Connect with us

Automotive

The government’s zero-emission vehicles mandate is an arrogant, unnecessary gamble

Published

8 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Jerome Gessaroli

This poor policy will disproportionately hurt middle- and working-class Canadians.

In December 2023, Steven Guilbeault, the federal minister of environment and climate change, announced that all new auto sales in Canada must be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Liberal government’s mandate to restructure the auto sector is industrial policy on a massive scale. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the mandate, there is general consensus on the substantial nature of this government intervention.

Many people write about whether wholesale government mandates will benefit or harm Canadians. Pundits of all stripes invoke their favoured political and economic ideologies (whether it is capitalism, command socialism, dirigisme, or economic nationalism) when discussing the government’s actions. When evaluating the efficacy of these government mandates, I will refrain from using polarizing labels and instead apply a first principles approach to assess how successful products, markets and entire industries are created.

To illustrate this approach, I reference a classic essay written in 1958 by Leonard E. Read, “I, Pencil.” In this essay, Read questions whether anyone truly knows how to produce a pencil from scratch, a simple commodity that has been mass-produced for over 300 years.

Read describes a pencil’s components, including wood, lacquer, graphite, a bit of metal, an eraser, and labelling. He delves into the intricacies of each element needed for pencil production. For instance, harvesting wood involves using saws, trucks, railcars, radios, and other equipment. The extensive skills, knowledge, and capital needed to design and manufacture this equipment are immense. Motors, railcars, trucks, and radios all require mining and refining ores, engineering design, manufacturing, distribution, and deployment, just so loggers can do their job.

After the wood arrives at the sawmill, it is cut, machined, and dried. The equipment and expertise needed for this second step are too long to list. Power for the mill and kiln, generated by a hydroelectric dam and transmitted through power lines, requires its own design, construction, and operation—a testament to human ingenuity.

The pencil’s graphite must be mined and imported. Transforming raw graphite into the final pencil material involves mixing it with various compounds at the mine site, moulding, cutting, multiple drying rounds, and quality checks. The graphite then travels to the pencil plant, where it undergoes further mixing, moulding, and cutting and is then placed inside the pencil. Chemists, manufacturing engineers, production workers, millwrights, and truck drivers, not to mention the specialized equipment for graphite manufacturing, all play crucial roles in this intricate process.

The pencil lacquer, made up of various compounds, is applied to the wood, and then the pencil runs through a specialized machine multiple times to get the desired finish. Inputs, including the chemical process, labour, and co-ordination for this procedure are too lengthy to detail. The aluminium band around the pencil serves to secure the eraser.

The eraser must be abrasive enough to remove the graphite from the paper without damaging the paper itself. Over time, chemists have changed the eraser’s composition, using their knowledge of polymers and other chemicals. The intricate production of a simple pencil requires diverse material inputs from various sectors and production processes, all of which must be cost-efficient to keep the pencil’s cost very low.

The collective knowledge, capital, and materials needed to produce a pencil are dispersed among millions of individuals and companies throughout society. No single person, even the CEO of a pencil company, possesses anything but a tiny fraction of the knowledge needed to make a pencil.

Despite this diffusion, spontaneous order emerges, driven by individuals pursuing their own interests, needs, and wants. As Read argues, those involved in the pencil’s production from miners, loggers, and engineers to CEOs, perform their tasks not because they desire a pencil but for other motivations. Instead, each participant exchanges their specific ability for the goods and services they need, with the pencil potentially being one of many items in this exchange.

Creating a zero-emission vehicle sector is vastly more complicated than a pencil. Given this complexity, the feasibility of any single entity, including the government, to successfully direct an auto sector restructuring is doubtful. Sustainably producing zero-emission vehicles instead will require decisions, capital, and resources dispersed throughout society that spontaneously arrange themselves in a manner that responds to the demand for such vehicles.

The federal government has assured Canadians that they will help with this transition, primarily through government subsidies to consumers and businesses. Money is given to subsidize zero-emission vehicle purchases to make them a bit less costly.

