Consumer demand is a fickle thing. Constantly influenced by price, proximity, product ease, general fear of the economy, culture war nonsense, and all sorts of other randomness, it can be hard to predict just where the general public will spend its money next. While governments can attempt to influence consumer behavior, demand is still what gets things sold. What will happen to EV demand as the Canadian province of British Columbia cuts EV rebates shortly after strengthening its EV mandate?
At the same time, used combustion-powered car prices are slowly settling into a new normal, but used EV prices are, well, not doing so hot. Of course, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise, but some fresh data just came out of the oven for your and our perusal, so it’d feel foolish not to cover it.
Oh, and while Ford cranks up the retro knob on the Mustang, Stellantis finds itself on the other end of a lawsuit filed by some seriously peeved investors. It’s all in today’s edition of The Morning Dump.
Oh, Canada
For as much fucking around as everyone’s done with estimating the rate of EV adoption, the Canadian province of British Columbia is about to find out what happens to consumer demand when EV rebates are greatly reduced and a sales-focused EV mandate ramps up almost simultaneously. Now, one of those two measures on its own could have kept the EV mandate easily achievable without any doubt, at least for the immediate future, but both together could make things difficult for consumers who are already financially squeezed in all manner of directions. See, British Columbia has a zero-emissions vehicle mandate that requires 26 percent of all light-duty vehicles sold in the province in 2026 to be ZEVs. That number ramps up to 90 percent in 2030, followed by 100 percent in 2035.
Without even getting into the problems with the second and third key numbers, let’s start with 2026. In 2023, ZEVs made up almost 21 percent of light-duty vehicles sold in the province, so we’re looking at increasing market share by five percent in three years to not run afoul of the mandate. While that might seem like a small gap, five percent more market share is huge, especially when electric vehicle incentives are being dramatically tightened. As per Automotive News Canada:
The result? Nearly 75 percent of EVs previously eligible for provincial rebates in British Columbia aren’t anymore, and while converting loonies to greenbacks doesn’t always work out apples-to-apples because of nuance in the car industry, here’s what that means in American dollars. Any car or crossover over about $36,442 USD won’t qualify for the equivalent of up to $2,915 USD or so in provincial rebates, depending on vehicle and income. The Canadian federal rebate of up to $5,000, or $3,644 USD at current conversion rates, remains in effect on cars with a base MSRP of less than $55,000 Canadian and an as-equipped MSRP of less than $65,000 Canadian, and SUVs and trucks with a base MSRP of less than $60,000 Canadian and an as-equipped MSRP of less than $70,000 Canadian, but if you’re thinking those price caps and incentives pale in comparison to what America has to offer, even in states without EV mandates, you aren’t wrong.
Now, here’s the big catch: If ZEV sales fail to meet EV mandate targets, and automakers fail to purchase available credits, they’ll be fined $20,000 per combustion-powered car over the line. Canadian dollars, but still. So, what could happen? Well, automakers could restrict the supply of new ICE vehicles in B.C. to meet the EV mandate if targets aren’t met. Obviously, people buying Aston Martins and Porsche 911 GT3s won’t care too much over another $20,000 surcharge or so, but restrictions could have intriguing effects on people looking for, say, Civics and Corollas. Instead of buying new, they might buy ex-demonstrators from other provinces without EV mandates, theoretically side-stepping government meddling. Of course, there’s also a slim chance everything works alright and EV demand is met, but let’s just see how this goes.
Welcome To The New Normal
With all the dust having firmly settled on second-quarter used car transactions, Edmunds has the goods when it comes to figures on retail sales. As you might expect, there’s good and somewhat expected news — prices are absolutely down and inventory levels are looking good.
Used vehicle values fell by 6.8% year over year from $29,742 in Q2 2023 to $27,472 in Q2 2024. This decline was paired with a negligible increase in turnover on dealership lots: The average days to turn — the number of days a vehicle sits on a dealership lot before being sold — for used vehicles was 35 days in Q2 2024 compared to 34 days in Q2 2023.
However, depreciation isn’t hitting ever used vehicle segment equally. The average used EV transaction price is down a whopping 20.5 percent year-over-year, yet still sit about $3,400 higher than the average used combustion-powered car. The big winner? Hybrids. The average used hybrid and PHEV transaction price is down only 5.1 percent year-over-year, beating combustion car value retention. Now that’s a dub.
It’ll be a slow process, watching new vehicle incentives influence used car values and vice versa, but pricing is getting better for people looking to buy. Will we ever see the deals we saw in 2019 again? Probably not, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. We’re still running low on lease returns, so expect that void to have knock-on effects for a while to come.
Get It In The Good Color
Alright, so the Ford Mustang 60th Anniversary Edition isn’t exactly new, but Ford’s already updating the package with a beautiful new shade of blue. Officially dubbed Brittany Blue, it’s a color first used on 1967 Mustangs that scratches that retro itch. Looks fantastic, doesn’t it? It’s a shame it’ll only come on a few of the 1,965 60th Anniversary Edition cars being built, because it just feels so on-trend right now.
Oh, and that’s not the only new thing coming to Mustangs ASAP. The latest heritage gauge cluster skin to roll out through an over-the-air update is a throwback to the 1999 to 2001 New Edge Mustang SVT Cobra, and dammit, it hits the nostalgia button just about perfectly. If you own an S650 Mustang, expect this cluster to appear on your dashboard starting at midnight ET on Aug. 17, provided you let the over-the-air update do its thing.
