Federal government EV mandates destined to fail

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.

Authors:

Julio Mejía

Junior Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#ElmiraAliakbari #FederalEVMandates #FraserInstitute #JulioMejía #Trudeau #ZeroEmissionVehicles

Up Next

Teacher refuses to give up fight for free speech after being canceled for objecting to LGBT books

Don't Miss

Trudeau’s Department of Health paid Twitter ‘influencers’ over $680k to promote federal programs

Todayville

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

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Energy / 30 mins ago

Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?

Business / 44 mins ago

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

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 320–440 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.

CanvasJS.com

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

Automotive

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

Published on March 29, 2025

Todayville

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.