By Dan McTeague

Earlier this month, Donald Trump fulfilled a major campaign promise and struck a blow against environmentalist governance in Canada, all in one fell swoop.

He did this by signing a congressional resolution revoking a waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration that enabled the state to set automotive emissions standards significantly stricter than the national standard. So strict, in fact, that in practice only electric vehicles (EVs) could realistically meet them.

This waiver functioned as a backdoor EV mandate, not just in California, but for all of the United States. That’s because automakers don’t want to be locked out of the most populous state in the union but are also disinclined to build one set of cars for California and another for the rest of the country. Their only option would be to increase their production of EVs, to the exclusion of gas-and-diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Trump has argued, both during his 2024 campaign and since, that the waiver enabled far-left California to saddle the rest of the country with environmental policies it had never voted for and couldn’t repeal. That view helped him win back the White House.

But what does this have to do with Canada? Donald Trump has no power over our own EV mandate. The law of the land in Canada, though it was barely discussed in this spring’s federal election, beyond a last-minute pledge from Pierre Poilievre to reverse it, is still that by 2035, 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicles sold in Canada (including passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs) must be electric.

It doesn’t sound like Mark Carney’s Liberals have any intention of changing course from this Trudeau-era policy — even though new EVs sold in Canada have been falling as a share of overall purchases. To stay on track for 2035, the mandate stipulates, 20 per cent of new cars sold in Canada next year must be EVs. Last year just 13.7 per cent were. And, as Tristin Hopper noted recently, “these sales are disproportionately concentrated in a single province … Of the 81,205 zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada in the last quarter of 2024, 49,357 were sold in Quebec.”

That doesn’t bode well for a national mandate. And Trump’s move further complicates the Liberals’ EV mandate, which has always been presented as an investment opportunity as well as a chance to reduce global carbon emissions. Our federal and provincial governments (particularly Ontario and Quebec) have bet very big on EVs dominating the future. Last year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that public investment in EVs exceeded $52 billion. Much of that money has gone towards subsidizing the manufacture of EVs in Canada.

Except there just aren’t enough Canadian consumers to justify that expense. The scheme has always hinged on there being a robust EV market south of the border. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association reminds us that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023, of which 93 per cent was exported to the U.S.”

The assumption was that existing avenues of trade would remain essentially unchanged. Even leaving aside concerns about what our future trade relationship with the United States will be, the end of America’s backdoor mandate — and with it, any reason to believe there will be a serious market for EVs in the U.S. — exposes our current EV policies as a bum deal.

Of course, there was never a strong case for attempting to turn Canada into a global EV superpower. There’s a reason Canadian consumers remain skeptical of them. EV batteries don’t perform well in the frigid temperatures for which our country is famous. In cold weather, they charge slowly and then struggle to hold the charge.

Our already-stressed electrical grid isn’t ready for the extra demand that would come with widespread EV adoption, especially considering the Liberals’ desire to progressively decarbonize the grid. And we have nothing like the infrastructure we would need to support this transition.

These roadblocks have now become so obvious that even the automakers, the main beneficiaries of both taxpayer-funded largesse and the mandates themselves, have started saying so. “The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,” read a recent statement by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, and Stellantis. Ford Canada CEO Bev Goodman has described the mandate as unrealistic and called for its repeal. Kristian Aquilina, president of GM Canada, has said the same.

Whether they realize it or not, our political leaders will have to face up to this reality, and sooner rather than later. Their best option is also the most straightforward one. There’s no reason for us to keep throwing good money after bad money, nor to force an unwanted product on Canadian consumers.

You can do it, Mr. Carney. Repeal the EV mandate.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

What if they gave an oil price spike and nobody came? That is admittedly kind of a lame play on an old saying about parties, but it’s exactly what has happened over the two weeks since June 12, when Israel launched its initial assault on Iran.

At that day’s close of trading, the domestic U.S. WTI price sat at $68.04 per barrel. As of this writing on June 24, the price stands at $64.50. That’s not just the absence of a price spike, it is the opposite of one, a drop of 5% in just two weeks.

So, what happened? Why didn’t crude prices spike significantly? For such a seemingly complex trading market that is impacted daily by a broad variety of factors, the answer here is surprisingly simple, boiling down to just two key factors.

• Neither Israel nor the United States made an effort to target Iran’s refining or export infrastructures.
• Despite some tepid, sporadic saber rattling by Iranian officials, they mounted no real effort to block the flow of crude tankers through the region’s critical choke point, the Strait of Hormuz.

Hitting Iran’s infrastructure could have taken its substantial crude exports – which the International Energy Agency estimates to be 1.7 million barrels per day – off the global market, a big hit. Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global crude supplies flow every day, would have been a much bigger hit, one that would have set prices on an upward spiral.

But the oil kept flowing, muting the few comparatively small increases in prices which did come about.

Respected analyst David Ramsden-Wood, writing at his “HotTakeOfTheDay” Substack newsletter, summed it up quite well. “Oil is still structurally bearish. U.S. producers are in PR mode—talking up ‘Drill, baby, drill’ while actually slowing down. Capex is flat to declining. Rig counts are down. Shareholders want returns, not growth. So we’re left with this: Tension in the Middle East, no supply impact, and U.S. production that’s quietly rolling over. Oil shrugged.”

There was a time, as recently as 10 years ago, when crude prices would have no doubt rocketed skywards at the news of both the commencement of Israel’s initial June 12 assault on Iran’s military and political targets and of last Saturday’s U.S. bombing operation. In those days, we could have expected crude prices to go as high as $100 per barrel or even higher. Markets used to really react to the “tension in the Middle East” to which Ramsden-Wood refers, in large part, because they had no real way to parse through all the uncertainties such events might create.

Now it’s different. Things have changed. The rise of machine learning, AI and other technological and communications advancements has played a major role.

In the past, a lack of real-time information during any rise in Middle East tensions left traders in the dark for some period of time – often extended periods – about potential impacts on production in the world’s biggest oil producing region. But that is no longer the case. Traders can now gauge potential impacts almost immediately.

That was especially true throughout this most recent upset, due to President Donald Trump’s transparency about everything that was taking place. You were able to know exactly what the U.S. was planning to do or had done just by regularly pressing the “refresh” button at Trump’s Truth Social feed.

Tim Stewart, President of the D.C.-based U.S. Oil and Gas Association, has a term for this. “The Markets are becoming much better at building the ‘47 Variable’ into their short-term models,” he said in an email. “This is not a Republican Administration – it is a Disrupter Administration and disruption happens both ways, so the old playbooks just don’t apply anymore.  Traders are taking into account a President who means what he says, and it is best to plan for it.”

Add to all that the reality that a high percentage of crude trading is now conducted via automated, AI-controlled programs, and few trades are any longer made in the dark.

Thus, the world saw a price spike which, despite being widely predicted by many smart people, didn’t happen, and the reasons why are pretty simple.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/PBS NewsHour)