Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Automotive

‘Gross Overreach’: Energy Groups Urge Congress To Throw Biden-Harris Admin’s ‘EV Mandate’ Overboard

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Nick Pope

Energy-focused organizations called on lawmakers to scrap the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle (EV) “mandate” in a Thursday letter.

More than two dozen energy groups sent the letter to every lawmaker in Congress, urging them to push through Congressional Review Act (CRA) proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) tailpipe emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. The CRA enables legislators to effectively overturn federal regulations provided a resolution targeting a specific rule can pass both chambers of Congress and gets signed by the president, or if lawmakers can manage to override a presidential veto, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“This EPA rulemaking is clearly beyond the scope of the regulatory power granted to the agency by Congress,” the letter states. “While this overreach will be litigated in the courts, a positive CRA decision now would ensure that consumers are protected today, rather than wait years for the issue to work its way through the court system.” CRA Tailpipe Coalition Letter Final by Nick Pope on Scribd

Specifically, automakers could come into compliance with the EPA’s rules if EVs make up 56% of their new car sales by 2032, with an additional 13% of sales being plug-in hybrids, according to The Associated Press. While the Biden-Harris administration maintains that the regulations are not an EV mandate, critics say that the rules will effectively force manufacturers to increase EV production to such an extent that they amount to a de facto mandate.

The Biden-Harris administration has set a target of having 50% of all new car sales be EVs by 2030 as part of its broader green energy and climate agenda. Despite billions of dollars of spending and stringent regulation, American consumers remain hesitant to switch over to all-electric models while manufacturers are losing large amounts of cash on their EV product lines and starting to back off of ambitious short-term production goals.

“In a move that shocks no one, the Biden-Harris EPA has once again overstepped its authority with their EV mandate. By prioritizing politics over personal freedoms, this Administration is destroying the cornerstone of our economy — consumer choice,” Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, said. “What the Biden-Harris Administration is trying to do with his mandate is deceptive, ill-advised, and a gross overreach of power. While it will undoubtedly be litigated by those who stand on the side of consumer choice and economic freedom, passage of the CRA resolution will ensure consumers are protected today.”

Beyond the American Energy Alliance, other signatories include Americans for Prosperity, the Western Energy Alliance, Heritage Action, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Always On Energy Research.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Ford Files Patent to Surveil Drivers

Published on

News release from Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Governments are pushing the public to switch to smart vehicles to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but there is also a second motive – surveillance.

This September, Ford filed a new patent to eavesdrop on riders. They plan to share this information with third-parties to personalize the advertisements riders hear. Ford will also take the driver’s destination into consideration to determine location-specific advertisements and suggestions. The technology will factor in the weather, traffic, and all external sensors to fine tune when and what to market to passengers.

Advertisements are perhaps the least ominous use of voice data based on the plans that these car manufacturers have. Car insurance rates in the United States spiked 26% in the past year, which is partly due to car manufacturers sharing ride data with insurance companies. Even older cars with basic features like OnStar have tracking devices that report your driving behavior to the manufacturers who share your data with insurance companies and, ultimately, the government. LexisNexis, which tracks drivers’ behaviors and compiles risk profiles, has been sharing individual data with General Motors, who passes that information along to the insurance companies. General Motors.

One driver demanded that LexisNexis send him his personal report, which was a 258-page document containing every trip he or his wife took in his vehicle over a six-month period. LexisNexis said that this data will be used “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage.” They even reported small issues such as hard breaking and rapid acceleration, according to the report. “I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” an unnamed Cadillac driver enrolled in the OnStar Smart Driver subscription service told reporters.

“Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward,” a researcher with Mozilla Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. In fact, 19 automakers in 2023 admitted that they have the ability to sell your personal data without notice. Law enforcement may subpoena these records as well.

Ford claims that the patent was submitted, but they do not necessarily plan to use the technology. “Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans. No matter what the patent application outlines, we will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services,” Ford said in a statement released to MotorTrend.

Now, the US Department of Transportation is permitted to mandate that certain manufacturers provide them with vehicle data. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts testified that all vehicles in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system are collecting travel data that car manufacturers have remote access to via the computer chips. The computer chips are compiling data on vehicle speed, movement, travel, and even using exterior sensors and cameras to record the vehicle’s location.

All of this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. These car manufacturers are surpassing what anyone would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governments, third-party advertisement companies, and insurance companies all have warrantless access to personal data, and drivers are largely unaware they are being spied on. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to have backdoor access to this data.

The aforementioned senators’ concerns fell on deaf ears at the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Transportation clearly is not listed within the US Constitution. People are already experiencing stiff consequences from autos sharing data with the sharp uptick in insurance rates.

Continue Reading

Trending

X