Automotive
Federal government should face facts—the EV transition is failing
From the Fraser Institute
” public charging infrastructure isn’t keeping pace with predicted consumer adoption of EVs, and as noted in a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, targets for consumer adoption of EVs are out of sync with historical timelines for the development of metals needed to make them “
A series of recent headlines in the Wall Street Journal reveal the extent to which government plans in Canada and the United States, to transition surface transportation from internal combustion to battery-electric power, are already showing signs of failure. “Ford Cuts Lightning Output in Latest Sign of EV Downshift,” reads one article while the editorial page says “The EV Backlash Builds: Companies cut output amid flagging demand” and “The Electric Vehicle Push Runs Out of Power.”
And there’s evidence the electric vehicle (EV) transition is also stalling in other countries. In Germany, EV sales are in freefall as the cash-strapped government tapers off subsidies for EVs. Battery EV registrations dropped 29 per cent from the previous year while plug-in hybrid registrations dropped 35 per cent year-over-year.
Manufacturers are also pulling back from the EV market. Recently, only a year after announcing a US$5 billion joint venture between GM and Honda to develop affordable EVs, the two auto giants pulled the plug on the venture. Even in China, which planned to be the world’s dominant supplier of EVs and batteries, is finding the transition hard to sustain. As Bloomberg reports, “China’s Abandoned, Obsolete Electric Cars Are Piling Up in Cities.” The subhead of the article explains, “A subsidy-fueled boom helped build China into an electric-car giant but left weed-infested lots across the nation brimming with unwanted battery-powered vehicles.”
All of this should trouble the Trudeau government, which mandated that all new light-duty vehicles sold in Canada be EVs by 2035 and has poured taxpayer dollars into the predicted future EV and battery production industry. For example, $28 billion for two EV battery plants (Stellantis-LG and Volkswagen), $2.7 billion for a new battery manufacturing plant in Montreal (which will also get $4.6 billion in production incentives with one-third coming from Quebec), and $640 million for a new Ford electric vehicle factory (also in Quebec). Government has made other smaller investments in rare earth mining and refining to incentivize production of the metals needed to make EV batteries. And of course, all this “investment” government comes atop consumer incentives to convince people to buy EVs. The federal government offers incentives up to $5,000 for the purchase of light-duty vehicles, and up to $2,000 for medium-heavy duty vehicles. Seven Canadian provinces offer additional subsidies.
Clearly, the Trudeau government is betting heavily, with the limited resources of Canadian taxpayers, on an EV future that increasingly looks unlikely to happen. Governments around the world are running out of money to subsidize EVs, consumers are increasingly reluctant to buy EVs, public charging infrastructure isn’t keeping pace with predicted consumer adoption of EVs, and as noted in a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, targets for consumer adoption of EVs are out of sync with historical timelines for the development of metals needed to make them, insuring a bottleneck situation in the not-too-distant future.
In fact, to meet international EV adoption pledges, the world would need 50 new lithium mines by 2030, along with 60 new nickel mines and 17 new cobalt mines. The materials needed for cathode production will require 50 more new mines, and another 40 new mines for anode materials. The battery cells will require 90 new mines, and EVs themselves another 81. In total, this adds up to 388 new mines. For context, as of 2021, there were only 270 metal mines operating in the U.S. and only 70 in Canada. And mine development timelines are long—lithium timelines, for example, are approximately six to nine years, while production timelines (from application to production) for nickel are approximately 13 to 18 years.
The writing is on the wall. The Trudeau government should reconsider the reckless gambling with taxpayer money that its EV agenda represents. It should withdraw the “investments” where it can, and reconsider the country’s 2035 all-EV mandate. These all look increasingly like bad bets, with Canadian taxpayers being the ultimate losers.
Author:
From Canadians for Affordable Energy
Already, billions of tax dollars have been handed out in subsidies to companies that have no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer. This experiment in societal re-engineering will disproportionately harm Canadian workers and families, especially those who live in rural communities.
And it will surely fail
Canada is not nearly ready for the wholesale adoption of electric vehicles (EVs).
That was the message of the letter I sent to every member of Parliament recently, urging them to drop the “Electric Vehicle Availability Standard” introduced by the Trudeau government late last year. That’s the policy that mandates that all new vehicles sold in Canada must be electric by 2035. There is no way, considering the economic, technological and infrastructural realities of our country — and our world — where this is possible.
Stubbornly attempting to achieve this goal would do serious damage to our economy, leaving Canadian taxpayers on the hook for generations to come. Already, billions of tax dollars have been handed out in subsidies to companies that have no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer. This experiment in societal re-engineering will disproportionately harm Canadian workers and families, especially those who live in rural communities.
And it will surely fail. In my letter I highlight a few of the central reasons why staying the course on EV mandates by 2035 is extremely reckless. Right off the bat, the technology is simply not there for electric vehicles to be a reliable source of transportation in Canada’s climate. The batteries cannot hold their charge in frigid temperatures. Forcing Canadians to rely on vehicles that can’t handle our winters is irresponsible and dangerous.
