EVs continue to be a hit with everyone except the public, and since government knows best they remain committed to banning the alternatives. The one glimmer of hope for consumers was the availability of cheap Chinese imports, until Canada and the US slapped a 100% tariff on them to protect the auto sector from being bankrupted by all the exciting opportunities in the new green economy. The United States put off its tariffs until September or later, while ours kick in on October 1. China is making threatening noises, and normally the right thing to do on protectionism is ignore threats and bribes alike and pursue unilateral free trade. But here the geopolitics is complex and murky. At the risk of sowing the seeds of harmony, we want to mention that National Post columnist Kelly McParland recently argued that gas-electric hybrids are a far better choice from virtually every point of view from affordability to reliability. But if Net Zero means Net Zero, the Canadian government is still over an oil barrel.
Some people don’t believe in practical difficulties. Prior to the latest decision the oh-so-green Pembina Institute in Canada put out a statement that “The Pembina Institute calls for a potential policy response from Canada” to unfair Chinese EV trade practices that would:
“* Balance the interests of Canadian consumers and workers with the need for robust EV supply chains, taking into account affordability, environmental impact, competitiveness, and innovation. * Maintain and enhance funding of incentive programs as an important part of the policy response. * Increase transparency of data and information while protecting privacy and security related to connected vehicles and interconnection of vehicles with Canada’s electricity infrastructure.”
Also known as invent a scheme whereby EV buyers pay less while auto makers earn more, by expanding the already unaffordable subsidies. How original. Likewise a Calgary Herald item declares:
“Canada needs strategy to ensure its EV battery bets pay off/ Canada has committed tens of billions of dollars to revitalizing its battery sector. History suggests it needs a strategy to make sure that bet pays off”.
A strategy? Gosh. Think so? Not just a high-sounding intention? Especially since we’re not “revitalizing” a battery sector, we’re conjuring up something that didn’t exist with lavish market-distorting subsidies, and history shows the bet will never pay off regardless of how much wealth we destroy in the process.
Nor does it help that, as the Wall Street Journal recently headlined a story:
“Huge Fire Sparked by a Mercedes-Benz EV Adds to Safety Concerns Dogging Industry/ Blaze in South Korea prompts debate over whether electric vehicles should be allowed in the country’s ubiquitous underground parking lots”.
Yeah, it just might cause concern.
Not that we think China should get a free pass on its trade practices. Normally the proper view to take of subsidized imports is that if foreign governments want to rob their own people to give ours a good deal, we should take the money and smile, not retaliate by robbing our own people. But when a regime is deliberately targeting essential industries to hollow out our economy, including its capacity to manufacture military equipment, and using the revenue to finance an attempted takeover of the world, most people think there’s a downside to selling out our security for a cheap shirt, Bluetooth speaker, cat brush or car. All real examples; even our plant pots are made in China.
Naturally the Chinese government parrots the Communist Party line that there are no subsidies or unfair trade practices, they’re just better at it than us, as indeed at everything. As the Financial Post observed, “Lin Jian, a spokesman for China’s foreign minister, says Canada’s decision ‘ignores facts’ and is against world trade rules” while China’s industry is flourishing due to “full market competition.” But as the Chinese authorities are in a dominant global position when it comes to ignoring facts and breaking rules, and are Communists who hate markets, we deride them and focus on the fundamentals.
Not everyone sees an issue with letting in as many subsidized Chinese EVs as they’re willing to gift us. A “fellow at the Balsillie School of International Affairs specializing in research on the interactions between climate change and geopolitics” recently wrote in the Globe & Mail that putting tariffs on Chinese EVs would turn us into East Germany, foolishly proud of our 21st-century version of the Trabant.
According to him, China:
“has utilized a mixture of government support and brutal domestic competition to produce a world-beating EV industry. Canada has been under pressure to do the same. Ottawa has launched consultations on the matter, and a decision could come any day now. It would be a mistake if Canada follows the United States in imposing punitive tariffs. To gain real traction for the adoption of EVs in Canada, we need more competition and lower prices, something the Chinese manufacturers can provide.”
