Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Automotive

Federal government EV mandates destined to fail

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari, and Jason Clemens

According to reports, the Trudeau government will soon unveil regulations meant to phaseout the sale of new internal combustion vehicles and compel Canadians to buy zero-emission vehicles. The Biden administration is also mandating a similar shift. But these initiatives overlook two realities—consumer preferences are not easily swayed by top-down government directives, and the unrealistic timeline for minerals crucial for electric vehicles (EV) raises serious doubts about the likelihood of success.

Specifically, according to the Trudeau government’s new regulations, all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Canada must be electric zero-emission vehicles by 2035, with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030. And the Biden administration has mandated that two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the United States must be electric by 2032.

And yet, despite multibillion-dollar subsidies and governmental efforts to promote EV adoption, consumers are not embracing them. In Canada, only 6.5 per cent (98,589) of the 1.5 million new vehicles sold in 2022 were electric, according to Statistics Canada. Achieving the Trudeau government’s 2026 target would require a rapid increase in EV sales to more than 300,000 in coming years and more than 900,000 in 2030 (assuming no change in total vehicle sales). Such rapid growth in a short timeframe is at best questionable.

South of the border, data from the U.S. Department of Energy indicates that, out of 283.5 million registered vehicles in 2022, EVs comprised a mere 0.9 per cent of total vehicle registrations. In response, automakers are making strategic business decisions. Ford, for example, is delaying the construction of $12 billion worth of EV production facilities, citing a lack of consumer demand. Similarly, General Motors is abandoning the goal of producing 400,000 EVs by mid-2024 due to lower-than-expected sales.

But even in the unlikely scenario of sudden shift in consumer preferences, production-side barriers loom large. For example, the extraction (i.e. mining) of lithium, nickel, manganese, cadmium, graphite, zinc and other rare-earth elements necessary for EVs requires a rapid and marked expansion.

According to a recent study, to meet international EV adoption mandates (including mandates in Canada and the U.S.) 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 battery cells, and 81 new mines for EV bodies and motors, 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.

And historically, the development of mining and refining facilities has been slow. Production timelines range from six to nine years for lithium and 13 to 18 years for nickel—two elements critical for EV batteries. The aggressive government timelines for EV adoption clash with historically sluggish metal and mineral production, raising the risk of EV manufacturers falling short of needed minerals.

Not only are consumers resistant to top-down regulations, but the ambitious short-term EV adoption mandates in Canada and the U.S. are on a collision course with the reality of metal and mineral production capacity. Simply put, it’s not at all clear that sufficient capacities will be available to produce enough EVs to achieve the mandates being imposed on Canadians and Americans, nor is it clear consumers in either country are willing to spend their own money to purchase them.

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

Automotive

Trump announces 25% tariff on foreign automobiles as reciprocal tariffs loom

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump announced a permanent 25% tariff on automobiles made in other countries that will go into effect on April 2.

Trump made the announcement Wednesday in the Oval Office. He also hinted that the reciprocal tariffs he plans to announce on April 2 could be more lenient, suggesting the tariffs would be less than fully reciprocal.

“What we’re going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the U.S.,” the president said.

Asked if any changes could avert the auto tariffs, Trump said they would be “permanent.”

“This will continue to spur growth like you haven’t seen before,” Trump said.

Trump said the tariffs will be good news for auto companies that already build products in the U.S. He also said carmakers that don’t build in the U.S. are looking to do so.

“We’re signing an executive order today that’s going to lead to tremendous growth in the automobile industry,” Trump said.

The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two.

Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Trump also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to approve a measure that would allow car buyers to deduct the interest on loans for cars that are made in America. Trump said that such a plan would make cars nearly free for buyers.

“So when you get a loan to buy a car … I think it’s going to pay for itself, I don’t think there’s any cost,” he said.

Trump also said the reciprocal tariffs he plans to unveil on April 2 would be fair.

“We’re going to be very nice actually,” he said. “It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff they’ve been charging us for decades.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tariffs would hurt businesses and consumers.

“I deeply regret the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” she said. “Tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers, in the U.S. and the EU.”

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” Trump has also used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Tariffs are taxes charged on imported products. The company importing the products pays the tariffs and can either try to absorb the loss or pass the additional costs on to consumers.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Nissan, Honda scrap $60B merger talks amid growing tensions

Published on

MXM logo

 

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Nissan is reportedly abandoning merger talks with Honda, scrapping a $60 billion deal that would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. The collapse raises questions about Nissan’s turnaround strategy as it faces challenges from electric vehicle competitors and potential U.S. tariffs.

Key Details:

  • Nissan shares dropped over 4% following the news, while Honda’s stock surged more than 8%, signaling investor relief.
  • Honda reportedly proposed making Nissan a subsidiary, a move Nissan rejected as it was initially framed as a merger of equals.
  • Nissan is struggling with financial challenges and the transition to EVs, still reeling from the 2018 scandal involving former chairman Carlos Ghosn.

Diving Deeper:

Merger talks between Nissan and Honda have collapsed, according to sources, after months of negotiations to form an auto giant capable of competing with Chinese EV makers like BYD. The proposed deal, valued at over $60 billion, would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. However, differences in strategy and control ultimately derailed the discussions.

Reports indicate that Honda, Japan’s second-largest automaker, wanted Nissan to become a subsidiary rather than an equal merger partner. Nissan balked at the idea, leading to the collapse of negotiations. Honda’s market valuation of approximately $51.9 billion dwarfs Nissan’s, which may have fueled concerns about control. The failure of talks sent Nissan’s stock tumbling more than 4% in Tokyo, while Honda’s shares rose over 8%, reflecting investor confidence in Honda’s independent strategy.

Nissan, already in the midst of a turnaround plan involving 9,000 job cuts and a 20% reduction in global capacity, now faces mounting pressure to restructure on its own. Analysts warn that the failed merger raises uncertainty about Nissan’s ability to compete in an industry rapidly shifting toward EVs. “Investors may get concerned about Nissan’s future [and] turnaround,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said.

Complicating matters further, Nissan faces heightened risks from U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Potential tariffs on vehicles manufactured in Mexico could hit Nissan harder than competitors like Honda and Toyota. The stalled deal also impacts Nissan’s existing alliance with Renault, which had expressed openness to the merger. Renault holds a 36% stake in Nissan, including 18.7% through a French trust.

While both Nissan and Honda have stated they will finalize a direction by mid-February, the collapse of this deal signals deep divisions in Japan’s auto industry. With Nissan’s financial struggles and the growing dominance of Chinese EV makers, the company must now navigate an increasingly challenging market without external support.

Continue Reading

Trending

X