A Group Of Investors Are Suing Stellantis
Hell hath no fury like an investor who feels like they got the raw end of a deal, and that fury is currently aimed directly at Stellantis’ dome. That’s right, as Reuters reports, a group of shareholders are suing Stellantis lawsuit, naming CEO Carlos Tavares personally in the suit, for alleged fraud around concealing weaknesses.
Part of me feels like this could’ve been mitigated if some of the shareholders involved checked in with retail, but that’s just me. Look, it’s no secret that Stellantis is having trouble shifting inventory, so while the suit accuses the firm of fraud, it’s also not hard to look outside and see if the sky is clear, overcast, or raining. As for what Stellantis thinks of this whole situation, well, it’s about what you’d expect.
“This lawsuit is without merit and the company intends to vigorously defend itself,” Stellantis said in an emailed statement to Reuters.
Is this just a case of shareholders getting pissy, or is there some merit here? That’s most likely a question that’s up to the U.S. District Court.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
Does anyone else get the feeling that if you were a Toronto-based indie musician in the 2000s and you turned up with an exquisite homemade coleslaw, you could be a member of Broken Social Scene? The group may be known as a massive rotating ensemble that’s grown to 27 members over the years (albeit not simultaneously), but it’s also one of the most important bands of the past 25 years, full-stop. Imagine indie rock legends banding together to make pop music that’s, on the whole, unpretentious, brilliantly layered, and a breeze to listen to. Even when the song’s written in an unusual time signature. It’s “7/4 (Shoreline)” for your perusal. Welcome to the other side of Toronto, the part you won’t see in a Drake video.
The Big Question
I’m not a betting man, but what do you reckon the odds are that some of these EV mandates will be walked back over the coming years?
(Photo credits: Tesla, Ford, Dodge)
” … a group of shareholders are suing Stellantis lawsuit, naming CEO Carlos Tavares …”
… pictured above
What, I gotta do everything around here? Where’s the pic?
I think Thomas didn’t want to step over the MH domain, Matt surely had that patented.
In New England, my electricity just went to $0.41/kwh. Gas is $2.97/gal down the street from me.
Need cheaper electricity to make it make sense. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. The numbers need to make sense to make the majority go ev.
I’m paying $0.19/kwh in New England.
At $3/gallon, it costs me $0.125/mile to fuel my Forester and $0.06/mile for my Ioniq 5 charged at home.
Honestly, I don’t care much about the savings as long as I’m not paying that much a penalty. For an appliance car like this, for my use case, electric is as easy to live with as anything else, and if I feel too bored I can do a quick 0-60 dash.
I guess it’s slightly easier because I don’t have to stop for gas. I don’t consider that a huge difference. Gas stations don’t bother me.
Ev rebates sells cars, that’s why I bought my EV6 this year. Quebec announced that the rebates will reduce next year. So I as many quebecers decided to take advantage of the 12000.00$cnd total rebate. I even took advantage of the 600$ rebate on my level2 charger.
Probably why dodge decided to launch their EV charger here in Quebec first.
I see more EVs on the road here everyday, even if I live in northern rural Quebec.(6-7hours north west of Montreal). I live in Rouyn-Noranda before anyone asks…
Dang I was going to guess Val-d’Or! 🙂
“A’ec mes beaux mags mon char est noeu
Bumper à bumper, ho yeah”
6-7 hours north west of Montreal. Are you a bear?
I wish, then I could hibernate all winter instead of dealing with the cold and snow and work!
We are a mining region, and I work for a gold mine.
One of the lessons I remember before being kicked out of my university’s School of Engineering 30+ years ago is “You can’t legislate technology.” A corollary is “You can’t legislate demand.”
That is an excellent point, ultimately demand will determine the market. Extra taxes and incentives to entice consumers to one option over the other are only manipulating the data. It would also help if the the government agencies enacting the mandates were also ensuring that the infrastructure required is ready before the mandates take effect.
EV mandates and fuel economy requirements (like cafe) both inevitably result in a bunch of guesswork, politics from govt bodies, and also shenanigans by auto makers. The worst kind of policy-making if you ask me. How do regulators even come up with these arbitrary percentages?
If I were emperor, I would simply slap huge taxes on gasoline right at the pump. $2 per gallon this year, increasing steadily every year up to whatever huge number gets the desired result. Then I’d give 100% of that gas tax revenue back to taxpayers in the form of a blanket tax credit. That instantly gets rid of all the individual EV tax credits, cafe loopholes, all the other garbage, in favor of a simple system that lets every consumer, business, and auto manufacturer choose how they want to conserve fuel or not, whether that’s buying an EV, downsizing / hybridizing their ICE, moving closer to work, buying less shit on Amazon, whatever.
It’s bonkers to me that we have such high taxes on work income (which we as a society want more of) and shockingly low taxes on fuel consumption (which we want less of). Just totally backwards.
Yup. What you’re proposing is along the lines of a carbon tax, though even the ones proposed as you’ve outlined, where the government pays out all the carbon tax revenue, have been political nonstarters. It’s unfortunate as it is the most transparent an simple way to shift demand away from fossil fuels.
Money doesn’t flow out of the government without lobbyists and kickbacks. Any surplus will be spent – definitely not returned.
It’s hard not to start thinking of UBI when advocating for a huge tax increase and trying to figure out how to give it back.
