Automotive
Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Running Headfirst Into A Wall Of His Own Making

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By WILL KESSLER
President Joe Biden’s administration unveiled tariffs this week aimed at boosting domestic production of green energy technology, but the move could end up hamstringing his larger climate goals.
The tariffs announced on Tuesday quadruple levies for Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) to 100% and raise rates for certain Chinese green energy and EV components like minerals and batteries. Biden has made the transition to green energy and EVs a key part of his climate agenda, but hiking tariffs on those products to help U.S. manufacturing could jack up prices on the already costly products, slowing adoption by struggling Americans, according to experts who spoke to the DCNF.
The risks posed by hiking levies on green technology expose the inherent tension between Biden’s climate agenda and his efforts to protect American industry, which often struggles to compete with cheap foreign labor. Items on his climate agenda typically raise costs, and requiring companies to comply could make them uncompetitive on the world stage.
“These tariffs are a classic example of the Biden administration’s left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing,” E.J. Antoni, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told the DCNF. “The inability to import Chinese-made EVs due to prohibitively high costs will necessitate importing raw materials and parts for EVs from China. Since automakers can’t afford to build and assemble the vehicles here, prices will have to rise. In other words, American consumers will pay the cost of this tariff, not the Chinese.”
The White House, in its fact sheet, pointed to China artificially lowering its prices and dumping goods on the global market as the justification for the new tariffs in an effort to help protect American businesses. China has pumped huge subsidies into its own EV industry and supply lines over the past few years, spawning a European Union investigation into vehicles from the country.
“Tariffs on Chinese EVs won’t just make Chinese EVs more expensive, they will also make American EVs more expensive,” Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is because domestic producers can now raise their prices without fear of being undercut by competitors. Good for them but bad for consumers — and for the Biden administration’s policy goal of increased EV adoption.”
Several American manufacturers are already struggling to sell EVs at a profit, with Ford losing $4.7 billion on its electric line in 2023 while selling over 72,000 of the vehicles. To ease price concerns and increase EV adoption, the Biden administration created an EV tax credit of $7,500 per vehicle, depending on where its parts are made.
The market share of EVs out of all vehicles fell in the first quarter of 2024 from 7.6% to 7.1% as consumers opted to buy cheaper traditional vehicles instead. Growth in EV sales increased by just 2.7% in the quarter, far slower than the 47% growth that the industry saw in all of 2023.
The Biden administration has also sought to use regulations to push automakers toward electrifying their offerings as consumers refuse to voluntarily adopt EVs, finalizing rules in March that effectively require around 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 to be electric or hybrids.
“By raising the price — and thereby stunting the deployment — of EVs, the tariffs undermine the Biden administration’s stated goals of reducing carbon emissions (as many U.S. environmentalists and EV fans have recently lamented),” Clark Packard, research fellow in the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, wrote following the announcement. “The EV tariffs (and also-announced solar tariffs) would continue the administration’s habit of choosing politics and protectionism over their environmental agenda.”
Despite the subsidies, the 25% tariff that is currently in place for Chinese EVs already prices the product out of the U.S. market, resulting in no Chinese-branded EVs being sold in the country, according to Barron’s. Only a handful of the more than 100 EV models being sold in China appeal to American consumers, and none of them can compete under current levies.
“Something like this happened just a few years ago when former president Donald Trump enacted 25% steel tariffs in 2018,” Young told the DCNF. “Domestic steel producers raised their prices by almost exactly the amount of the tariff, and America soon had the world’s highest steel prices. As a result, car prices went up by about $200 to $300 on average. Larger trucks with more steel content increased even more. Now Biden is going to do the same thing to EVs.”
I won’t allow American towns and workers to be hurt by China’s unfair trade practices that flood our markets with cheap products.
That’s what these new tariffs are all about. pic.twitter.com/GGApGqtg7O
— President Biden (@POTUS) May 15, 2024
In the year following the increase in steel tariffs under the Trump administration, U.S. Steel’s operating profit rose 38%, prices were hiked 5 to 10% and revenue was up 15% due to reduced competition, according to CNN.
Despite the massive tariff hike on EVs, Biden only raised the tariff rate on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts to 25%, according to the White House. The tariff rate on certain essential minerals, like natural graphite, was also hiked to just 25%.
“Despite rapid and recent progress in U.S. onshoring, China currently controls over 80% of certain segments of the EV battery supply chain, particularly upstream nodes such as critical minerals mining, processing, and refining,” the White House wrote in its fact sheet. “Concentration of critical minerals mining and refining capacity in China leaves our supply chains vulnerable and our national security and clean energy goals at risk.”
China has broad control over the majority of minerals necessary to construct EVs, possessing nearly 90% of the world’s mineral refining capacity. Sources of the required minerals often also have serious human rights concerns, such as the world’s supply of cobalt, which has widespread ties to child labor.
Biden attacked former President Donald Trump during the 2020 election for the broad tariffs that he put on Chinese goods, noting that “any freshman econ student” could point out that the costs of the tariffs would be passed on to American consumers.
