This lively debate centres on the future of decarbonisation in the commercial vehicle and road freight sector. With increasing pressure to introduce a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate, some argue for immediate action focused solely on ZEVs, while others advocate for a broader, more inclusive approach to decarbonisation.

Which side will you champion? Let the battle commence!

Argument 1: ZEV Mandate Now (Zero Means Zero)

Proposer: Jamie Sands, Head of Solutions, Welch’s Group

Seconder:  Josh Spencer, EV & Sustainability Manager, Ford & Slater

Core Arguments

Clarity and Accountability:

• “Zero” should mean true zero emissions at the tailpipe.
• Avoids greenwashing and ensures measurable progress.

Technology Readiness:

• Battery-electric trucks are increasingly viable.
• Infrastructure is catching up; mandates will accelerate deployment.

Global Competitiveness:

• Aligns UK with EU, US, and other global ZEV policies.
• Encourages innovation and investment in clean tech.

Public Health and Climate:

• Immediate reductions in air pollution and GHG emissions.
• Supports national net-zero targets.

Argument 2: Broader Decarbonisation Strategy (Zero Should Be Flexible)

Proposer: Darren Newman, Director, Low Carbon Truck Consultancy

Seconder: Colin Matthews, Director, Joulevert

Core Arguments

Pragmatism Over Purity:

• Industry needs flexibility to decarbonise using all available tools: biofuels, hybrids, efficiency improvements.
• One-size-fits-all mandates may not suit all use cases (e.g., long-haul, rural logistics).

Technology Neutrality:

• Let the market decide the best path to zero.
• Avoid picking winners too early.

Cost and Infrastructure Gaps:

• ZEVs are still expensive; charging/refueling infrastructure is uneven.
• Broader incentives can support SMEs and rural operators.

Faster Overall Impact:

A mixed approach could deliver quicker emissions reductions in the short term.