One of the problems with the EV mandate in BC is that you have the lower mainland, an area about the size of LA, dictating the policy for a sparsely populated Province bigger than Texas.
Distances are huge, and empty, with a challenging climate. Of course that doesn’t matter if you’re only concerned about making it from West Van to Whistler and back as your biggest trip.
Not just distance, but elevation. Takes quite a bit of juice to get up the hill before you can reap any benefit going down the other side.
Yup, BC is other than maybe Alaska, the single dumbest place in a nominally first world country to have an EV mandate. I’ve spent plenty of trips there carrying Jerry cans because gas stations were sparse enough that running out of gas is a real concern. Shit, there are large stretches of the trans-Canada in BC that have “next gas <big number> kilometers”, and that’s the single busiest road in the country. Idiot politicos need to get out of the VanVic bubble and explore the amazing scenery, courtesy of a looooong roadtrip.
I don’t care about EV mandates one way or another, but…of course people in the lower mainland are going to dictate policy for the province, that’s where most of them live.
It’s shitty politics though. Get more local- if Vancouver wants to institute a BEV sales mandate and ICE congestion zone charges, then more power to them. Doing it on a province-wide basis just pisses off people who don’t live in the Vancouver area and makes their lives worse for no benefit.
Oh yeah, it’s a massive province. It can be boat weather on Lake Okanagan and whiteout conditions on the Coquihalla at the same time.
Just stop! No mandates, no subsidies, no fuel economy mandates, let democracy rule—people decide how they want to spend on transportation. CAFE, by making travel by car artificially cheaper has only encouraged longer commutes, more congestion.
CAFE making travel by car artificially cheaper is an interesting take. I believe the goal was to reduce pollution by improving fuel efficiency, which it has done; loopholes for vehicle weight intended for farm and business use that suburban families have driven through with Suburbans and Super-Duper Duty pick-ups notwithstanding.
If you had gone after the low pump gas taxes, I might be more willing to agree with you.
Except that people are notoriously bad at doing the best thing for themselves. Letting “democracy rule” would mean eating nothing but candy for dinner if the kids outnumber the parents. It’s fun, but ultimately childish and bad for you.
Excellent, so as people are stupid, the elites need to make their choices for them. Sounds very democratic
Not just CAFE. Fuel taxes (at least in the US) don’t come close to covering the cost of road construction and maintenance, much less also paying for the externalities of pollution.
“British Columbia is about to find out what happens to consumer demand when EV rebates are greatly reduced and a sales-focused EV mandate ramps up almost simultaneously. “
Meh… that’s not new. It already happened years ago when Doug Ford became Premier of Ontario. First thing Doug-The-Slug did was cancel all the BEV rebates.
Mind you both Ontario and British Columbia still have the $5000 Federal rebate on BEVs.
The result in Ontario was the rate of BEV adoption wasn’t as high as other provinces with the incentives, but there are still plenty of BEVs being sold.
But if the Conservatives win the next federal election, expect the federal incentive to be gone as well.
Now having said that, there is enough BEV critical mass that the rebates are not all that necessary anymore.
Personally I’d like to see them kept in place, but ending the incentives won’t end BEV sales… which is the wishful thinking of the anti-BEV crowd.
“ Officially dubbed Brittany Blue”
That shade of blue looks pretty bland and unimpressive to me.
I’d rather have a nice electric blue or Lapis Blue
https://www.houseofkolor.com/kolors/detail/index.html?id=HOK0566-00&ref=kolors
Or check out this Cobalt blue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7q6VJgkqio
Regarding suing Stellantis… personally I think a more valid reason to sue would be for the supposed “benefits” of the merger between FCA and PSA which were basically lies. PSA had nothing in the way of tech or know-how that FCA couldn’t do themselves.
And FCA was way more profitable.
Regarding the big question… it all comes down to who gets elected in the future. In the US, if Harris and the Dems win, then the BEV mandate is likely safe.
In Canada, if the Liberals win OR if the Conservatives only win a minority, then the BEV mandate is likely safe.
But even if Crooked Trump and other guys like Pierre Poilievre win the next round of elections, it might result in a delay of BEV adoption. But the BEV ball is rolling and it’s gonna happen whether the oil-owned anti-BEV crowd likes it or not.
We currently still have 12000$ total here in Quebec till the end of the year
2 out of 3 of our vehicles are EVs, but I’m not for the mandates, mainly as it’s fueling political arguments.
I feel like the mandate should just be fuel economy requirements, hybrids and PHEVs are already achieving mpg in the last 10 years that was the stuff of 3 cylinder Honda Insights before that. If a car gets 70mpg but it’s got a gas engine, who cares? It’s getting 70mpg! And less up front carbon impact as it didn’t require mining 500lbs of lithium.
As for walking it back, that’s what election cycles are for, California had an EV mandate in the late 90s, then we got Dubya and away that went.
EVs aren’t about the environment. They are a new economy – people need the ability to pick winners and losers.
When “winners” privatize all the advantages and socialize all the downfalls (as in the case of pedestrian crushing, coal spewing, pavement chewing, gas guzzling, view blocking, parking spot exceeding school bus sized monster trucks) society has every right to protect the best interests of everyone else with legislation.
Pavement chewing is an interesting stone to throw from your 7000lb EV glass house.
“And less up front carbon impact as it didn’t require mining 500lbs of lithium”
It’s the long-term effects that are what’s at issue.
