Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Automotive

Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs should look like the United States’, not Europe’s

Published

9 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Heather Exner-Pirot

It is clear that China’s green manufacturing subsidies are not merely levers to promote their domestic economy at the expense of their competitors, but part of a larger strategic plan to control parts of the global energy and transportation system.

China is now, beyond a doubt, engaged in dumping and subsidizing a range of clean technologies to manipulate global markets. The remaining question is: How should Canada respond?

The Finance Minister’s consultations on China’s unfair trade practices in electric vehicles is welcome, if belated. Canada should closely follow the United States’ lead on this matter, and evaluate the extent to which other Chinese products, from lithium-ion batteries to battery components, should also be sanctioned.

The New Trio

A key plank of China’s economic growth strategy is manufacturing and exporting the “new trio”: solar photovoltaics, lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles. These are high value-add, export-oriented products that China is hoping can compensate for domestic economic weakness driven by a property market crisis, poor demographics, and insufficient consumer demand.

To solidify its role in green technology manufacturing, the Chinese government has provided enormous industrial subsidies to its firms; far higher than those of western nations. According to analysis by Germany’s Kiel Institute, the industrial subsidies in China are at least three to four times – or even up to nine times – higher than in the major EU and OECD countries.

Washington-based think tank CSIS conservatively estimates industrial subsidies in China were at least 1.73 percent of GDP in 2019. This is equivalent to more than USD $248 billion at nominal exchange rates and USD $407 billion at purchasing power parity exchange rates – higher than China’s defense spending in the same year.

On top of state subsidies, Chinese green technology manufacturing companies also benefit from preferential access to critical mineral supply chains (many aspects of which China dominates and manipulates the global market), weak labour and environmental standards, and economic espionage (including stealing technology from western firms and using Chinese-made products to gather intelligence from their western consumers). This green tech espionage includes Chinese-made electric vehicles which are widely suspected of collecting users’ data and sending it back to China in ways that violate their privacy and security.

It is clear that China’s green manufacturing subsidies are not merely levers to promote their domestic economy at the expense of their competitors, but part of a larger strategic plan to control parts of the global energy and transportation system.

European and American Response

In response to these blatantly egregious practices, both the European Commission and United States have recently announced tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles.

The European Commission announced their tariffs on July 4, 2024, following a nine-month anti-subsidy investigation. Individual duties were applied to three prominent Chinese producers: BYD (17.4%); Geely (19.9%); and SAIC (37.6%).

Other Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) producers in China, which cooperated in the investigation but were not sampled, are subject to a 20.8% duty. Non-cooperating companies are subject to a 37.6% duty.

The United States policy was announced on May 14, 2024, and is both more comprehensive and more punitive than the European Commission’s. It covers not only electric vehicles, which face an increase in tariffs from the previous 25% to 100% as of August 1, 2024, but lithium-ion batteries (from a 7.5% to 25% tariff) and battery parts (from a 7.5% to 25% tariff). Natural graphite and permanent magnets will also face a tariff of 25%, starting in 2026.

Canada’s Response

Minister Freeland’s determination that Canada “does not become a dumping ground” for subsidized Chinese-made EVs, and commitment that Canada “will not stand” for China’s unfair trade practices, is very welcome.

To that end, Canada’s tariff policy on Chinese-made EVs should closely match the United States’, rather than Europe’s.

Canada’s auto industry is highly integrated with the United States, and our EV and battery supply chain, to the extent consumers will demand them, will be no different. Official Washington is seized with the threat China poses to the liberal world order and their position atop the global hierarchy. The United States will have little tolerance for Canada as a back door for Chinese-made EVs and battery parts. The growth and penetration of Chinese-made EV imports in Canada from 2022 to 2023 – an increase of 2500% year over year, now representing 25% of our imported EVs – shows that this is not a theoretical problem, but an existing one.

A soft touch on Chinese EV tariffs would likely create worse economic consequences for Canada in the North American context – in terms of impact to our domestic auto manufacturing industry, extensive battery supply chain investments, and CUSMA renegotiations – than it would confront from China, though these may indeed be painful.

For all these reasons, Canada should extend tariffs to lithium-ion batteries and battery parts as well, as the United States has done. This is fully with precedent. Canada has already applied extensive duties to Chinese-made  photovoltaics and wind towers, and has put heavy investment restrictions on Chinese ownership of critical minerals production and miners in Canada.

Long-term Thinking

Free trade is a cornerstone of the liberal world order. It has improved the material well-being of billions of people. Restrictions on trade should not be taken lightly.

But Chinese dumping, subsidies, and market manipulation mean that the global market is not free for many critical minerals, EVs, solar panels, wind towers, lithium-ion batteries, and other green technology components. Canada cannot ignore that fact for a perceived short-term gain from cheaper products.