EV makers have increasingly struggled over the past year to maintain profits amid stalling demand, with the largest American EV manufacturer, Tesla, reporting a 10% drop in year-over-year revenue in the first quarter of 2024. Tesla is one of several EV makers that have announced layoffs in recent months.
“Fortunately, the EV market is still small in the U.S. and Chinese EVs are an even smaller slice of that small pie,” Antoni told the DCNF. “Even if the EV market in the U.S. were large, these tariffs would not help the domestic EV industry. While consumer demand for EVs would shift to domestic models, an increase in domestic production would rely on very expensive inputs from China, cutting into profits.”
The White House did not respond to a request to comment from the DCNF.
Automotive
Canadians rejecting Liberal’s EV mandates because consumers are rational

From Resource Works
Bad policy, not misinformation, is to blame for the decline in EV sales
It was a clever move for federal minister Gregor Robertson to stand in Victoria and blame the oil and auto industries for spreading “misinformation” about electric vehicles.
If people don’t follow a government order, then someone else must have lied to them.
But the truth is simpler, and more uncomfortable for Ottawa and Victoria: Canadians are against aggressive EV mandates because the policies behind them are not based on reality.
Politicians have been pushing electric vehicles (EVs) as a cornerstone of the fight against climate change for years, promising a cleaner future through ambitious mandates and generous rebates.
All of this effort looked good on paper: passing laws, handing out thousands (millions, billions) in subsidies, paving the way for Canada’s transition to an electric future.
But, in real life, it’s just not working out this way.
Why? Because instead of crafting long-term rules based on the realities of infrastructure, cost, and consumer choice, Ottawa rushed ahead with policies that ignored market signals.
They assumed subsidies would keep EV sales flowing indefinitely, only to be shocked when sales plummeted once the rebates dried up.
Canadians are responding rationally to high prices, unreliable charging networks, and impractical mandates.
Not long ago, Ottawa set ambitious, unattainable targets: 20 percent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035.
British Columbia went further, aiming for 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035.
In theory, it looked achievable. In practice, it’s been a wake-up call.
The numbers tell the story. Statistics Canada reported that EVs accounted for 18.29 percent of new vehicle sales in December 2024. Just four months later, when Ottawa’s iZEV program ran out of funds and provincial rebates ended, that figure crashed to 7.53 percent.
In British Columbia, once a leader in EV adoption, the market share dropped from nearly 25 percent in mid-2024 to 15 percent a year later.
Quebec, long the most EV-friendly province, saw a similar decline when its $7,000 subsidy was slashed nearly in half.
Why? Canadians have been very clear.
Cost is the biggest barrier, according to polls like this one from Ipsos in 2025. But this isn’t the only issue.
Ipsos found 56 percent of British Columbians oppose EV mandates, with even higher resistance among older households and those outside Metro Vancouver. People resent being told they must buy expensive cars they can’t easily charge or fully trust in harsh winters.
Subsidies made high sticker prices tolerable for middle-class families, but when the rebates vanished while mandates and fines remained, buyers walked away.
Barry Penner of the Energy Futures Institute put it bluntly: governments “put the cart before the horse,” demanding widespread adoption before ensuring affordability or infrastructure.
The financial penalties for automakers are steep. Missing federal targets by 10 percent could mean hundreds of millions in fines.
In British Columbia, dealers face $20,000 penalties for every gas-powered car sold over the mandated ratio. Those who can’t comply often buy credits—frequently from Tesla, a California-based company that benefits while Canadian businesses foot the bill. These rules aren’t just hitting “Big Oil”; they’re straining local dealers and sending money abroad.
Infrastructure is another glaring issue. Ottawa estimates Canada has 33,700 chargers today but needs 679,000 by 2040—an average of 40,000 new chargers annually for 15 years, a pace experts call unrealistic.
In British Columbia, Penner notes the province has just 5,000 chargers now and needs 40,000 more by 2030. Meeting the 2035 mandate would also require electricity equivalent to two additional Site C dams, even as B.C. relies on 20 to 25 percent of its power from external sources, often fossil fuels.
Canadians aren’t against cleaner technology—they’re against being forced into choices that don’t fit their lives. The frustration stems from policies that feel disconnected from the realities of cost, convenience, and infrastructure. More blame or moralizing won’t fix this.
Penner has urged governments to “take our foot off the gas and realign our policies with reality.”
That could mean reinstating rebates if mandates persist, investing heavily in charging networks, or setting broader emissions targets that give consumers real choices instead of rigid quotas.
The EV dream will keep stalling unless that happens. It’s not because Canadians don’t know what’s going on; it’s because governments made decisions based on wishful thinking.
Agriculture
Canola or cars? Canada can’t save both

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Doug Firby
Canada is risking its most successful export to prop up an EV pipe dream
Picture a Canadian industry that contributes $43 billion to the economy and employs about 200,000 people.
There aren’t many of those in this country. Any industry of that size should be considered indispensable.
And yet, while there is (understandable) national hand-wringing over the future of Canada’s auto industry—especially in light of U.S. President Donald
Trump’s renewed tariff rampage—another industry, arguably more economically important, is being dangerously overlooked.