You know – drilling, transporting, refining, transporting and burning (not to mention the lubricants needed for all of the above) thousands of gallons of carbon-sequestered dino-juice – and releasing that carbon into the atmosphere – over a decade or more of ownership.
Meanwhile, Lithium can be evaporated using the sun – just like salt.
Lithium is a salt.
Not a lot of folks realize that –
Brb grating batteries over my fries
Washington State just began offering a $9000 EV lease credit. Income limits and car cost limits exist. bZ4X is available for $94/month. Very compelling, but I have no need for a 4300# compliance vehicle.
Expires 09/03/2024
$94/mo for 36 months $3,500 Due at Signing *
DISCLAIMER
*Offer valid on 2024 Toyota bZ4X. $94 per month for 36 months. Lease with $3,500 due at signing; includes a $695 acquisition fee. Offer Includes a dealer discount of $1,394, and a $15,250 Toyota Lease Rebate, plus $9,000 Washington Electric Vehicle Instant Rebate if qualified. Valid on VIN:
JTMABACA8RA070149. MSRP $47,464. Lease is through TFS. Subject to credit approval. No Security deposit required. Excludes taxes, title, and fees. 36 monthly payments required. Not all lessees will qualify for lowest payment through participating lender. Residency restrictions apply. Lessee responsible for mileage over 10,000 miles per year at $0.15/mile per year. Option to purchase at lease end. A negotiable dealer documentary service fee of up to $200 may be added to the sale price or capitalized cost. Offer expires 09/03/2024.
The income requirements are a joke. If you are a household of 1 a base bZ4X costs more than you make in a year to qualify for the credit!
Am I Eligible? – Washington Electric Vehicle Instant Rebates (waevinstantrebates.org)
Those income requirements are tight. I don’t know if you’d be able to make the payments even after the discount. You may not qualify for financing depending on your other expenses (or if lenders cared about your ability to pay them).
Back in April there was a lease deal on bZ4Xs that brought the FWD versions down to something like $189 (for a 2023) or $219 (for a 2024) per month with nothing down and similar lease terms in a state without any state-level incentives. The FWD version is better anyway because the range gets up to a marginally acceptable level. If I’d had a job I probably would have gotten one, even though the nearest ones were about 200 miles away.
Hate to say this, but let’s see what happens in early December. I feel like they will soften mandates, but not remove them. The somewhat kneejerk reaction to implementing them is now circling back around. It may be time to review how aggressive the targets were. IMHO, I say leave them, but perhaps soften the retribution for not meeting them. At the end of the day, it’s us people buying them, and you can’t fully predict the future or steer human desire in absolute.
As at the moment, Canada isn’t clutching its pearls over the possibility of affordable Chinese EV’s being snapped up by hordes of Canucks, their eventual importation in numbers to meet current and future ZEV mandate is all but written in the stars.
As for the Mustang, its front end looks disharmonious, as if designers AI-blended a Mustang, Sonata, and CRV’s fascia into one.
I don’t know if I would describe the US’s aversion to Chinese EVs as “pearl clutching.” The auto industry is a big part of the US economy. I’m not sure it is in our best interest to allow China to dump vehicles on our market to the detriment of US auto makers.
It might make rational economic sense for Canada to allow cheap Chinese EVs, but that doesn’t mean the same is true for the US.
The clothing industry was a big part of the US economy.
So was the appliance industry, the electronics industry, the phone industry, the computer industry, etc, etc.
Why is protecting the dysfunctional US auto industry so special – when the remaining US automakers are themselves outsourcing manufacturing for parts and whole vehicles, while going out of their way to not provide the products US buyers want?
What possible evidence do you have for this statement?
The domestic automakers may not provide the products you personally want, but that is not the same thing.
Also, letting those other industries go was a mistake. Belatedly, we are realizing that and adjusting accordingly. This is a good thing. China wishes us nothing but ill will; we should not be accommodating them.
Some manufacturers models are languishing on dealer lots-
Look at days supply – 2-3 months is considered optimal
https://caredge.com/guides/new-car-inventory-2024#New_Car_Inventory_By_Make_in_August
Ford, Lincoln, Ram, Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler are dismal
GM seems to have it under control
As far as “letting those other industries go” – that was not a mistake. The CEO’s of the corporations who decided to offshore those jobs made those decisions on purpose – the US Government and we citizens have no levers to pull there.
Of course we do.
The fact that you’re reading this comment on a Chinese-built laptop or phone but presumably not driving a Chinese car has everything to do with past and future trade policies put into place by the government, and indirectly, voters.
Sure, I see Alfa Romeo, Audi, Infiniti, Jaguar, Mazda, Mercedes, Nissan, Volvo, VW, and others over average by this metric as well. Seems hardly like a uniquely domestic problem.
I’d have loved to have been able to purchase a US made Apple laptop when I bought this one in 2017 – I think they have one model that’s US made now? I had a Lenovo laptop as my work machine – was glad to turn that clunky thing in when I was packaged out.
And you’re right – these other manufacturers aren’t doing a great job of bringing products to market that US buyers want either. It’s almost like US buyers no longer want (or can no longer afford) big, complex, expensive cars.
I think, as in many industries, the automotive market forces that dominated in a zero or low interest rate world are not the same that happen when rates are higher.
Considering the manufacturers I listed cover basically the entire market from subcompacts to luxury sedans/SUVs to trucks, I would be careful about drawing any conclusions from that data about the long term trends in what American buyers prefer in their vehicles. Nissan struggling to sell Versas at the same time Mercedes struggles to sell S580s and Ford struggles (relatively) with F150s tells us very little about what people want other than lower rates.
