How India moves: Must we promote private EVs?

What’s the value of personal electric vehicles? Are the Teslas or the BYDs the answer to the climate conundrum we face today? This is neither a convenient question nor one with an easy answer. Yet, it is important to discuss as the world takes steps—some moving forward and the others in reverse gear—to combat greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fast driving us towards a climate catastrophe.

In my last column (1-15 June, 2025), I discussed the value of electrifying the vehicle fleet—for reducing oil consumption that contributes to GHG emissions; for reducing local air pollution through zero-emission vehicles; and for decreasing dependence on oil imports. So, I am not questioning the need for electric vehicles; simply, if there is value in promoting private cars, even if they are electric and so, clean and low carbon.

The answer lies in the question: why electric vehicles (EVs)? In old industrialised countries, which have the burden of moving first and fast to low-carbon economies, the EV programme has been viewed as one that will replace the internal combustion (IC) engine vehicles. In this way, they expect that the transition would reduce GHG emissions. This shift is driven by mandates—goals that ensure the transformation happens. Europe, for instance, has mandated that 80 per cent of new cars must be zero-emission vehicles by 2030, increasing to 100 per cent by 2035. The US, during the Biden era, had set a target for 50 per cent of new vehicle registrations to be electric by 2030. In these countries, the objective is to use electric vehicles to decarbonise the transport sector, and this is only possible if the IC engine is phased out.

Let’s stay with Europe, where GHG emissions from the transport sector have increased over the past three decades; 60 per cent of road transport emissions come from private cars. Hence, the objective is to decarbonise this sector. But now that Europe faces headwinds from the geopolitics of the vehicle supply chain—the China factor—the mandate, which sets the goal and also the roadmap ahead, will determine if it can stay on course.

Now, the next big question is whether European countries should subsidise private car owners for this transition, or if that money would be better spent on decarbonising transport and moving people away from private to public modes. If rich countries can afford to do both then why should we quibble.

But this question is very relevant for our part of the world—we cannot afford to do both. Already private cars—diesel or petrol—are subsidised, and this puts a significant burden on the exchequer. These subsidies are not apparent or discussed, but if you look at the road tax paid by car owners like me, it is lower than what a bus traveller pays. Private cars occupy 90 per cent or more of road space—this, along with the massive costs of building roads, flyovers and other paraphernalia for private commuting, amounts to a huge subsidy for private car owners. So, our decarbonisation and air pollution reduction objectives demand that we must reduce private transport modes on our roads and transition to an approach that moves people, not vehicles.

This means, in our case, private EVs will only work if there is a mandate—a compulsory large-scale and time-bound switch to zero-emission vehicles and out of IC engines. Simply adding more cars, even if electric, will not work for air pollution or climate objectives. Today, expensive and swanky electric cars are being added by the rich to their existing fleets of diesel and petrol cars. This is not going to lead to the change we need. These vehicles do not warrant tax breaks or public subsidies.

The good news is the Indian government’s policy is not mesmerised blindly by electric cars. It has chosen to subsidise EVs used for mass transit, such as buses, or for paratransit like three-wheelers. Even where subsidies apply to private vehicles, they are directed towards two-wheelers, which are efficient users of road space. This is the real game changer. If we make public transport larger and cleaner, we gain double-triple benefits of clean transportation.

But this is still not enough; we now need a mandate to ensure the transition makes the necessary differ ence. So first, every grossly polluting segment in vehicles—from three-wheelers to taxis to buses—must be required, through a time-bound mandate, to make the switch to electric. This mandate should apply not only to new registrations but also to replace older, more polluting vehicles. Second, there must be restraints on private vehicle usage through measures like parking charges, alongside incentives for public transport. Only when private cars are replaced by truly low-carbon options—from walking to cycling to buses, trams and metros—can we achieve our objectives. Our electrification agenda is the mobility transformation agenda; nothing less.