Electric vehicles’ cost is another issue. Right now, the EV market relies heavily on government subsidies. These subsidies can’t last forever. But without them EVs are prohibitively expensive. Even with them, the costs of maintaining an EV are high. Replacing a damaged battery, for example, can cost upwards of $20,000. Mandating that people buy vehicles they can’t afford to either purchase in the first place or maintain if they do buy them is political malpractice.
A fact long ignored by decision-makers in Ottawa is that our electrical grid isn’t ready for the excess demand that would come with widespread EV adoption. These mandates, paired with the government’s goal of fully decarbonizing the grid by 2035, put us on a collision course with the reality of unreliable power. A grid powered, not by reliable fossil fuels, but by spotty wind and solar energy would be further burdened with millions of cars relying exclusively on electricity.
Beyond the electricity itself, the EV mandates will require additional transmission and distribution capacity. But there are no signs any plan is in place to expand our transmission capacity to meet the 2035 target.
The sheer number of new charging stations required by wholesale adoption of EVs will strain our distribution networks. Natural Resources Canada projections show that Canada will need between 442,000 and 469,000 public charging ports by 2035. At the moment, we have roughly 28,000. And that doesn’t include the private charging stations people will need to install at home. Closing that gap in such a tight time frame is almost certainly impossible.
All of those considerations aside, at a fundamental level the government’s push for electric vehicles encroaches on the operation of the free market, all in the name of emissions reductions. The Canadian economy is founded on the market principle that the consumer drives the economy (no pun intended). Thousands of times over, it has been shown that if there is enough demand for a product, supply soon follows. In the case of EVs, however, the federal government is operating under the assumption that if you somehow create a supply, that will inspire a demand.
This hasn’t worked in any of the countries where it’s been attempted, which is why nations around the world have started to tap the brakes on EV mandates. Decision-makers in Ottawa need to follow suit and abandon these reckless and costly mandates. Let the market decide when EVs are ready for prime time. In other words, let Canadians decide.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss
The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated federal government support for EV initiatives will cost Canadian taxpayers $31.4 billion, which represents roughly $1,043 per tax filer.
According to a new Leger poll, a significant percentage of Gen Z and millennial Canadians don’t believe that billions of dollars in government subsidies to build electric vehicle (EV) plants—including $5 billion to Honda, $13.2 billion to Volkswagen and $15 billion to Stellantis—will benefit them. And based on a large body of research, they’re right.
The poll, which surveyed Canadians aged 18 to 39 who are eligible to vote, found that only 32 per cent of respondents believe these subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) will be of “significant benefit to your generation” while 28 per cent disagree and 25 per cent are on the fence.
Unfortunately, this type of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare isn’t new. The federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on business subsidies from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data. Over the same period, provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion on business subsidies for their favoured firms and industries. And these figures exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.
The Trudeau government has shown a particular proclivity for corporate welfare. According to a recent study, federal subsidies have increased by 140 per cent from 2014/15 to 2023/24. But again, the money used to fund these subsidies isn’t free—its funded by taxpayers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated federal government support for EV initiatives will cost Canadian taxpayers $31.4 billion, which represents roughly $1,043 per tax filer.
And Canadians are right to be skeptical. Despite what the Trudeau or provincial governments claim, there’s little to no evidence that corporate welfare creates jobs (on net) or produces widespread economic benefits.
Instead, by giving money to select firms, the government simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are likely more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the government’s preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Canada without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.
Finally, higher taxes (or lower government spending in other areas) ultimately fund corporate welfare. And higher taxes depress economic activity—the higher the rates, the more economic activity is discouraged.
Unfortunately, the Trudeau government believes it knows better than investors and entrepreneurs, so it continues to use taxpayer money to allocate scarce resources—including labour—to their favoured projects and industries. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.
Canadians, including young Canadians, are right to be skeptical of corporate welfare. As the evidence suggests, there’s little reason to think it will lead to any economic benefit for them.
Authors:
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
Hawley: Whistleblowers say Trump’s security detail was unprepared, inexperienced
Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says
Claims about ‘safer supply’ diversion aren’t disinformation
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
-
Alberta1 day ago‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial
-
National1 day agoLiberals offer no response as Conservative MP calls Trudeau a ‘liar’ for an hour straight
-
COVID-191 day agoLeaked documents: German gov’t lied about shots preventing COVID, knew lockdowns did more harm than good
-
Business1 day agoFederal government seems committed to killing investment in Canada
-
International1 day agoSwitzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’
-
Economy1 day agoKamala Harris’ Energy Policy Catalog Is Full Of Whoppers
-
Business1 day agoEstonia’s solution to Canada’s stagnating economic growth