A total of $43 billion will be provided by the federal, Ontario and Quebec governments in subsidies for three battery plants, enabling the companies to manufacture batteries profitability. As well, funding is provided for 42,000 electric chargers, which are in addition to the 40 percent of existing chargers that the government has already subsidized to help keep drivers’ vehicles on the road.

The federal government cannot be certain its decisions are correct. It might be better to not subsidize battery plants and instead relax restrictions on supply chain development. This would involve ensuring the supply of critical minerals, chemicals, electrode production, transportation services, testing equipment, recycling, and more.

The government’s approach bypasses the price system and diverts money from its best use. The subsidies are artificial. While companies may initially react to these subsidies, their response is contingent upon the government’s continued support.

Without the millions of people making individual decisions that are spontaneously organized through the price system to create a sustainable zero-emission car market, the federal government’s mandate will likely fail.

It is the height of hubris to assume that the government can restructure the auto industry in such a fundamental way. More likely, the massive subsidies will financially burden Canadians for many years, leading to a disarray of misallocated resources that will take years to correct. Indeed, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that the debt charges for the federal and participating provincial governments subsidizing battery manufacturing will increase the total cost by $6.6 billion over 10 years.

This poor policy will disproportionately hurt middle- and working-class Canadians, through lower employment and higher taxes that would otherwise be unnecessary.

Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and leads The Sound Economic Policy Project at the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

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

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

Automotive

The Northvolt Crash and What it Says About the State of the Electric Vehicle Market

Published on

From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

Northvolt, a wannabe electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturing superstar, based in Sweden filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US on November 21, 2024. In just eight years the company had blown through $15 billion USD in startup capital. Bloomberg says it was one of the most indebted companies to file for bankruptcy in the US in 2024.

Northvolt promised to be everything green transition crusaders could hope for in a company. And it isn’t surprising the “whiz kids” in the Prime Minister’s Office and the environment ministry made sure Canada got in on the action. According to Bloomberg, Canada made pledges amounting to $7.3 billion CAD ($5.4 billion USD) in loans, equity stakes and subsidies for Northvolt.

Canada’s investments included support for the construction of four electric vehicle (EV) battery factories—one in B.C., two in Ontario and one in Quebec. As of today, only a cockeyed optimist could believe those four plants will be churning out batteries any time soon, if ever.

Unfortunately, the Northvolt investment represents just 14% of money the federal government has bet on the future of EVs and electric batteries. According to Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), since 2020 the federal government has invested $52.5 billion in various projects throughout the EV supply chain.

Northvolt was supposed to be a cutting-edge EV battery innovator. It had the cachet of companies claiming to be implementing next-generation technology. When the company was launched in 2016 it was hailed as Europe’s flagship entry into the international race to produce enough non-Chinese batteries to support a widely anticipated boom in electric vehicle demand in Europe and North America.

For eight years Northvolt rode the wave of green propaganda that accompanied government regulations phasing out the production of vehicles with internal combustion engines. The company further endeared itself with environmentalists by claiming it would be at the forefront of development for the mammoth batteries required to back up solar and wind power generation.

The Economist reports that prominent Wall Street players like BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase ditched any aversion they might have had for getting into business with governments. They contributed to the $15 billion in startup money. Governments got on the Northvolt band wagon. Northvolt received $5 billion USD in grants from five countries:  Canada, the European Union (EU), Poland, Germany and of course Sweden.

Private investors weren’t deterred by the fact governments had “picked a winner.” They actually liked the fact governments were backing Northvolt. They assumed the governments of wealthy countries dedicated to Net Zero by 2050, would patiently nurse Northvolt through its growing pains and back it financially when setbacks arose. Risks would be minimized—success was as close to guaranteed as anyone could hope to expect.

Governments in Europe as well as Canada had been busy implementing policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions and combat climate change. Building EV batteries dovetailed nicely with those goals. It was a virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing virtue signaling.

