Automotive
Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs should look like the United States’, not Europe’s
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.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The future direction of federal energy policy related to the transportation sector is a key question that will be determined in one way or another by the outcome of the presidential election. What remains unclear is the extent of change that a Trump presidency would bring.
Given that Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is a major supporter of former President Donald Trump, it seems unlikely a Trump White House would move to try to end the EV subsidies and tax breaks included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Those provisions, of course, constitute the “carrot” end of the Biden-Harris carrot-and-stick suite of policies designed to promote the expansion of EVs in the U.S. market.
The “stick” side of that approach comes in the form of stricter tailpipe emissions rules and higher fleet auto-mileage requirements imposed on domestic carmakers. While a Harris administration would likely seek to impose even more federal pressure through such command-and-control regulatory measures, a Trump administration would likely be more inclined to ease them.
But doing that is difficult and time-consuming and much would depend on the political will of those Trump appoints to lead the relevant agencies and departments.
Those and other coercive EV-related policies imposed during the Biden-Harris years have been designed to move the U.S. auto industry directionally to meet the administration’s stated goal of having EVs make up a third of the U.S. light duty fleet by 2030. The suite of policies does not constitute a hard mandate per se but is designed to produce a similar pre-conceived outcome.
It is the sort of heavy-handed federal effort to control markets that Trump has spoken out against throughout his first term in office and his pursuit of a second term.
A new report released this week by big energy data and analytics firm Enverus seems likely to influence prospective Trump officials to take a more favorable view of the potential for EVs to grow as a part of the domestic transportation fleet. Perhaps the most surprising bit of news in the study, conducted by Enverus subsidiary Enverus Intelligence Research (EIR), is a projection that EVs are poised to be lower-priced than their equivalent gas-powered models as soon as next year, due to falling battery costs.
“Battery costs have fallen rapidly, with 2024 cell costs dipping below $100/kWh. We predict from [2025] forward EVs will be more affordable than their traditional, internal combustible engine counterparts,” Carson Kearl, analyst at EIR, says in the release. Kearl further says that EIR expects the number of EVs on the road in the US to “exceed 40 million (20%) by 2035 and 80 million (40%) by 2040.”
The falling battery costs have been driven by a collapse in lithium prices. Somewhat ironically, that price collapse has in turn been driven by the failure of EV expansion to meet the unrealistic goal-setting mainly by western governments, including the United States. Those same cause-and-effect dynamics would most likely mean that prices for lithium, batteries and EVs would rise again if the rapid market penetration projected by EIR were to come to fruition.
In the U.S. market, the one and only certainty of all of this is that something is going to have to change, and soon. On Monday, Ford Motor Company reported it lost another $1.2 billion in its Ford Model e EV division in the 3rd quarter, bringing its accumulated loss for the first 9 months of 2024 to $3.7 billion.
Energy analyst and writer Robert Bryce points out in his Substack newsletter that that Model e loss is equivalent to the $3.7 billion profit Ford has reported this year in its Ford Blue division, which makes the company’s light duty internal combustion cars and trucks.
While Tesla is doing fine, with recovering profits and a rising stock price amid the successful launch of its CyberTruck and other new products, other pure-play EV makers in the United States are struggling to survive. Ford’s integrated peers GM and Stellantis have also struggled with the transition to more EV model-heavy fleets.
None of this is sustainable, and a recalibration of policy is in order. Next Tuesday’s election will determine which path the redirection of policy takes.
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.
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Kris Sims
The Trudeau government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles is a nonstarter for three powerful reasons.
First, Canadians want to drive gas-powered minivans and diesel pickups.
Second, Canada does not have the electrical power to fuel these battery-powered cars.
Third, Canadians do not have the money to build the power-generating stations that would be needed to power these government-mandated vehicles.
Let’s start on the showroom floor.
The Trudeau government is banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.
In about 10 years’ time, Canadians will not be allowed to buy a new vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine because the government will forbid it.
Canadians disagree with this.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 59 per cent of Canadians oppose the federal government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles.
Among those who are decided on the issue, 67 per cent of Canadians, and majorities in every demographic, oppose the Trudeau government’s ban.
Now let’s look under the hood.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars. The government hasn’t presented any plan to pay for the power plants, transmission lines and charging stations for these government-mandated vehicles.
That leaves a big question: How much will this cost taxpayers?
Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.
Let’s look at why this will cost so much.
The average Canadian household uses about 10,861 kWh in electricity per year. The average electric car uses about 4,500 kWh of energy per year.
The average household’s electricity use would jump by about 40 per cent if they bought one EV and charged it at home.
Canada is home to 24 million cars and light trucks that run on gasoline and diesel, according to Statistics Canada.
If all those vehicles were powered by electricity and batteries, that fleet would use about 108 million mWh of power every year.
For context, one large CANDU nuclear reactor at the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario generates about 7,750,000 mWh of power per year.
Canada would require about 14 of these reactors to power all of those electric cars.
Building a large nuclear reactor costs about $12.5 billion.
That’s a price tag of about $175 billion just for all the power plants. The Natural Resources report estimates the transition to electric vehicles could cost up to $300 billion in total, when new charging stations and power lines are included.
Who would be paying that tab? Normal Canadians through higher taxes and power bills.
Canadians cannot afford the cost of these mandatory electric vehicles because they’re broke.
Canadians are broke largely because of high taxes and high inflation, both driven by the Trudeau government’s wasteful spending.
About half of Canadians say they are within $200 of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills each month. That’s also known as barely scraping by.
Food banks are facing record demand, with a sharp increase in working families needing help. That means parents who are holding down jobs are still depending on donated jars of peanut butter to feed their kids.
Rubbing salt into the wound, the federal government also put taxpayers on the hook for about $30 billion to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt to build EV battery factories.
The roadside sobriety test is complete, and the Trudeau government is blowing a fail on this policy.
Canadians are opposed to the Trudeau government banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars.
Canadians don’t have the money to build the new power plants, transmission lines and charging stations these vehicles would demand.
It’s time to tow this ban on new gas and diesel vehicles to the scrapyard.
Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director and Kris Sims is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Multi-million dollar drug seizure in southwest Edmonton
10 reasons Donald Trump is headed for a landslide victory over Kamala Harris
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
Release the names! Foreign interference scandal reaching boiling point in shocking press conference
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoWhy Canada’s Elites Are Captives To The Kamala Narrative
-
C2C Journal19 hours agoMischief Trial of the Century: Inside the Crown’s Bogus, Punitive and Occasionally Hilarious Case Against the Freedom Convoy’s Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, Part I
-
Business21 hours agoPremiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs
-
Agriculture1 day agoSweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Bill of Rights Amendment, Bill 24 – Stronger protections for personal rights
-
Economy1 day agoGas prices plummet in BC thanks to TMX pipeline expansion
-
Economy2 days agoOne Solution to Canada’s Housing Crisis: Move. Toronto loses nearly half million people to more affordable locations
-
Business2 days agoTrudeau government spends millions producing podcasts