That industry is canola.
A summer drive through Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta makes the scale hard to miss. Yellow fields stretch to every horizon. Canola production has exploded over the past decade and has become the very lifeblood of the Prairies.
Without it, large parts of those provinces would be economically barren and far more sparsely populated. We’re not talking about niche agriculture here—we’re talking about a foundational industry that keeps the lights on across three provinces.
Canada is the world’s largest exporter of canola, a crop used to produce cooking oil, animal feed and biofuels. Its export-driven success makes it a cornerstone of the Prairie economy.
Now consider this: Canada’s auto manufacturing industry contributes about $19 billion annually to GDP and employs around 125,000 people directly in assembly and parts manufacturing. Include distribution and aftermarket services, and you get a bigger figure, but the core numbers still pale in comparison to canola.
So, here’s the uncomfortable question: If you had to sacrifice one, which would it be?
It’s a Hobson’s choice. Nobody wants to lose either. But Canada has been pushed into a position where something has to give.
The Trudeau government—and before that, the Biden administration—imposed 100 per cent tariffs on made-in-China electric vehicles (EVs). The logic was straightforward: protect the billions being pumped into Canada’s auto sector and turn the country into a hub for EV innovation and production.
It was a defensive move: one meant to slow China’s dominance in the global EV market and give domestic manufacturers room to grow. Without it, cheap, wellbuilt Chinese EVs would undercut Canadian and North American models before they ever left the factory floor.
But China doesn’t take these things lightly. In retaliation, it slapped a 76 per cent tariff on Canadian canola. Prairie farmers, many of whom are already grappling with rising costs and unpredictable weather, are now wondering if their main market is disappearing overnight.
China has long been Canada’s largest canola customer, though the relationship has had flare-ups, including temporary bans in past years tied to diplomatic disputes.
More than two-thirds of Canada’s exported canola goes to China. The latest tariff hike has already wiped out an estimated $1 billion in value. And there’s no clear end in sight.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew was blunt last week: Canada cannot afford to be in a trade war with both the United States and China. He suggested that, in the short term, Ottawa should direct EV tariff revenues to support canola producers. That may buy us some time. But the broader strategic question looms larger: With the U.S. under Trump becoming an increasingly unstable trade partner, and China punishing us for playing by American rules, where does Canada place its long-term bet?
It’s not an easy question to answer.
China is hardly an ideal partner. Its human rights record is abysmal, and its growing economic power often comes with strings attached. But we also can’t deny that it has already become the global manufacturing centre in many key sectors—including electric vehicles.
Then there’s the U.S. A longtime ally, yes, but under Trump, all bets are off. In January, he said of Canada, “We don’t need anything they have.” Not cars. Not oil. Not even niceties.
CUSMA—the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement that replaced NAFTA—governs most of Canada’s trade with our two largest partners. If Trump reopens the deal—and with Trump, it’s usually safest to take him literally—the Canadian auto industry may not survive. Billions in subsidies and protective tariffs won’t matter if the largest market slams its door shut.
So, again: what should we protect?
New markets for canola are being pursued—in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. But they won’t match China’s scale anytime soon. Diversifying export markets takes years. Prairie farmers don’t have that kind of time.
Meanwhile, dreams of building a Canadian-made EV remain just that: dreams. The auto sector may eventually pivot and survive, but right now, it’s the one on life support. Canola is the industry that’s vibrant—unless we let it get crushed in a trade crossfire.
I lived in an auto town for over two decades. I know the stakes. I’ve seen what happens when plants close, when supply chains dry up, and when livelihoods vanish.
But we need to be realistic.
Canola is a winning industry. It feeds the economy, supports thousands of families and helps keep our rural communities alive. It doesn’t need endless
subsidies or federal cheerleading—it just needs stable access to markets.
That might mean giving ground on EV tariffs. That might mean swallowing some pride on the international stage. But Canada cannot afford to sacrifice a thriving sector to save one already on the brink.
If we’re going to make hard choices—and we will—let’s make the one that protects what still works.
Canada cannot lose canola.
Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
-
Crime2 days ago
Arrest made in Charlie Kirk assassination
-
Crime2 days ago
“Hey fascist! Catch!”: Authorities confirm writing on alleged Kirk killer’s bullet casings
-
International2 days ago
Breaking: ‘Catch This Fascist’: Radicalized Utah Suspect Arrested in Charlie Kirk Assassination, Officials Say
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Every Child Matters, Except When It Comes To Proof In Kamloops
-
Crime2 days ago
‘Radicalized’ shooter dead, two injured in wake of school shooting
-
J.D. Tuccille2 days ago
After Charlie Kirk’s Murder, Politicians Can Back Away From the Brink, or Make Matters Worse
-
International2 days ago
Charlie Kirk Shooting Suspect Revealed: Here’s What His Ammunition Said
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
‘You Have No Idea What You Have Unleashed’: Erika Kirk Addresses Supporters For First Time Since Kirk’s Assassination