Just as Europe learned that relying on Russia for cheap natural gas was expensive, relying on China for our energy transition will not move Canada to a lower carbon energy system easier, faster or cheaper.  It will impose different costs that Canadians will pay in a multitude of ways.

This may disappoint those that prioritize renewables and EV deployment over national security and domestic economic growth. The good news is that Canada has good options that satisfy climate goals as well. Canada is rich in oil, gas, uranium, and water. We are independent in fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric energy. Let us build on those strengths and invest in green technologies that leverage them, including carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), third and fourth generation nuclear reactors, pumped storage hydropower, and hydrogen.

Canada needs to focus on decarbonization efforts in areas in which we can both be energy independent and protect Canadian consumers and workers from unfair trade practices. To do this, Canada should apply appropriately punitive anti-dumping subsides on Chinese-made EVs, lithium-ion batteries, and battery parts.


Heather Exner-Pirot is director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

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

Alberta

Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing

Published on

From the Alberta Motor Association

Know Before the Tow: Towing Rights in Alberta

Predatory towing is a growing concern in major cities across the province. The Alberta Motor
Association (AMA), in partnership with the Calgary Police Service and Calgary Fire Department,
wants to ensure Albertans are not only aware of this emerging issue but also know how to stop
it.

Today, AMA launches Know Before the Tow—a new, provincewide awareness campaign that
empowers Albertans with the knowledge needed to stay confident and in control when faced with
a tow scam. The campaign features a list of five key towing rights that every Alberta driver should
know:

1. You have the right to refuse unsolicited towing services.
2. You have the right to choose who tows your vehicle, and where, unless
otherwise directed by police.
3. You have the right to access your vehicle to retrieve personal items during a
storage facility’s business hours.
4. You have the right to ask if the towing company receives a kickback for taking
your vehicle to a particular storage facility or repair shop.
5. You have the right to a quote prior to service, and an itemized invoice prior to
making payment.

“Being in a collision or broken down at the roadside is stressful enough; the last thing any Albertan
needs is high pressure from an unscrupulous tower,” says Jeff Kasbrick, Vice-President,
Advocacy and Operations, AMA. “These towing rights are clear and remind every Albertan that
they’re in the driver’s seat when it comes to who they choose to tow their vehicle.”

Edmonton and Calgary in particular are seeing increasing reports of predatory towing. Unethical
operators will arrive at a collision or breakdown scene uninvited, create a false sense of urgency
to remove the vehicle, and ultimately leave drivers facing huge fees.

Starting today, Albertans can visit ama.ab.ca/KnowBeforeTheTow to download a digital copy of
their towing rights, helping them feel confident if faced with a tow scam. And soon, all AMA centres
will offer free print versions, which are small enough to tuck in a glovebox.

“Alberta’s towing industry is still highly reputable, with the vast majority of operators committed
to fair and professional service. In fact, AMA and our roadside assistance network is proud to
represent 80% of all private-passenger tows in the province, so our members can be confident
that we’ll always protect them—just as we have for nearly 100 years,” says Kasbrick.

“By knowing your rights and choosing trusted providers like AMA, you can avoid unnecessary
stress, costs, and uncertainty. Because the road to recovery after a collision shouldn’t have to
include fighting for your vehicle.”

Sergeant Brad Norman, Calgary Police Service Traffic Section, says law enforcement continues
to work diligently with first responders and community partners like AMA to put the brakes on
predatory towers, who “are showing up at collision sites and pressuring overwhelmed and
frightened victims into paying high towing rates.”

“Our priority is to ensure the safety of collision victims, the public, and first responders at
collision sites. Part of this effort is educating motorists about their rights so that they Know
Before the Tow that they can say no to unsolicited towing services and choose a reputable
tower of their choice instead,” says Norman. “No one deserves to be taken advantage of after
being involved in a collision.”

To learn more, and to view an expanded version of Alberta towing rights, visit
ama.ab.ca/KnowBeforeTheTow

Continue Reading

Automotive

‘A Lot Of Government Coercion’: Study Slams ‘Forced Transition’ To EVs Consumers Don’t Seem To Want

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Owen Klinsky

The push for electric vehicle (EV) adoption is largely premised on misleading claims, and could bring enormous costs for U.S. consumers and the economy, a new meta-study shared exclusively with the Daily Caller News Foundation found.

Federal regulators and multinational corporations have attempted to push EVs on the American public in recent years, with the Biden-Harris administration introducing strict tailpipe emissions standards, and major automakers implementing lofty electric production targets. However, widespread EV adoption may not be as feasible as lawmakers and auto executives once claimed, with a new meta-analysis from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) noting EVs can have a variety of drawbacks for consumers when compared to their gas-powered counterparts, including elevated upfront costs, lower resale values, limited driving range and a lack of charging infrastructure.

