Connect with us

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.

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

Canada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

At what point does Ottawa admit its EV plan isn’t working?

Electric vehicles produce more pollution than the gas-powered cars they’re replacing.

This revelation, emerging from life-cycle and supply chain audits, exposes the false claim behind Ottawa’s more than $50 billion experiment. A Volvo study found that manufacturing an EV generates 70 per cent more emissions than building a comparable conventional vehicle because battery production is energy-intensive and often powered by coal in countries such as China. Depending on the electricity grid, it can take years or never for an EV to offset that initial carbon debt.

Prime Minister Mark Carney paused the federal electric vehicle (EV) mandate for 2026 due to public pressure and corporate failures while keeping the 2030 and 2035 targets. The mandate requires 20 per cent of new vehicles sold in 2026 to be zero-emission, rising to 60 per cent in 2030 and 100 per cent in 2035. Carney inherited this policy crisis but is reluctant to abandon it.

Industry failures and Trump tariffs forced Ottawa’s hand. Northvolt received $240 million in federal subsidies for a Quebec battery plant before filing for bankruptcy. Lion Electric burned through $100 million before announcing layoffs. Arrival, a U.K.-based electric van and bus manufacturer, collapsed entirely. Stellantis and LG Energy Solution extracted $15 billion for Windsor. Volkswagen secured $13 billion for St. Thomas.

The federal government committed more than $50 billion in subsidies and tax credits to prop up Canada’s EV industry. Ottawa defended these payouts as necessary to match the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers major incentives for EV and battery manufacturing. That is twice Manitoba’s annual operating budget. Every Manitoban could have had a two-year tax holiday with the public money Ottawa wasted on EVs.

Even with incentives, EVs reached only 15 per cent of new vehicle sales in 2024, far short of the mandated levels for 2026 and 2030. When federal subsidies ended in January 2025, sales collapsed to nine per cent, revealing the true level of consumer demand. Dealer lots overflowed with unsold inventory. EV sales also slowed in the U.S. and Europe in 2024, showing that cooling demand is a broader trend.

As economist Friedrich Hayek observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Politicians and bureaucrats cannot know what millions of Canadians know about their own needs. When federal ministers mandate which vehicles Canadians must buy and which companies deserve billions, they substitute the judgment of a few hundred officials for the collective wisdom of an entire market.

Bureaucrats draft regulations that determine the vehicles Canadians must purchase years from now, as if they can predict technology and consumer preferences better than markets.

Green ideology provided perfect cover. Invoke a climate emergency and fiscal responsibility vanishes. Question more than $50 billion in subsidies and you are labelled a climate denier. Point out the environmental costs of battery production, and you are accused of spreading misinformation.

History repeatedly teaches that central planning always fails. Soviet five-year plans, Venezuela’s resource nationalization and Britain’s industrial policy failures all show the same pattern. Every attempt to run economies from political offices ends in misallocation, waste and outcomes opposite to those promised. Concentrated political power cannot ever match the intelligence of free markets responding to real prices and constraints.

Markets collect information that no central planner can access. Prices signal scarcity and value. Profits and losses reward accuracy and punish error. When governments override these mechanisms with mandates and subsidies, they impair the information system that enables rational economic decisions.

The EV mandate forced a technological shift and failed. Billions in subsidies went to failing companies. Taxpayers absorbed losses while corporations walked away. Workers lost their jobs.

Canada needs a full repeal of the EV mandate and a retreat from PMO planners directing market decisions. The law must be struck, not paused. The contrived 2030 and 2035 targets must be abandoned.

Markets, not cabinet ministers, must determine what technologies Canadians choose.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Automotive

Trump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

President Donald Trump dealt the dreams of former President Joe Biden for an all-electric fleet of American cars a fatal blow on Thursday by terminating the onerous Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards Biden invoked in 2022 and further tightened in 2024.

“We’re officially terminating Joe Biden’s ridiculously burdensome, horrible actually, CAFE standards, that imposed expensive restrictions… It puts tremendous pressure on upward car prices,” Trump said during a press conference held in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon.

The Biden standards, which cranked down on allowable tailpipe emissions and raised industry-wide average car mileage to a stratospheric 50.4 miles per gallon requirement by 2030, were the centerpiece of his strategy to force American consumers to buy electric vehicles by intentionally forcing up prices for traditional internal combustion models.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

That’s right, America: Your government, led by Joe Biden’s autopen and the woke staffers who wielded it, intentionally and with malice aforethought drove up the prices of the gas powered cars you actually want to buy to try to force you to purchase electric models that poll after poll proves most of you don’t want. They did this all in the name of the global climate alarm religion, which far too many U.S. politicians use to justify a vast array of authoritarian actions.

The unbridled hubris involved in even entertaining this concept would have in the past been considered scandalous. Yet, today, it is completely in keeping with one of the central goals of the energy transition movement to drive up the costs of all traditional forms of energy to try to make the subsidized alternatives favored by the Democratic Party – wind, solar, and electric vehicles – competitive in the market. Activists in the climate alarm movement no longer even try to deny this goal – they proudly boast about it.

This was the real enterprise behind Biden’s ridiculous CAFE standards, and it is what President Trump interrupted on Thursday. It was just the latest in a series of body blows Trump and his officials have dealt the U.S. EV industry, one that could well prove fatal to many pure-play electric car companies and force major reallocations of capital budgets inside integrated automakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis.

Naturally, the climate alarm activist community was outraged. “Trump’s action will feed America’s destructive use of oil, while hamstringing us in the green tech race against … foreign carmakers,” said Dan Becker, Director of the notorious far-left conflict group, the Center for Biological Diversity, according to the Guardian.

But here’s the thing: U.S. consumers don’t want to buy the alternative the climate alarm community and Biden administration were trying to force. Even with the attraction of Biden’s economically ruinous $7,500 per unit IRA subsidies, U.S. car buyers made clear their strong preference for big, full-size, gas-or-diesel-powered pickups and SUVs.

This reality is why Stellantis announced in September it was abandoning plans to introduce a full-size electric pickup to compete with Ford’s F-150 Lightning. Even worse for EV boosters, Ford has already cut back on production of the Lightning model, and is planning to eliminate it entirely soon, according to the Wall Street Journal. These decisions and plans were already underway long before Trump’s decision to rescind the CAFE standards, based on simple consumer demand.

Interestingly, many consumers believe Trump didn’t go far enough on Thursday, and that he should simply eliminate mileage requirements altogether. One commenter to my Substack newsletter writes, “why didn’t they just kill CAFE standards once and for all? From what clause in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to limit what type of car I can buy?…They should have just killed it outright.”

It’s a legitimate question: Why do federal regulators believe they have the right to control consumer behavior in the name of climate alarmism? In light of last year’s decision by the Supreme Court to rescind the Chevron deference – which helped facilitate the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy for 40 long years – it’s a question that could be litigated in the months and years to come.

Joe Biden’s EV dreams are dead now, but that doesn’t mean the situation can’t possibly get even worse for the EV industry in America. Stay tuned.

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X