Sales of electric vehicles have risen, but the pace has slowed in recent months as inventory begins to pile up on dealer lots. EVs in the United States represent a 7 percent market share, but due to a range of factors, the drive to sell more will prove difficult — even with generous federal and state subsidies.
Rather than see politicians control the supply of EVs largely due to their ability to extract campaign donations out of so-called “green” enterprises while simultaneously instituting favorable regulations to assist such businesses, the better play would be to institute a carbon tax.
Such a consumption levy would be fairer than today’s contrived marketplace. It would slow CO2 emissions, encourage sales of more hybrid vehicles (powered by both an electric battery and an internal combustion engine), and spare mining huge amounts of rare earth metals, some of which are produced by child labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Consider how environmental damage caused by scraping the earth and operating toxic lithium pools, not to mention other dirty aspects of building batteries, could be limited if cobalt, cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, and more were spread out. The materials needed to make one purely electric battery also can be used to produce around 90 smaller batteries for hybrid vehicles.
Somehow, though, hybrid vehicles aren’t good enough for virtue-signaling politicians and climate alarmists. Their message, largely embraced by a complacent media, has led to EVs that are often so expensive that only the rich can afford them — witness the GMC Hummer EV that easily costs more than $100,000 per vehicle.
By their standards, the bicycle would be the best option to lower CO2 emissions — but, alas, politicians would have a hard time extracting campaign donations for such a relatively inexpensive mode of transportation, while the climate crowd would be skewed by the general population that wants an inexpensive and reliable means of travel, whether near or far.
The other dirty secret that doesn’t get much attention is profitability. Yes, Tesla makes money selling EVs, but that’s propped up by revenue it derives from the sale of carbon credits, which in 2022 accounted for almost $1.8 billion. On the other hand, Ford reports it will likely lose $4.5 billion this year selling EVs, on top of $2.1 billion in losses last year.
Rather than see the EV folly for what it is — a false nirvana created by power-hungry politicians — federal and state governments are doubling down on their fantasy world.
Witness the U.S. Energy Department extending a recent $9.2 billion taxpayer-funded loan to Ford that no financial institution would ever approve to help it build batteries and EVs.
The State of Michigan, meanwhile, has approved millions of dollars in subsidies to lure automakers to build battery plants. Now consider if that same money were used to actually fulfill government’s purpose: to build and maintain infrastructure, provide for public safety, and deliver a quality education. On all three fronts, the government gets low grades. Is it any wonder the political elite is failing at driving demand in a market economy, as well?
Inside the Numbers
$58,000 – Amount Ford loses on every EV it sells.
90 Pecent – Amount of EV tax credits that go to wealthy Americans
31 – Number of EVs produced by now-bankrupt Lordstown Motors following millions of dollars in tax breaks and favorable loans.
Sources: Ford Motor Co., University of California at Berkeley, Lordstown Motors.
Nimby Wars
Renewable energy sources in the form of wind turbines and solar arrays have gotten high marks for producing clean electrical energy, but the path to building more such infrastructure will face stronger headwinds. In addition to running into permitting problems as more property owners resist wind and solar farms, people also are fighting transmission and distribution lines needed to get the electricity to the grid.
So far, utilities and private companies have selected the easiest sites to install turbines and solar arrays, yet pushback from the Not in my Backyard, or NIMBY, crowd is just getting started. Consider a recent study from Princeton University, which estimates the number of wind and solar projects needed to reach net zero emissions would consume 244 million acres of uninhabited land in the United States.
What’s more, the areas of the country where wind speeds are consistently strong, namely the Midwest, are far from major coastal cities where energy consumption is greatest. One solution to the challenge would be to build more nuclear plants, which typically occupy around 640 acres as compared to 100,000 acres needed to produce the same amount of electricity from a wind farm.
Unfortunately, nuclear plants have gotten a bad rap for myriad reasons, and take years to gain approvals. Still, smaller, more efficient nuclear power systems have been developed that could help us reach net zero emissions if only our government leaders would take them more seriously.
Climate Calamity
The federal government has admitted that end-of-life scenarios from global warming, much of which has been generated by politicians eager to score points with environmental groups, will have little impact on economic growth — and, by extension, life expectancy.
A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget shows an increase of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit has lowered global GDP by 0.5 percent. If temperatures rise 4.5 degrees by 2100, according to what’s being reported by climate panel projections at the United Nations, it will lead to a loss of 2 percent GDP.
While available climate data has been around for nearly 150 years, such a finite unit of time can be revealing. Since 1901, the U.S. has seen average temperatures rise about 2 percent Fahrenheit (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). At the same time, average life expectancy has jumped to 79 years from 48 years, while the overall economy has flourished.
Rather than tout our progress in reducing harmful emissions over the last century, much of the federal government, along with climate activists, have been painting a doomsday scenario. Such hype does a disservice to real-world conditions and will lead to what could be ill-advised investments into infrastructure and bring about policies that may harm lives.
