we’ve got picking the loser.

We can tell it’s the losing technology by the insistence upon its imposition - no law is necessary to force people to use a winner.

We’re even fortunate enough to not have to impose a new insistence or penalty. As repeated investigations from the likes of the IMF and so on point out the current UK level of petrol/diesel taxation is at or above the Stern Review carbon tax level. We’ve already done everything necessary as an intervention, now we just have to wait and see.

Or rather, we’ve already done far too much for as well as the correct carbon tax we’ve that legal insistence on most of the solutions not being allowed. Which is the error of course.

Markets do work and one of the times when they really, really, work is when we face technological uncertainty. Create the incentive to replace, sure, but then leave be to see what wins that replacement battle. The real and underlying logic to that being that we don’t, in fact, know what us the people want from the replacement. Therefore how can any planner possibly provide what is unknown? We need the period of market experimentation to find out…..