How about lower MSRPs? If you can pay cash interest rates are moot.
You and I both know that isn’t the typical car buyer.
Not really. Everyone I know pays cash, even for six figure cars.
In 2023, 80% of cars were financed, even in a relatively high interest rate scenario.
In 2020, close to 90% were financed.
You and your friends are extremely atypical.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/453000/share-of-new-vehicles-with-financing-usa/
Couldn’t agree more. Why would we send money to a country that is the opposite of our friend? Where human rights are not even a joke? Where the climate -the justification for this whole shebang- is not even a consideration
“Where human rights are not even a joke?”
S/he said from a country with legalized slavery…
“China wishes us nothing but ill will; we should not be accommodating them.”
Maybe they just want their money back.
It makes sense to outsource some industries to countries who can produce those products more efficiently. The US benefits by opening markets for the products we produce (physical products like airplanes and pharmaceuticals or other products like software, education, entertainment, etc.). Outsourcing can lower costs for consumers while expanding US exports. In many cases, outsourcing is enough of an economic win that it is worth losing those industries here.
Chinese EVs are different. These products are heavily subsidized and do not compete on a level playing field with US/European/Japanese/South Korean products. Aside from short term gains for consumers who buy cheap EVs, this deal is one-sided in favor of China. If China can make this deal mutually beneficial, it might be worth considering.
There is also the issue of China not exactly being friendly to the US. Why should we allow a one-sided deal with an adversary at the expense any of our industries?
War production. Keeping factories going and a skilled workforce trained in modern manufacturing helps when the excrement hits the spinning blades.
This isn’t WWII.
There’s plenty of war production happening year round in the US.
It’s a permanent part of our economy.
Because war is profitable.
I should have specified: latent war production.
Here’s the thing that a lot of people, including the “experts” and “policymakers” at the Heritage Foundation, don’t understand about changing over production from cars and refrigerators to fighter planes 80 years ago vs trying to do the same thing today.
Fighter planes back then were relatively simple piston-engined, propeller driven machines. No major electronics, no pressurization systems, simple radios, cable-operated avionics – and targeting systems that were little more than a lens in a hole in the floor. And they were built by largely unskilled workers, including housewives.
Today’s military aircraft – including drones and cruise missiles – have jet engines, sophisticated avionics, pressurization systems (if manned), communications systems & targeting systems. They’re built by people with years of training, including many with engineering degrees.
Boeing can barely keep their planes in the air these days – Do you really believe GM, Stellantis or Ford, with their less than exceptional quality controls and “lets pay them as little as possible” workforce can do better?
And given their businesses, supply-chains and assets held in other parts of the world which they would lose from doing so – Do you think they’d really want to?
“Do you really believe GM, Stellantis or Ford, with their less than exceptional quality controls and “lets pay them as little as possible” workforce can do better?”
Sure, given the cars those folks are building are vastly more complicated too. And in wartime cheap, crude, creative abundance beats expensive and complex overengineering.
Some years ago PBS compared a USAF airfield to a former Soviet one. The USAF had to send teams to carefully groom the tarmac to remove forgiven objects from causing damage to the jets. The former Soviet fields were crapholes with plants growing through cracks and all kind of shit everywhere. The comment was that in a time of war nobody will have time to groom pavement so those US jets are vulnerable while the Soviet jets can use whatever flat ground is available.
Or the USSR just didn’t give a shit because the government owned the manufacturing and people were expendable – as opposed to the US where we have to pay for our wars.
The Soviets learned a few things from the Great Patriotic war and since. They certainly made better rocket engines than we did.
And don’t kid yourself, the US has its own expendables. See veterans, at will labor laws, homeless, illegal immigrants, 13th amendment slave workers, sex workers, mentally ill, etc. There are lots of cracks in the social fabric to fall through and never be missed.
.
Not according to Zaphod Pollieves current messaging, subject to abrupt change depending on political breezes.
I give it about a 99% chance that EV mandates in the US and Canada will be adjusted to the point of practical repeal in the coming years. I’ll allow a 1% chance given there could be a technological breakthrough that alleviates all reasonable concerns people have with electric vehicles (range, expense, charging time, cold weather performance, charger availability, longevity, etc.). I specifically say “adjusted to the point of practical repeal” because I think the mandates will still be on the books, but exemptions will be created and governments will intentionally not close obvious loopholes. I see EV mandates as more of a target than a firm timeline to ban ICE vehicles. I don’t think most politicians ever expected these bans to be enforced as written.
I could see EV mandates being enforced in parts of Europe, but their realities are different (higher population density, cities that developed in a way that is conducive to public transportation, shorter distances between population centers, less cultural resistance to government mandates, etc.).
I know nothing about Broken Social Scene, but “one of the most important bands of the past 25 years” is a (characteristically for Thomas) bold statement and that ‘rotating lineup indie pop’ description intrigues me. And the odd-time sampler song is a pretty great hooky introduction to some youtube rabbit-holing, so I guess I know what I’m doing today.
The Autopian: Not Just for Car Nerds!
This is the first TMD music video I’ve clicked.
Matt and Thomas both have pretty wide-ranging tastes, at least per “what I’m listening to as I write this,” and as an Old Person, it’s as good a place as any to be exposed to something unfamiliar. I really look forward to it.
