If personal vehicles are here to stay (they are), we need to think about how workers fit into the EV transition. And how to protect them. That may mean tariffs on foreign cars.
Great take. The trouble automakers face is that the Chinese started taking this seriously over a decade ago. This has been akin to the Space Race for them, and their battery tech is now second to none and they are WAY further ahead in electrification than we are. I, too, am good with giving the legacy automakers a little breathing room, but to do it for too long is toxic and regressive.
Ultimately, I suspect we'll wind up licensing a lot of Chinese battery tech, the same way we'll license solar tech because they're so good at that, too. And we'll only have ourselves to blame for having to do it.
Tariffs on Chinese EVs feels like a sinophobic trap. Are we ramping up barriers to Korean or European made cars? Further, the associated tariffs to solar panels and batteries are threatening North American green transition and supply lines. The entire debate reaks of industry pressure to prevent competition and low cost alternatives.
We're paying for decades of climate inaction and reacting with economic nationalism while attempting to maintain a corporatocracy.
Let's think bigger. Rather than dumping tens off billions of dollars in subsidies into battery factories that will employ a few thousand people, let's just build a publicly owned EV supplier that can sell Canadian EVs competitive with the Chinese cars.
I hear you, but China is subsidizing at a scale that is...different than others that raises different policy problems. And it's a question of who gets to manufacture and where, too. It's a serious issue for domestic workers, and we've got to take that seriously. But I agree about industry wanting to prevent competition and cheap alternatives but, again, it's hard to manage fair practices when you have states pouring big cash in and doing their own version of that, which China is doing.
But I'm all for a public corporation to do this work. I'd love to see that on the agenda. But I can't see any party adopting it because, well, they're all-in on the market, even the NDP. Those constraints are as real as they are infuriating.
There is, IMHO, a plausible alternative to your hypothesis here. First, some (decent) work done by non-partisan economists analyzing the tariffs imposed by Trump in the US show that they had no effect on employment or wages (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32082/w32082.pdf) and a good article on CNN about the auto industry in Michigan (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/business/auto-jobs-michigan-economy-primary/index.html) shows that in the past 20 years automation and foreign car manufacturers building assembly plants in southern states took a huge chunk of jobs... with people re-skilling and finding other work.
Why can't Chinese EV companies follow the Japanese, German and South Korean playbook? (import, innovate, build assembly lines here)... Because of geopolitics. The Chinese government is embedded in everything coming from that country, and EVs are mostly about computers than anything else.
Protectionism does not work as economic policy, even onshoring efforts have fallen flat. What works is moving workers up in the knowledge economy, and being smart about bringing EVs that are reliable and affordable. Take care.
The have a software problem, same as with TikTok. If the Chinese Government can access data or even send data to cars made by Chinese companies... that creates a huge security risk.
One more thing: if you are going to subsidize anything around EV transition, I would pick charging stations. Range anxiety is important, people living in condos or high rises don't have their own charging kits... and also subsidizing individuals so they can up to 220V at home would lower the adoption barrier, I think.
"But the auto industries in Canada and the US aren’t optional. " Yes they are. "Personal vehicles are here to stay." No, they are not.
Just as air transportation overtook its ship-based predecessor, so too will the space-wasting, energy-demanding, accident prone automobile be superceeded by a better solution. For the Trekkies: think transporter. For the workers, keep your awareness keen and your skills current.
I'm all for a transporter! But in the near- and mid-run how do we spin down an industry that employs millions of people directly and indirectly and forms such a part of our infrastructure and way of living? I mean, I'm all for reducing car culture, building better transit, better cities, more cycling, etc. But what does that look like as a process that works and doesn't produce a dangerous, net-loss backlash? Serious questions I've yet to see any compelling answer to.
Vivian, you and I seldom agree on much but on this, we may find common ground. We are, I believe, on a path to a supply of labour greater than required for the production of our goods and services. Altho' not yet perfected, self-serve checkout is one example. CAD/CAM another.
Unchallenged, disinterested, underutilized humans are the fodder for chaos. While humans have yet to repond well to the forms of UBI tried thus far, some approach to humanistic survival is imperative.
Have a look at the Lindsay, Ontario experience. Political ideologies aside (and you are probably aware of my politics) there are massive problems with human perceptions, cost, elitism and waste. I am certainly no expert on the implications of UBI...but, again, it's staring us in the face.
Where I live it's cold and far from everything. Fossil fuel rules and will be essential for generations to come.
Also, another take on the e-trend: Rural electrification of the Canadian prairies (where I'm from) was a huge infrastructure investment after WW2. It meant farmers could work longer hours and use more appliances and machine tools. The purpose arguably was productivity, which let's face it underpins colonialism. Why would we think anything different is happening now?
I drive an EV in the Yukon. A surprising number of my fellow Yukoners do (EVs represented about 10% of new car sales here last year and they're accelerating). There are mitigations. In Norway EVs are now approaching 50% of the total auto fleet and the dire predictions of "they'll crash the grid!" have proven to be completely overblown, with total national power consumption DECLINING last year.
The best plug-in hybrids now offer about 80-100km full battery range, and that's likely adequate; for most it will cover a whole typical day. Once workplace charging becomes more commonplace people with even longer commutes might go for days without burning any gas at all, and that's... better than what we have now.
For years I just assumed that I'd go PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) before I went to a full electric, but when I took an honest look at my driving I found that I could go straight to an EV, and I've been driving one as my only car in the Yukon for over two years now.