Yeah. Or no rule that we have to buy EVs at all, if you actually believe in markets. And if this weird specialization in “the interactions between climate change and geopolitics” means we let climate change panic cause us to acquiesce in China’s “Hundred-Year Marathon” plan to become the world’s leading power within 100 years of the Communist takeover in 1949, so as to assert authority thereafter over Western nations debilitated by the economic collapse caused by Net Zero, we respectfully suggest that it would be hard to think of a worse plan and maybe we need more common sense and fewer mortarboards.
Or maybe a WHOLE LOT fewer Lie-berals in Ottawa!Does this clown who wrote the quoted clip from the Globe and Mail have a name?So he can be tarred and feathered in effigy!The same Globe that says Pierre Polievre would do better if he wasn't "so unpleasant".They're only marginally better than the Red Star.But oh yeah!Chairman Xi promises China will be carbon neutral by 2060.Sure,thug!And China has no millions of slave laborers or oppressed people in internment camps.
The push to combine climate change hysteria with the use of EVs as the one-and-only solution seems a little too pat to be fully believable. The first point I have is that although it is probable that global climate has warmed slightly in the last 50 years or so, there is no conclusive evidence that human activities have had much to do with it. Conditions seem to be about as warm as they were a thousand years ago in the Mediaeval Warm Period when vineyards were common in Northern England. Second, if all road vehicles were to be replaced by EVs of one sort or another in a few years, the entire electrical generating and distribution system of most nations would need to be massively augmented, a fact which the more excitable of our politicians seem incapable of understanding. And third, if this augmentation were to occur, a large part of the added generation capability would doubtless be based on fossil fuels.
What we are seeing today is really an attempt to forecast the future based on some assumptions which may or may not be correct. This is really just a form of science fiction. If you want an idea of what the world might be like at the end of this century, have a look at my book ‘Colonists’ on rogergraves.substack.com.
EVs or the impression of them seem to fall into either of two camps . Some people absolutely love them or the idea of them and on the other hand there are the people who would rather walk than get into one.
Why this polarized position? Well the answer is the difference between the freedom loving people and the so called liberals ( who seem to be anything but liberal)
EVs seem to be the visible sign of compliance. Of course it shouldn't be this way. EVs could or should stand ( or fall ) on their own merit. Now I must confess here. I have one. A Nissan leaf and for me it's fine, so far. No problems and it gets me from a to b without any bother and back again. Our government also gave a generous grant to me to buy this vehicle which while welcome should not have been available. After all it isn't their money they are splashing around like drunken sailors on shore leave . It's the taxpayers money they are splashing about. If this relentless push for EVs was dropped and they allowed the market to take over I would say that the EV market would dry up , maybe not to everyone's liking but it is what should happen . Let the market decide I say . If they are that good well then they will take off on their own. In the meantime I will continue to drive my leaf as I would any other of the dozens of cars I have owned in my lifetime with or without the governments approval or otherwise.
It cannot be reiterated often enough: The Chinese drive for EVs, apart from subsidized export of them being a battering ram against Western automakers, is due to the China having no oil but lots of coal. The vast majority of domestic Chinese EVs are actually coal-fired vehicles. So much for China going "green"...
“as soon as you allow politicians determine that which can be bought and sold, the first thing bought and sold will always be politicians.”
"no vast leviathan such as ours will ever be ruled by good people for no good people would seek such dominion over others". - El Gato Malo
The battery fires are one safety concern with EVs, but the weight problem is more pervasive. I recently learned that EVs are so much heavier than regular cars - up to 30% heavier - that they require special tires for additional support. That extra momentum can do a lot of extra damage, in a low-speed collusion with a pedestrian in the parking lot and in a high-speed collision on the highway.
Not to mention that ev’s are paying no road tax.