Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Automotive

Europe’s EV Market Collapse Provides A Lesson For UAW Leadership

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

It is an ill-kept secret of American politics that most of the big labor unions in the country have long been client organizations of the Democratic Party. In presidential election years, endorsements from these unions for the party’s nominee have generally been foregone conclusions regardless of voting attitudes of rank-and-file union members.

Some are quicker to endorse than others. Vice President Kamala Harris barely had time to buy campaign letterhead before the United Auto Workers (UAW) weighed in on July 31 with its endorsement. The union’s bosses made the move despite the reality of the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandates placing many of that union’s jobs at risk as the companies they work for lose billions each year on quixotic efforts to force the public to enjoy paying premiums for cars they cannot rely upon when the going gets tough.

Even with that early move, the UAW fell 9 days behind the AFL-CIO, which jumped on the Harris bandwagon so quickly it probably made union members’ heads spin. Hey, speed matters when your business model relies on constantly asking for favors and protections from the federal government, for which the Democratic Party has traditionally been the most fertile ground to plow.

Given that reality, the Teamsters Union made big news this week by endorsing — well, no one — despite overwhelming support among the rank-and-file for the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump. It was the first time the Teamsters had failed to endorse the Democrat in a race since 1996, and only the second time in the union’s existence. Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republican convention in July — and was snubbed by the Democrats at their convention in return. So, the refusal to endorse Harris was not a huge surprise. But O’Brien, fully aware of the vindictive nature of the Democrats towards their political enemies, apparently decided it would not be politically prudent to give a full-throated endorsement to the candidate his members so obviously prefer.

With the race shaping up to be another nail-biter, it remains to be seen whether any of these major unions’ decisions will prove to be wise. But for the UAW, the move to endorse Harris comes with increasing risk amid a softening market for the EVs being forced on U.S. consumers and the rising challenge by Chinese EV makers to the hegemony of domestic car companies in the U.S. market.

With legacy automakers like Ford and General Motors already bleeding billions of dollars in losses in their EV divisions despite heavy government subsidies in place, they can ill-afford an incursion into the U.S. market from Chinese carmakers who are able to make and sell quality EVs for far less than American car companies can. Right now, Europe is providing an object lesson about what happens in the EV space when governments allow that to happen.

EU countries were slow to move to protect their domestic car manufacturers when Chinese companies like BYD began to flood the European market with EVs. EV buyers in countries like Germany and France eagerly bought up the Chinese cars, saving thousands of Euros per unit in the process. When the EU belatedly moved to impose import tariffs on Chinese cars, the domestic car companies responded by raising prices for their own EVs in an effort to recover losses.

The result has been entirely predictable: EV sales in Germany collapsed by nearly 70% during the month of August. In France, they plunged by 33%. Clearly the appetite among EU car buyers for EVs is extremely price sensitive (no one could have possibly seen that coming), and consumers are more than happy to go back to buying gas-powered cars as cheaper alternatives.

Now, the climate alarmist central planners at the EU are proposing to respond to those uncooperative buyers by imposing massive fines on car makers for continuing to sell them the gas-powered cars they actually want to buy. Because, of course, that would be the response from power-mad apparatchiks.

Given that the Biden-Harris regime has basically followed the EU’s model on EV regulation, the EU’s struggles provide a preview of coming attractions for the U.S. auto market under a Harris presidency. It is hard to believe this is the future the UAW leadership really desires for its members.

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.

Before Post

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

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Automotive

Trump warns U.S. automakers: Do not raise prices in response to tariffs

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Former President Donald Trump warned automakers not to raise car prices in response to newly imposed tariffs, arguing that the move would ultimately benefit the industry by strengthening American manufacturing. However, automakers are signaling that price increases may be unavoidable.

Key Details:

  • Trump told auto executives on a recent call that his administration would look unfavorably on price hikes due to tariffs.
  • A 25% tariff on imported vehicles and parts is set to take effect on April 2, likely driving up costs for U.S. automakers.
  • Industry analysts predict vehicle prices could rise 11% to 12% in response, despite Trump’s insistence that tariffs will benefit American manufacturing.

Diving Deeper:

In a conference call with leading automakers earlier this month, former President Donald Trump issued a stern warning: do not use his new tariffs as an excuse to raise car prices. While Trump presented the tariffs as a boon for American manufacturing, industry leaders remain unconvinced, arguing that the financial burden will inevitably lead to higher costs for consumers.

Trump’s administration is pressing ahead with a 25% tariff on all imported vehicles and parts, set to take effect on April 2. The move is aimed at reshaping trade dynamics in the auto industry, encouraging domestic manufacturing, and reversing what Trump calls the damaging effects of President Joe Biden’s electric vehicle mandates. Despite this, automakers say that rising costs on foreign parts—which many depend on—will leave them little choice but to pass expenses onto consumers.

“You’re going to see prices going down, but going to go down specifically because they’re going to buy what we’re doing, incentivizing companies to—and even countries—companies to come into America,” Trump stated at a recent event, reinforcing his stance that the tariffs will ultimately lower costs in the long run.

However, industry insiders are pushing back, warning that a rapid shift to domestic production is unrealistic. “Tariffs, at any level, cannot be offset or absorbed,” said Ray Scott, CEO of Lear, a major automotive parts supplier. His concern reflects broader anxieties within the industry, as automakers calculate the financial strain of the tariffs. Analysts at Morgan Stanley estimate that vehicle prices could increase between 11% and 12% in the coming months as the new tariffs take effect.

Automakers have been bracing for the fallout. Detroit’s major manufacturers and industry suppliers have voiced their concerns, emphasizing that transitioning supply chains and manufacturing operations back to the U.S. will take years. Meanwhile, auto retailers have stocked up on inventory, temporarily shielding consumers from price hikes. But once that supply runs low—likely by May—the full impact of the tariffs could hit.

Within the Trump administration, inflation remains a pressing concern, though Trump himself rarely discusses it publicly. His economic team is aware of the potential for tariffs to drive up costs, yet the administration’s stance remains firm: automakers must adapt without raising prices. It remains unclear, however, what actions Trump might take should automakers defy his warning.

The auto industry isn’t alone in its concerns. Executives across multiple sectors, from oil and gas to food manufacturing, have been lobbying against major tariffs, arguing that they will inevitably result in higher prices for American consumers. While Trump has largely dismissed these warnings, some analysts suggest that public dissatisfaction with rising costs played a key role in shaping the outcome of the 2024 election.

With the tariffs set to take effect in just weeks, automakers are left grappling with a difficult reality: absorb billions in new costs or risk the ire of a White House determined to remake America’s trade policies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X