All EV mandates will be scrapped and diesel mandates will become the new hotness. 100% Diesel engines by 2027.5!
(In all seriousness these mandates are hurting the industry and they will be lobbied away)
The Government does not like to repeal laws. For many politicians they have been politicians for so long that many of the laws people try to repeal they voted for back in the day, and they don’t want to acknowledge that they were part of the reason a bad bill became a bad law.
I think politicians have absolutely no problem changing their minds as the wind blows. Passionately for something one day, passionately against the next. It doesn’t matter, whatever riles the base and gets the votes this week. And politicians correctly assume that most voters have no memory. Statements like, “I’ve always been against this!” are taken at face-value.
/but I’m cynical.
I agree, however they only do that when it doesn’t make them look bad. Like what tanked Kamala’s original Presidential run.
Officially dubbed Brittany Blue, unofficially dubbed “It’s Brittany, Bitch.”
Take your smiley, sir; well earned indeed!
Three options are on the table.
1: Mandates are rolled back dramatically, or penalties are reduced
2: Incentives will increase significantly to help develop the demand to meet EV targets. Frequent adjustments are possible to help with this too.
3: Automakers with a weak EV portfolio pull back or out entirely on markets hostile to their product portfolio.
1 is the only option governments want to avoid, but 2 and 3 can have messy outcomes with serious knock-on effects for the market and consumers.
Automakers should react creating lower trims of those EVs to have rebates available for the end consumer. Imagine vehicles the size of a Honda Civic, Chevy Trax but EV under 35K USD, it should be possible at this point. No one needs fancy everything in order to have an EV.
YES!!! Stop giving me fancy, and just give me a simple electric car.
This would be the right answer.
Except I think automakers will fight it up to the last minute. They would rather force buyers to buy a $60k+ “luxury” (higher margin) vehicle.
Making a cheaper affordable alternative in order to increase sales will be a bitter and hard-fought last resort.
Cheap competition from Chinese cars would help, but that’s a complicated issue, and I think that many of the concerns about domestic industry, although perhaps protectionist, are valid. I’m for restricting Chinese imports, but it certainly keeps domestic manufacturers from having to reduce prices… Ugh, these are complex issues without easy answers.
Domestic/North America content requirements make affordable price points very difficult. Lack of local component supply chains to source from (e.g. batteries) and higher local costs (e.g. UAW) plus the margin-chasing behavior Jb996 mentions… and then, since we want to have our cake and eat it too, we don’t even want Chinese companies setting up local manufacturing, much less allowing local sales without giant tariffs.
Then both sides get to be blowhards for most of NCAA CFB every other year, while very little actually improves.
Fuck it, let China set up local manufacturing with our blessing. Let them get a taste of uppity US labor.
Then when they run screaming for the hills they’ll leave behind nice, modern factories for us to use.
If not, if they adapt as the Japanese did they can produce amazing, low cost high quality products like my 18 YO, Ohio built still going strong Honda Accord.
I feel like the announced mandates will be scrapped to dispel public opposition only to be replaced by policy changes buried deep in legislation/regulation that push towards the same goals but keep the public blissfully unaware.
Oh nice. A slightly bluish shade of gray.
Glad I saw this before I made the comment. What’s the big deal with this? It is yet another swatch on the gray spectrum.
Considering most/all of the EV mandates include PHEVs, I suspect we’ll see a pivot to increased numbers of PHEVs and some delays of provisions. I’m actually a little surprised we haven’t seen compliance PHEVs popping up already, just meeting the minimum requirement for these mandates. But I suppose that manufacturers releasing compliance PHEVs would just undercut their argument that these mandates are unreasonable.
The UK is facing a similar EV mandate reckoning. However, they are likely to slow sales of ICE vehicles, make EVs more price comparable, and make sales of all vehicles more expensive. That is environmental gold but political suicide.
Yeah, but the UK is a very different kettle of fish from BC. You can plausibly live a normal life in quite a lot of the UK not having a car. BC… not so much.
I have a feeling BC will either roll back mandates or they will suddenly fall madly in love with Chinese cars and existing makes and models will become more scarce as companies decide BC isn’t as viable market anymore. “Unintended consequences” will be realized in spades.
Get outside of Vancouver and BC is whole lot of open space. Without more infrastructure EV makes little sense for the rest of the Province. This is ideal PHEV territory.
The problem with the idea of BC going all in on Chinese EVs is that they are one province, and the only Chinese company operating in Canada is technically Volvo. One province doesn’t have that much pull.
Limited lineups at BC dealerships and really excited car dealers just across the border in Alberta are the two likely outcomes.
No amount of cheap Chinese electric cars can change the massive logistical hurdles for BC drivers outside of Vancouver. The vast, vast majority of the province is absolute fucking wilderness (gorgeous, gorgeous wilderness at that), with lots of mountains and forests, and very little civilization. It’s very close to the single worst place in the world you could push a BEV mandate.
Smart or feasible aren’t requirements that the politicians adhere to when they pass legislation like EV mandates.
It’s like HOAs that require people to have lush green lawns in the middle of a drought. You cannot use your sprinkler system, but you can hand water on certain days to your heart’s content. In the end, it makes money for the HOA, uses valuable water and costs the people time and water bills.
It’s HOA’s all the way up. Just the bigger ones have guns and fancy robes.
Grey water FTW!
Substitute BC for Canada and your comment is even more correct. Canada still is the frontier.
