The UK auto industry’s successful campaign to dilute the ZEV mandate was a masterclass in using fear of worst-case scenarios to drive policy change. By focusing on potential job losses and crippling fines, the industry shifted the debate away from the policy’s environmental benefits.
The language used in the lobbying documents was consistently alarming. Toyota spoke of penalties that could put “employment and investment… at risk.” BMW warned of a “detrimental effect” on thousands of jobs. The SMMT raised the spectre of outright “de-industrialisation.”
These arguments created a narrative of impending economic crisis, making it politically difficult for the government to hold its ground. The fear of being blamed for factory closures or mass layoffs often outweighs the more abstract, long-term fear of missing climate targets.
Critics argue that this was a deliberately orchestrated campaign of fear, where plausible risks were exaggerated into certainties. They contend that the industry was never truly at risk of collapse, but that by painting a picture of doom, they successfully pressured the government into granting concessions that will ultimately boost their profits.