King Review
Open-knowledge reference entry
The King Review of low-carbon cars was launched in 2007 by the British Government to examine the vehicle and fuel technologies which could help to decarbonise road transport over the next 25 years.
The Review was led by Professor Julia King CBE FREng, Vice-Chancellor of Aston University and former Director of Advanced Engineering at Rolls-Royce plc.
The interim analytical report was published in October 2007, and focused on the potential for the reduction of CO2 emissions from road transport. It concluded:
Urgent progress is needed from road transport to help meet emission cuts for the developed world of 60-80 per cent by 2050 outlined in the Stern Review.
At low cost and by 2030, per-kilometre emissions from road transport could be reduced by 50 per cent.
Electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles have the potential to make near complete decarbonisation of road transport a realistic long-term objective.
Biofuels have a role in the future UK fuel market, though demand must not be allowed to grow too quickly without robust environmental safeguards in place.
The final stage of the Review was published in March 2008, and gave recommendations on how the Government can play a role in decarbonising transport.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “King Review” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through King, Review and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 13, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q6411994. The first chronological checks are 2007, 2050, 2030 and 2008.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “King Review”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow King Review primary sources, King Review archive and King research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “King Review”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “King Review” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.