So lots of room for wind and solar farms.
Not really, no. The weather is too savage and most areas are too remote to make it easy to service wind turbines and solar farms, there’s no economic case. On the other hand, there is a ton of hydro power which accounts for 95% of the province’s electricity, and if you wanted to expand your generation capability it would also be hydro.
So I went and actually read the legislation.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19029#section16
“zero-emission vehicle” or “ZEV” means the following:
(a)
a motor vehicle that
(i) is propelled by electricity or hydrogen from an external source, and
(ii) emits no greenhouse gases at least some of the time while the motor vehicle is being operated;
(b) a prescribed type of motor vehicle;
Very interesting in the definition section. A ZEV is a motor vehicle that emits no greenhouse gases at least some of the time while the motor vehicle is being operated.
Sounds like a hybrid qualifies to me.
Plug in hybrid.
80%
It should be 100%, but I don’t have faith in some of the deep blue states or provinces seeing reality.
Not being argumentative. What do you see as “reality” that makes you think there shouldn’t be changes in the tyupe of vehicles we use?
I can’t speak for him entirely, but I see reality as a slower uptake in EVs than governments were expecting/hoping for, and that forcing sales of them while removing or scaling back incentives will all but guarantee that sales targets for EVs will NOT be met. Governments all over the world are trying to play chicken with automakers on the issue, but the reality is if only a few provinces or smaller-market countries are the issue, automakers can and will pull ICE/Hybrid/PHEV allocations and inventory if it makes business sense.
While I find EVs fascinating, and believe strongly that they can be a good option for a lot of people, the reality is they have not reached price parity yet with many ICE/Hybrid/PHEV vehicles, and the charging infrastructure in most countries could not accommodate the government mandated EV uptake. Let’s be clear, EVs are getting more competitive and compelling every single year, infrastructure is improving, and the public is becoming more receptive to EV ownership.
The reality is not enough automakers are making good enough EV options for consumers to switch. Do you think someone going into a Toyota dealer for a Rav4 Hybrid is actually going to be convinced to buy a Bz4x? Hell no. It’s an absolutely trash product that exists purely for compliance. While this is extreme, Mercedes, Audi, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, and other automakers are facing a similar reality. Government mandates can pressure companies to build more EVs, but the pace of required adoption is far faster than the reality of EV platform development.
Alex has said a lot of it already, but it’s not that I don’t feel EVs should or will eventually be the vehicles we drive, but I do feel very strongly that mandating them is not the best way to bring that about.
There are precious few examples of superior technologies needing to be forced on people. If the new product or idea is better, it will succeed on its own merits. If a worse product is being forced on people (as I believe is the case for EVs right now), then that isn’t a government I’m inclined to support.
Finally I will add that the government’s own figures put US light vehicle emissions at ~1% of global CO2. Replacing every single gas or light diesel with an electric tomorrow would be a rounding error in temperature rise. There is an urgent need to reduce CO2 globally; there is no necessity that the bulk of the reductions come from privately owned light vehicles. That pushes blame for climate change onto individual consumers, not large corporations or Chinese coal plants where it belongs.
if all the tax dollars subsidizing EVs went towards developing greener concrete, the planet would be way better off.
I’m a big proponent of further research into carbon capture, because that is source-agnostic. You don’t need to simultaneously develop green concrete, green steel, green power in places where renewables don’t make sense, etc. Just suck the carbon out of the air.
The problem is that too many people aligned with the climate movement don’t want to support a way to “cheat” our way out of the problem. It seems to me that many of them truly believe we need to suffer for our past sins with a lower standard of living, rather than make the world a better (and also greener) place through human ingenuity and technology. It’s part of why I’m so disgusted with the movement.
I was pretty gung ho on carbon capture myself, but I’ve seen too many articles like this one:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-false-promise-of-carbon-capture-as-a-climate-solution/
I just don’t buy it anymore.
Thanks for the staight answer. I had to grit my teeth before I posted earlier. Well over 50% of the time, I ask a question like that and it’s just straight to the ad hominem attacks.
Scientific American has fallen pretty hard from what they used to be. I don’t trust them automatically anymore, and sure enough the linked article parrots the doomer “2030 or else!” date.
There’s nothing in there that says the technology can’t or doesn’t work, just that right now it’s typically paired with fossil fuel projects and/or that it’s very expensive. Neither of those things has to be true in the future!
That is the IPCC’s date to halve emissions. Not like it’s, I don’t know, The Seirra Club? Is that the pain in the ass environmental org still? Calling it “doomer” seems a little disingenuous.
And that’s very true! It doesn’t have to have those problems in the future. But the question of “where does it go when it’s out of the sky?” is still unanswered. More than one pilot project has had alarming cracks in the geological formations they’ve tried pumping the carbon into. Not saying that’s insurmountable, either. I just think it’s less mature than EVs.
And, again, I don’t own one. They’re still ruinously expensive, and I also think there are other options to be explored. I guess I’m an “all fronts” sort of guy.
“Just suck the carbon out of the air”
I prefer to exhale my body’s toxic CO2 thank you very much.
“Just suck the carbon out of the air”
That is going to take energy. A LOT of energy. And not just energy but renewable energy because otherwise it’s pointless.
So now we need not only to make enough renewable energy to replace the use of fossil fuels worldwide but make far more to “just suck the carbon out of the air”, AND it needs to be done fairly quickly. It took 200 years to burn all that coal, oil and gas to produce energy. It’s not going back that quickly or easily. Entropy’s a bitch.