Great take. The trouble automakers face is that the Chinese started taking this seriously over a decade ago. This has been akin to the Space Race for them, and their battery tech is now second to none and they are WAY further ahead in electrification than we are. I, too, am good with giving the legacy automakers a little breathing room, but to do it for too long is toxic and regressive.
Ultimately, I suspect we'll wind up licensing a lot of Chinese battery tech, the same way we'll license solar tech because they're so good at that, too. And we'll only have ourselves to blame for having to do it.
Tariffs on Chinese EVs feels like a sinophobic trap. Are we ramping up barriers to Korean or European made cars? Further, the associated tariffs to solar panels and batteries are threatening North American green transition and supply lines. The entire debate reaks of industry pressure to prevent competition and low cost alternatives.
We're paying for decades of climate inaction and reacting with economic nationalism while attempting to maintain a corporatocracy.
Let's think bigger. Rather than dumping tens off billions of dollars in subsidies into battery factories that will employ a few thousand people, let's just build a publicly owned EV supplier that can sell Canadian EVs competitive with the Chinese cars.
I hear you, but China is subsidizing at a scale that is...different than others that raises different policy problems. And it's a question of who gets to manufacture and where, too. It's a serious issue for domestic workers, and we've got to take that seriously. But I agree about industry wanting to prevent competition and cheap alternatives but, again, it's hard to manage fair practices when you have states pouring big cash in and doing their own version of that, which China is doing.
But I'm all for a public corporation to do this work. I'd love to see that on the agenda. But I can't see any party adopting it because, well, they're all-in on the market, even the NDP. Those constraints are as real as they are infuriating.
You're the media David, manufacture some left-wing consent! 😉
That's the industrial strategy we can all get behind.
David,
There is, IMHO, a plausible alternative to your hypothesis here. First, some (decent) work done by non-partisan economists analyzing the tariffs imposed by Trump in the US show that they had no effect on employment or wages (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32082/w32082.pdf) and a good article on CNN about the auto industry in Michigan (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/business/auto-jobs-michigan-economy-primary/index.html) shows that in the past 20 years automation and foreign car manufacturers building assembly plants in southern states took a huge chunk of jobs... with people re-skilling and finding other work.
Why can't Chinese EV companies follow the Japanese, German and South Korean playbook? (import, innovate, build assembly lines here)... Because of geopolitics. The Chinese government is embedded in everything coming from that country, and EVs are mostly about computers than anything else.
Protectionism does not work as economic policy, even onshoring efforts have fallen flat. What works is moving workers up in the knowledge economy, and being smart about bringing EVs that are reliable and affordable. Take care.
Chinese auto makers are looking at building manufacturing plants in Mexico
The have a software problem, same as with TikTok. If the Chinese Government can access data or even send data to cars made by Chinese companies... that creates a huge security risk.
One more thing: if you are going to subsidize anything around EV transition, I would pick charging stations. Range anxiety is important, people living in condos or high rises don't have their own charging kits... and also subsidizing individuals so they can up to 220V at home would lower the adoption barrier, I think.
"But the auto industries in Canada and the US aren’t optional. " Yes they are. "Personal vehicles are here to stay." No, they are not.
Just as air transportation overtook its ship-based predecessor, so too will the space-wasting, energy-demanding, accident prone automobile be superceeded by a better solution. For the Trekkies: think transporter. For the workers, keep your awareness keen and your skills current.
I'm all for a transporter! But in the near- and mid-run how do we spin down an industry that employs millions of people directly and indirectly and forms such a part of our infrastructure and way of living? I mean, I'm all for reducing car culture, building better transit, better cities, more cycling, etc. But what does that look like as a process that works and doesn't produce a dangerous, net-loss backlash? Serious questions I've yet to see any compelling answer to.
Vivian, you and I seldom agree on much but on this, we may find common ground. We are, I believe, on a path to a supply of labour greater than required for the production of our goods and services. Altho' not yet perfected, self-serve checkout is one example. CAD/CAM another.
Unchallenged, disinterested, underutilized humans are the fodder for chaos. While humans have yet to repond well to the forms of UBI tried thus far, some approach to humanistic survival is imperative.
Have a look at the Lindsay, Ontario experience. Political ideologies aside (and you are probably aware of my politics) there are massive problems with human perceptions, cost, elitism and waste. I am certainly no expert on the implications of UBI...but, again, it's staring us in the face.
Well, I blame the IDU, they dragged us here - for a handsome sum. 😏
Where I live it's cold and far from everything. Fossil fuel rules and will be essential for generations to come.
Also, another take on the e-trend: Rural electrification of the Canadian prairies (where I'm from) was a huge infrastructure investment after WW2. It meant farmers could work longer hours and use more appliances and machine tools. The purpose arguably was productivity, which let's face it underpins colonialism. Why would we think anything different is happening now?
I drive an EV in the Yukon. A surprising number of my fellow Yukoners do (EVs represented about 10% of new car sales here last year and they're accelerating). There are mitigations. In Norway EVs are now approaching 50% of the total auto fleet and the dire predictions of "they'll crash the grid!" have proven to be completely overblown, with total national power consumption DECLINING last year.
The best plug-in hybrids now offer about 80-100km full battery range, and that's likely adequate; for most it will cover a whole typical day. Once workplace charging becomes more commonplace people with even longer commutes might go for days without burning any gas at all, and that's... better than what we have now.
For years I just assumed that I'd go PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) before I went to a full electric, but when I took an honest look at my driving I found that I could go straight to an EV, and I've been driving one as my only car in the Yukon for over two years now.