Around the same time it was becoming fashionable for businesses to adopt the principles of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG). “Progressive” investors including union pension funds required companies they invested in to adopt the goals of environmental sustainability, diversity, equity and inclusion—the core missions of ESG.

Some of Europe’s car makers got behind Northvolt. They wanted to see a vertically integrated European EV industry developed to better withstand competition from cheaper Chinese imports. VW, BMW and Scania AB pre-ordered $50 billon USD worth of Northvolt’s products.

By the fall of 2024, Northvolt already had at least one foot planted on a banana peel. But that didn’t prevent 24 lenders including JPMorgan Chase from throwing it a $5 billion USD lifeline. According to The Economist, this was the biggest “green loan,” ever made in Europe. It apparently wasn’t big enough to prevent the company from filing for Chapter 11 protection.

Odd as it seems in hindsight, private sector investors had embraced a project led by politicians, bureaucrats and research scientists with little to no experience in commercializing their lab experiments. The company’s inability to meet the technical challenges of increasing production to the point of commercial viability was one of the reasons it failed. It turns out it is hard to transform next-generation technology from ideas that work in a test tube into something that makes money.

Ironically, it is car makers from China who are best placed to capitalize on Northvolt’s downfall and dominate Europe’s EV and battery markets. Without tariff support European and North American automakers simply won’t be able to compete with the less expensive government-subsidized Chinese made models.

In 2015 the Chinese government launched its ambitious “Made in China 2025” project. Under the program the government has plowed hundreds of billions into industries that combine digital technology and low emissions technologies. The EV sector was one of the program’s big success stories. Last year, BYD a Chinese manufacturer, overtook Tesla to become the world’s biggest EV producer.

This past November The Economist reported, Chinese auto makers already account for two-thirds of global EV production. They had sold 10 million of them in the previous year. Chinese manufacturers also made 70% of the EV batteries produced globally in 2024. Big investments in factory automation in Chinese EV plants have increased per worker productivity, reducing manufacturing costs.

Government subsidies combined with manufacturing know-how succeeded in creating the world’s most significant EV and EV battery manufacturing industries in China but similar efforts in Europe and North America (e.g. Northvolt) are struggling. It is embarrassing to realize China has become the world’s largest manufacturer and exporter. The West has been left in the dust when it comes to making things like solar panels and EVs.

Europe’s car makers are pressing their governments to limit the number of Chinese made EVs sold in Europe. Yet some EU member states like Germany are reluctant to antagonize China by putting tariffs on its EVs—many German manufacturers rely on access to the Chinese market.

EV sales declined by 5% across Europe in 2024 and high prices for European models are one of the factors responsible for declining sales. Allowing cheaper Chinese EVs into Europe tariff-free should improve EV sales making it more likely that governments’ emissions targets are met. But that makes it more likely that some European car makers will struggle to remain profitable. If large numbers of auto workers are laid off in Europe it will signify the breaking of a major promise made by environmentalists and governments. They have consistently assured people the green transition would create more than enough new green jobs, to make up for job losses in high emissions industries.

The bad news for EV champions extends beyond Europe. Donald Trump has signed an executive order killing federal grants to consumers purchasing electric vehicles. Getting rid of the Biden administration’s EV subsidies should give internal combustion engines a new lease on life. You have to wonder how Trump squared that move with Elon Musk. Perhaps Trump’s promise of tariffs on Chinese goods has been enough to satisfy Tesla. It helps that many EV purchasers in the US prefer big luxury models since the Chinese don’t make too many electric Hummers.

Here in Canada, the Liberal government has said it will cease subsidizing EV purchases as of March 31. It looks more and more like the wheels are coming off the Trudeau-Guilbeault environmental legacy.

While the EV markets in Europe and North America are on shaky ground it is unlikely Northvolt will find the investors required for another last minute bailout. That’s good news for people concerned about Canada’s fiscal health–the Liberals won’t be able to blow any more money on Northvolt if it doesn’t exist.

Continue Reading

Trending

X