Electric vehicle sales mandates doomed to fail

Nearly 30 per cent of EV owners worldwide intend to switch back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

According to new data released this week, electric vehicle (EV) sales in Europe plummeted by 36 per cent in Europe including a 69 per cent drop in Germany, the continent’s largest auto market. And according to a recent survey by McKinsey & Company, nearly 30 per cent of EV owners worldwide intend to switch back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Clearly, in light of growing consumer hesitation and a global slowdown in EV sales, the ambitious timelines set by governments for the EV transition are increasingly at odds with market realities.

In Canada, the Trudeau government has mandated that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks must be zero-emission by 2035, with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030. But only 8.1 per cent (139,521) of the 1.7 million new vehicles sold in Canada in 2023 were electric, according to Statistics Canada. And it takes an average of 55 days to sell an EV in Canada—33 days longer than in 2023 and four days more than a gasoline-powered car. To achieve the Trudeau government’s 2026 target, EV sales would need to more than double in just two years and increase more than sevenfold by 2030 (assuming no change in total vehicle sales). Such rapid growth within a short timeframe is questionable at best.

It’s a similar story in the United States where the Biden administration has mandated that nearly 60 per cent of new vehicles sold must be electric by 2032 even though demand in 2024 has been lighter than expected and nearly half of American EV owners say they’re likely to switch back to ICEs. In Europe, the United Kingdom and the European Union plan to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2035 yet, as previously noted, EV sales are plummeting.

Some automakers have already responded to the realities of the EV market. In April, Tesla laid off 10 per cent of its global workforce. Ford announced it will cancel the production of an electric SUV, delay the production of an electric pickup truck, and postpone the start of EV production at its Oakville, Ontario plant by two years. General Motors abandoned its goal of producing 400,000 EVs by mid-2024 due to lower-than-expected sales and revealed in August it would delay the start of production at its battery plant in Indiana by about one year, pushing the timeline to 2027.

The EV transition also faces another major hurdle—a shortage of minerals for EV batteries that can only be addressed by opening a massive number of new mines in record time. According to a 2023 study, to meet international EV adoption mandates by 2030, the world would need 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines, 17 new cobalt mines, 50 new mines for cathode production, 40 new mines for anode materials, 90 new mines for minerals needed to produce battery cells, and 81 new mines for the body and motors of the EVs themselves, for a total of 388 new mines worldwide. For context, in 2021 there were only 340 metal mines operating in Canada and the U.S. combined.

Identifying, planning and constructing a mine is a slow process. For instance, lithium production timelines range from six to nine years and for nickel 13 to 18 years—both of these elements remain critical for EV batteries. Clearly, today’s aggressive government timelines for EV adoption clash with the realities of mineral mining.

The facts are undeniable. Governments can’t dictate consumer choices via mandate. The fantastic EV adoption timelines of the Trudeau government and other governments in the western world are increasingly out of touch with the realities of production and market demand. These governments have overestimated their ability to shape the auto industry, which is why EV mandates will fail.

Authors:

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#ElmiraAliakbari #EVMandates #FraserInstitute #JulioMejía ElectricVehicleMadates

Up Next

Next government MUST reduce the size of bureaucracy: Preston Manning

Don't Miss

Trump calls charges against ‘maniac assassin’ a ‘slap on the wrist’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

LEGO to invest $366 million on major U.S. expansion

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Meet Marjorie Mallare, a young woman with a leading role at one of Canada’s largest refineries

Business / 7 hours ago

From ‘Elbows Up’ To ‘Thumbs Up’

Automotive

New federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution

Published on April 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

During his victory speech Monday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated one of his favourite campaign slogans and vowed to make Canada a “clean energy superpower.” So, Canadians can expect Ottawa to “invest” more taxpayer money in “clean energy” projects including electric vehicles (EVs), the revolutionary transportation technology that’s been ready to replace internal combustion since 1901 yet still requires government subsidies.

It’s a good time for a little historical review. In 2012 south of the border, the Obama administration poured massive subsidies into companies peddling green tech, only to see a vast swath go belly up including Solyndra, would-be maker of advanced solar panels, which failed so spectacularly CNN called the company the “poster child for well-meaning government policy gone bad.”

One might think that such a spectacular failure might have served as a cautionary tale for today’s politicians. But one would be wrong. Even as the EV transition slammed into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government poured $5 billion in subsidies into Honda to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. That “investment” came on top of a long list of other “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution; $13 billion for Volkswagen (or $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

How’s all that working out? Not great.

“Projects announced for Canada’s EV supply chain are in various states of operation, and many remain years away from production,” notes automotive/natural resource reporter Gabriel Friedman, writing in the Financial Post. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada, only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”

In 2023, Volkswagen said it would invest $7 billion by 2030 to build a battery cell manufacturing complex in St. Thomas, Ontario. However, Friedman notes “construction of the VW plant is not scheduled to begin until this spring [2025] and initial cell production will not begin for years.” Or ever, if Donald Trump’s pledge to end U.S. government support for a broad EV transition comes to pass.

In the meantime, other elements of Canada’s “clean tech” future are also in doubt. In December 2024, Saint-Jérome, Que.-based Lion Electric Co., which had received $100 million in provincial and government support to assemble batteries in Canada for electric school buses and trucks, said it would file for bankruptcy in the United States and creditor protection in Canada. And Ford Motor Company last summer scrapped its planned EV assembly plant in Oakville, Ontario—after $640 million in federal and provincial support.

And of course, there’s Canada’s own poster-child-of-clean-tech-subsidy failure, Northvolt. According to the CBC, the Swedish battery manufacturer, with plans to build a $7 billion factory in Quebec, has declared bankruptcy in Sweden, though Northvolt claims that its North American operations are “solvent.” That’s cold comfort to some Quebec policymakers: “We’re going to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a bet that our government in Quebec made on a poorly negotiated investment,” said Parti Québécois MNA Pascal Paradis.

Elections often bring about change. If the Carney government wants to change course and avoid more clean-tech calamities, it should pull the plug on the EV revolution and avoid any more electro-boondoggles.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Automotive

Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

Published on April 28, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.

Key Details:

Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.
The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.
California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.

Diving Deeper:

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.

California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.

A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.

The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.

Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.

California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.

As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?