That is why “Just suck the carbon out of the air” is IMO a fool’s errand. Unless you’re talking about plants and a timescale of centuries.
I don’t think we need to suck out every drop, just enough to keep feedback loops from going out of control and allowing decarbonization in other fields to continue making progress. This would be at the margins, to keep anything catastrophic from happening. Not a replacement for plants but a complement to them.
I agree with you that much more renewable energy is needed. Luckily, that’s exactly what’s happening right now.
See here’s the problem:
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
As of now only 1/7th of the worlds power is made renewably with half of that from hydropower. Which means the world needs over THIRTEEN TIMES as much renewable energy as we have today just to wean off fossil fuels at today’s demands. That’s a huge order, especially for hydropower. And you must have hydropower since that is the only practical way to store those volumes of power*.
So you will need many, many more dams worldwide, but where? There are only so many places to put a dam. And they take a LOT of concrete. Which tends to make a lot of GHG too.
Thirteen times as much power also means a LOT more nuclear. Which is fine for China, India and Korea, maybe Japan is coming around but funding for new nuclear projects were banned in the New Green Deal so new nuclear ain’t happening in the US. Nor is it happening in much of Europe and I don’t see it happening in Africa anytime either. When the world finally does realize it needs a fuck ton more nuclear China, India and Korea are going to be ahead of the curve and everyone else will need a decade to get anywhere at all.
I don’t see the other renewables as having any chance of making up that shortfall.
And that’s just to get to the point of even THINKING of carbon capture. To do that you’ll need even more renewable power. A LOT more since CC from air is a lot less efficient than from a smoke stack.
TBF that can happen anywhere so niche projects like wind power in Patagonia or geothermal in Iceland where renewable power supply could outstrip local demand MIGHT be one way BUT that energy will probably be better used to make liquid fuels for military and commercial aviation which can’t use batteries.
So that is why many people aligned with the climate movement don’t want to support a way to “cheat” our way out of the problem. Its not about suffering for our past sins with a lower standard of living but accepting we need to curb energy demand because we need to reduce demand of fossil fuels as renewable energy is nowhere near close to meeting demand.
Making the world a better (and also greener) place through human ingenuity and technology is a laudable goal but not an achievable one without many compromises. One of which is to keep the vast majority of the population in severe energy poverty so the first world can keep the lights on.
*There are other gravity storage methods but they don’t generate power. Only dams do that. Plus water storage has other practical uses.
This has never worked voluntarily in human history and I’m extraordinarily skeptical that it ever will. So we can preach nice-sounding platitudes or continue to scream and shame people trying to get them to cut back (which they won’t), or we can realize that despite challenges, the only way forward is with more energy, more renewables, and more technology.
I think you are too pessimistic by far.
Worldwide, there is literally over 1000x more installed solar generation now than in 2001.10x as much as a decade ago. Exponential growth is a funny thing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/280220/global-cumulative-installed-solar-pv-capacity/
Exponential growth is EXACTLY how we got into this mess:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2HJCP5E/a-graph-showing-the-worlds-rapidly-increasing-population-from-1700-to-the-present-day-and-extending-into-2048-when-the-global-population-is-projected-to-reach-9-billion-the-worlds-population-first-reached-1-billion-in-1804-2HJCP5E.jpg
That growth was only possible thanks to cheap, abundant fossil fuels. Now we need to keep producing at least as much energy as we do today to keep just SOME of those people out of extreme energy poverty. The rest want their share too. And that’s not counting the additional 1-3B expected to join us over the next 80 years.
“but accepting we need to curb energy demand”
“This has never worked voluntarily in human history and I’m extraordinarily skeptical that it ever will. So we can preach nice-sounding platitudes or continue to scream and shame people trying to get them to cut back (which they won’t), or we can realize that despite challenges, the only way forward is with more energy, more renewables, and more technology.”
And you think I’M pessimistic?
Sure it has! Energy costs money and utility companies are out to make a profit. Since 2000 per capita Americans have been using less and less energy:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=~USA
So yes we do accept we need to use less. And as individuals we are. But we keep growing our population so overall energy use keeps going up. THAT is the problem and I don’t think you’ll like the solutions to it. The further we kick that can down the road the more awful those solutions become.
Wish I could give this 10 smiley-faces.
If you want to get emissions under check, go for the biggest sources first. It’s frigging simple. Power generation and industrial activity emissions dwarf light transport by an order of magnitude, but no, we have to fuck with the average Jane and Joe who can’t afford lobbyists instead of the power co.
I dunno, seems like they’re doing that, too. We can attack multiple things at once. Though I suppose YMMV, state to state.
Sure, but consumer-level mandates that drive them to more expensive BEV or hybrid vehicles that have a bigger manufacturing footprint is a really shitty attack when you can do things like phase out all your fossil fuel power plants in favor of nuclear/hydro/wind/solar. If your priority is reducing emissions, the low-level consumer stuff is like the very bottom of the priority stack- it’s low benefit for high cost. Only after all your power comes from carbon neutral sources, and your industrial process are running carbon neutral operations should you start fucking with light transport, but by then you eliminated like 70% of the problem.
I think we might be pretty far apart on this one. Thanks for keeping it civil. I’m not used to that.
Word, you too, have a good one!
Hey if you want to start a petition banning non nuclear cruse ships worldwide I’ll sign!