Some of the world’s largest car manufacturers and vehicle producing nations will not sign a global deal to cut new car emissions by 2040, dealing a blow to one of Boris Johnson’s key ambitions for the COP26 summit.
Volkswagen and Toyota, the world’s two largest manufacturers are among those that have declined to agree to the ‘Route Zero’ pledge, due to be announced in Glasgow on Wednesday.
Mr Johnson said making progress on cars was one of his four priorities for COP26, but as he returns to Glasgow today for the final days of the summit a key emissions target has been watered down because of opposition.
Image: Environmental protesters outside Volkswagen’s annual meeting in Berlin, 13 March 2018
Negotiators had hoped to announce a deal committing car manufacturers and governments to reaching 100% zero emission new car and van sales in leading markets “by 2035 or earlier”.
In the final deal the deadline has been pushed back five years to 2040, or by 2035 in “leading markets”.
Advertisement
The UK government is committed to outlawing the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030, and will commit to making all HGVs zero-emission by 2040.
Six manufacturers and 24 countries have agreed to the Glasgow commitments, including major American manufacturers GM and Ford, as well as Mercedes, Volvo, Jaguar Land Rover and Chinese manufacturer BYD.
More from Business
The support of American manufacturers is significant given the US share of global transport emissions, but it remains to be seen if government support is forthcoming for the deal.
Cynthia Williams, director of sustainability at Ford, said: “We are moving now to deliver breakthrough electric vehicles for the many rather than the few and achieving goals once thought mutually exclusive – protect our planet, build the green economy, and create value for our customers and shareholders. It will take everyone working together to be successful. Partnerships like RouteZero can build momentum and deliver real solutions.”
But the absence of VW and Toyota and BMW, as well as government support from China and Germany, is a blow to progress on a key source of global carbon emissions.
Image: Japanese car giant Toyota was one of the three companies that declined to sign the deal on car emissions
All the manufacturers who have snubbed the deal say they are committed to reducing emissions and transitioning their fleets from internal combustion engines to battery electric or hydrogen power.
They all have concerns however at the viability of delivering promises that they may not be able to deliver because of external factors in various markets.
Volkswagen has said that while it is committed to the goal of zero-emission vehicles it will not sign up because of concerns about different rates of energy decarbonisation in global markets.
In a statement it said: “While transformative speed is of the essence, the pace of transformation will still differ from region to region (Europe, US, South America, China) depending, among other things, on local political decisions driving EV and infrastructure investments.
Image: BMW was another company that declined to sign the agreement
“Furthermore, we believe that an accelerated shift to electro mobility has to go in line with an energy transition towards 100% renewables. While the overall global goal of reaching zero emissions in line with the Paris Agreement is non-negotiable, regions developing at different speed combined with different local prerequisites need different pathways towards zero emissions.
“Therefore, the Volkswagen Group, representing business activities in all major-markets world-wide, decided not to sign the declaration at this point in time.”
Japanese giant Toyota is understood to have decided not to sign the pledge because of concerns about the pace of development of infrastructure, energy markets and other enablers of the transition away from petrol and diesel.
BMW said: “There remains considerable uncertainty about the development of global infrastructure to support a complete shift to zero emission vehicles, with major disparities across markets.”
Nvidia has signalled no drop in demand for its flagship chips among big artificial intelligence (AI) spenders despite the low-cost challenge posed by Chinese rival DeepSeek.
The leading AI chipmaker said it expected Blackwell sales to continue to grow after its latest earnings beat market expectations.
Nvidia forecast revenue of around $43bn (£34bn) for its first quarter after achieving a figure of $39.3bn (£31bn) over its last three months – up 12% from the previous quarter and 78% from one year ago.
Just a month ago, its shares took a hammering when it emerged DeepSeek‘s primary chatbot, which uses lower-cost chips, had become the most popular free application on Apple’s App Store across the US.
Nvidia’s shares lost almost $600bn in market value in a day.
It also prompted investors to question whether the AI-led stock market rally of recent years was overblown.
There was anxiety ahead of Nvidia’s earnings report though shares only fell fractionally in after-hours dealing.
More from Money
Market analysts suggested demand from Microsoft, Amazon and other heavyweight tech companies racing to build AI infrastructure remained robust, given Nvidia’s revenue guidance even though the bulk of it is accounted for through data centres.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Nvidia founder Jensen Huang said Nvidia has ramped up the massive-scale production of Blackwell and achieved “billions of dollars in sales in its first quarter”.
“Demand for Blackwell is amazing as reasoning AI adds another scaling law – increasing compute for training makes models smarter and increasing compute for long thinking makes the answer smarter.
“AI is advancing at light speed as agentic AI and physical AI set the stage for the next wave of AI to revolutionise the largest industries,” he said.
Derren Nathan, head of equity research at Hargreaves Lansdown, said of the report: “The longer-term investment case for the driver of the AI train is looking difficult to pick holes in, with Meta’s $200bn just one of the latest mega investments in data centres to be unveiled recently.
“By virtue of scale, growth may be slowing a little but upgrades to analysts full-year numbers can be expected off the back of today’s results. At a around 30x forward earnings, the valuation still doesn’t look overcooked.”
How much have America, Britain and the rest paid Ukraine in aid since the Russian invasion? And do they have any hope of getting money back in return?
These are big questions, and they’re likely to dominate much of the discussion in the coming months as Donald Trump pressurises his Ukrainian counterparts for a deal on ending the war. So let’s go through some of the answers.