“We argue the EV transition is going to take a lot of government coercion to make happen,” Kenny Stein, vice president of policy at IER and the study’s lead author, told the DCNF. “It is a very difficult process, and it is not a very desirable process to force.”

When Government Chooses Your Car Study; Institute for Energy Research (IER)

Much of the reason a U.S. EV transition will not occur without government force, according to the study, is cost. The price of an average EV in the first quarter of 2024 was $53,048, compared to just $35,722 for conventional vehicles, according to car shopping guide Edmunds, meaning many EVs continue to be less affordable than their gas-powered counterparts even with the U.S. Treasury Department’s $7,500 tax credit.

The IER study also cites elevated depreciation as a constraint on EV adoption, noting that the average five-year depreciation for an electric car is $43,515 compared to $27,883 for a gas-powered vehicle, according to vehicle valuation company Kelley Blue Book. The rapid depreciation is largely driven by battery replacement costs, which range from $7,000 to as much as $30,000.

In addition to sheer cost, the study found “range anxiety” — the concern among drivers that they will run out of charge before reaching their destination or a charging station — is a major source of consumer reluctance to purchase EVs. While “range anxiety” can be reduced by increasing mileage, expanding an EV’s range requires a larger battery, which in turn drives up vehicle cost and creates a difficult tradeoff for consumers.

A lack of charging infrastructure also contributes to range concerns, and has proven difficult to fix despite ample government funding, the study found. For example, the bipartisan infrastructure bill of 2021 allotted $7.5 billion to subsidize thousands of new EV charging stations, but only seven stations in four states had been built as of April.

The combination of range issues and high costs has helped drive a slackening in EV demand, with EV sales growing 50% in the first half of 2023 and 31% in the first half of 2024, less than the 71% increase in the first half of 2022. Moreover, a June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found 46% of respondents were “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to purchase an EV, while just 21% were “very” or “extremely” likely to make the change.

If thousands of new charging stations are built and demand rises due to the alleviation of range concerns, the transition would create a variety of new infrastructural challenges, namely that it would reduce the reliability of an already constrained U.S. power grid.

“Up until two years ago or so, electricity demand in the United States was flat so nobody worried about running out of electricity. But with the data center boom and AI [artificial intelligence], there’s been a sudden spike in demand for electricity, and demand is expected to continue growing,” Stein told the DCNF. “Now you’re suddenly talking about not having enough electricity to supply everyday use at the same time we are trying to force pre-existing transportation systems to run on electricity. When you combine that EVs are more expensive and less flexible with the possibility we may be running out of electricity to keep homes cool and to operate industrial facilities, the logic of pursuing [the EV transition] gets even worse.”

Electricity demand has grown by 1.3% annually for the past three years — more than double the average growth rate from 2010 to 2019, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. The surge has been driven largely by a boom in artificial intelligence and data centers, with commercial electricity accounting for 60% of growth in total U.S. power demand between 2021 and 2023.

On the supply side, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pushed to reshape the power grid by effectively requiring America’s existing coal plants will have to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to control 90% of their carbon emissions by 2032 if they want to stay running past 2039, and certain new natural gas plants will have to cut their emissions by 90% by 2032. The EPA rule “leaves coal-heavy regions, like the one covered by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, vulnerable to reliability problems in the near future,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow for the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in grid analysis, previously told the DCNF.

Grid reliability is already wavering, with hundreds of millions of Americans at risk of experiencing power shortages this winter if weather conditions are harsh, according to power grid watchdog the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

The IER study also identifies a set of “myths fueling electric vehicle policy,” including that EVs are necessarily better for the environment.

“One of the biggest sources of emissions from vehicles is tire wear, because tires are made primarily from oil, and as your tires roll along the ground, they degrade and release particulates into the air,” Stein told the DCNF. “Electric vehicles are much heavier than gas-powered cars due to their batteries, which requires them to have heavier tires that wear faster, so EVs actually have much higher particulate emissions than comparable internal combustion engine vehicles.”

A 2020 study from environmental engineering consultancy Emissions Analytics found particulate wear emissions were 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions, with later research conducted by the consulting firm finding a Tesla Model Y produced 26% more tire emissions than a comparable hybrid vehicle.

Additionally, the IER study notes EVs require six times the mineral inputs of conventional cars, which in turn calls for emissions-intensive mining processes that produce toxic waste.

“For average Americans, the tradeoff calculation obviously is not working,” the study’s authors wrote. “This is not due to misinformation; indeed… there is plenty of pro-EV misinformation. It is simply that…there are negative tradeoffs to EVs. In designing policy, these negative factors must be considered rather than simply ignored.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X