First off, the question of who has given the most money to Ukraine rather depends on what you’re counting.
If you’re looking solely at the amount of military support extended since 2022, the US has provided €64bn, compared with €62bn from European nations (including the UK).
But now include other types of support, such as humanitarian and financial assistance, and European support exceeds American (€132bn in total, compared with €114bn from the US).
Divide Europe into its constituent nations, on the other hand, and none of them individually comes anywhere close to the US quantity of aid.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
That being said, simple cash numbers aren’t an especially good measure of a country’s ability to pay.
Look at US support as a percentage of gross domestic product and it comes to 0.5% of GDP. That’s almost precisely the same as the aid from the UK.
Looked at through this prism, it’s other countries which are clearly the most generous: Denmark, Estonia and much of the Baltics providing around 2% of their GDP – a far bigger amount versus their ability to finance it.
Still, compare the aid this time around with previous amounts spent in other conflicts and they are nowhere close.
Lend-Lease during WWII, aid during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and even the first Gulf War, involved significantly bigger outlays than currently being spent on Ukraine.
That goes not just for the US but also for the UK, Germany and Japan, all of which provided more aid to the Kuwaitis and other affected nations during the first Gulf War.
Even so, it’s clear that the US and others have put significant resources towards Ukraine.
President Trump has been talking recently about recouping $500bn from Ukraine in the form of revenues from mining rare earth metals.
This is, on the face of it, slightly odd. Rare earth metals represent an obscure corner of the periodic table and play a small if important role in electronics and military manufacturing.
The entire market is small – making it essentially implausible that, even if Ukraine suddenly produced the majority of the world’s supply, the president could expect that amount of revenue back in return.
More to the point, while there are a couple of rare earth deposits in Ukraine, they have languished, unexploited, for years. They are so expensive to mine no-one has worked out how to extract the elements and make a profit at the same time.
And even if you presumed they could do, Ukraine would still be a relative minnow in global rare earths production.
Assuming, as one probably should, that Donald Trump didn’t just mean rare earths, but was talking more broadly about “critical minerals” (the two are different things, but let’s not get too pedantic here), there are also one or two other promising mine sites in the country.
There is an old, shuttered alumina plant seized from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. There is a large lithium resource which could, if all went well, be the single biggest lithium mine in Europe.
Yet even taking this into account, Ukraine would still be a relatively small player in global lithium. Not nothing – but not world changing either. Certainly not enough to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr Trump is seeking.
Then again, Ukraine has other resources at its disposal too: vast seams of coal in the Donbas, large iron ore reserves in the south of the country.
Both of these are in or close to Russian occupied areas – which might, from the Ukrainians’ perspective, actually be the point. Old fashioned as this stuff is, it does actually generate significant revenue. It might be Donald Trump’s best hope for some payback.
The number of convictions linked to a second Post Office IT scandal being investigated for miscarriages of justice – has more than doubled, Sky News has learned.
Twenty-one Capture cases have now been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) for review.
They relate to the Capture computing software, which was used in Post Office branches in the 1990s before the infamous faulty Horizon system was introduced.
Hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly accused of stealing after Horizon software caused false shortfalls in branch accounts between 1999 and 2015.
A report last year found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the Capture accounting system, used from the early 1990s until 1999, was also responsible for shortfalls.
If the CCRC finds significant new evidence or legal arguments not previously heard before, cases can be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
Lawyer for victims, Neil Hudgell from Hudgell Solicitors, says the next steps for the Capture cases and the CCRC are still “some months away”.
He said he is also hopeful that the first cases could be referred to the Court of Appeal before the end of this year.
Image: Lawyer Neil Hudgell described victims of the Capture IT system as ‘hideously damaged people’
“Certainly we will certainly be lobbying,” he said. “The CCRC will be lobbying, the advisory board will be lobbying any interested parties, that these are hideously damaged people of advancing years who need some peace of mind and the quicker that can happen the better.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:23
In December the government said it would offer ‘redress’ to Post Office Capture software victims
‘We didn’t talk about it’
Among those submitted to the CCRC – Pat Owen’s Capture case was the first.
Her family have kept her 1998 conviction for stealing from her post office branch a secret for 26 years.
Image: Juliet Shardlow shows Sky News paperwork which could explain discrepancies logged by Capture
Speaking to Sky News they have opened up for the first time about what happened to her.
Pat was a former sub-postmistress, who was found guilty and given a two-year suspended sentence.
She died in 2003 from heart failure.
Image: David Owen and his wife Pat in happier times
Her daughters describe her as coming home from court after her conviction “a different woman”.
“We didn’t talk about it,” said Juliet Shardlow. “We didn’t talk about it amongst ourselves as a family, we didn’t talk about it with the extended family.
“Our extended family don’t know.”
Image: Juliet Shardlow said her mum Pat was a different person after her conviction
David Owen, Pat’s husband, said she lost a lot of weight after her conviction and at 62 years old “looked like an old gal of 90”.
Capture evidence never heard in court
Pat’s family kept all the documents from her case safe for over two decades and now a key piece of evidence may turn the tide on her conviction, and potentially help others.
A document summarising the findings of an IT expert described the computer Pat used as having “a faulty motherboard”.
It also stated that this “would have produced calculation errors and may have been responsible for the discrepancies subsequently identified by Post Office Counters’ Security and Investigation team.”