Tax credits and government subsidies have propped up the EV market to date as countries identify passenger car fleet electrification as a core tactic for meeting net-zero emissions goals, but the reduction or removal of these subsidies this year has dampened consumer sentiment…
EV subsidies in many European countries and mainland China were sliced at the start of the year, and a return of any significance is highly unlikely in the immediate future…
China, the largest EV market globally, experienced a near 50% cut in EV sales in January 2023 compared to the prior month, but the year-over-year change was relatively flat due…
Although there was a marginal year-on-year growth in EV sales in Europe last month, market performance has been grim, with many countries showing a steep drop in EV sales from December 2022.
January 2023 sales did match January 2022 sales. AS your link shows January is usually the second worst month of the year. February is usually the worst. Tesla & Xpeng February sales are better than January sales.
In any case it is high time for the EV to stand or fall on its own merits. Let the evolutioin of the EV & charging system follow the free market flow.
Comparing January and February sales of anything in China is tricky due to the floating nature of the timing of Chinese New Year… which practically results in a huge percentage of the population going on an extended vacation.
Rob
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.
Then there is the long drawn out Chinese New Year. In my business in Venezuela we would close (vacation time?) from mid December to the second week of January. In Europe everyone goes on vacation in August…
August is when most Europeans take their annual vacation
As well as tourists from outside Europe visiting, the month of August coincides with summer school holidays, and this is when many Europeans themselves choose to take their yearly summer vacations within Europe.
Then there are the Seasons… The dumbo needs to get the world’s rhythms!
Washington has a carbon tax. 49 states to go. I would think those states have banned future sale of IC vehicles [California, Massachusetts, Virginia, New York and of course Washington][Illinois has pass a law requiring Zero emissions by 2045] would follow suit soon.
I’ve been asking that same thing for some time now. It’s surprising how man people do not realize how much our military goes into stabilizing the price of oil, and that cost is NOT reflected in the price of fossil fuels.
How much? I’m genuinely curious. I suspect it’s not all that much, proportionally.
I mean, the overwhelming majority - not even close - of U.S. military personnel (and almost all of our civilian defense personnel) is stationed here in the states, as well as the majority of our equipment. The next largest areas of deployment are in East Asia and the Pacific. That’s where most of our deployment is. That’s followed by Europe. We used to have a pretty big footprint in the Middle East - but after the withdrawal from Iraq, that’s changed. Barely a percentage point or two of military personnel are deployed in the Middle East any more.
I don’t know - it’s hard to segregate out national defense spending by geographic theater, but I don’t think you can make a case that we’re spending much more than a few percentage points of our annual defense outlays specifically in the Middle East (even if you attributed every dollar spent there solely on stabilizing global oil prices, which is probably not accurate). True, even a single percentage point of our defense spending is something like $7-8 billion dollars - but the world produces about 36 billion barrels of oil each year. So…maybe 1% of the price of a barrel - or 3-4 cents a gallon?
3.5¢ a gallon, the average person drives 12,000 miles a year. $420 subsidy. The average car lasts what, 20 years? That’s an $8,400 subsidy for a gas powered car. Less than the upfront tax rebate for some EVs, which in any event is not a *guaranteed” subsidy, it only kicks in if you have that much to pay in taxes, which many (most?) do not.
Your math is off. It’s 3.5 cents per gallon, not 3.5 cents per mile. Typical driver going 12K miles per year will buy 400-500 gallons of gas. About $14-18 per year - not $420.
Reducing oil use in the transportation sector allows for the possibility of shifting U.S. military priorities toward more critical strategic threats. “If we reduced our oil consumption by half, [the U.S. military] would act differently,” says ESLC member Admiral Dennis C. Blair, the former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.
More:
The point is clear, however. Saying “EV’s need to stand on their own” is turning a blind eye to the fact that fossil fuels are absolutely subsidized by our government, and that has very real (and often negative) consequences.
The very first part of your link says: “According to the calculations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the cost to the United States of defending the global oil supply is zero.”
I’m thinking I would accept their number instead of a number from a biased source trying to make a point. Our military expenditures don’t just protect our oil but the oil business in general for our allies and other friends. Additionally, the military expenses in that area also provide protection to our allies and friends and would be needed in any case. There would be no change in our military disposition in the ME if we needed less oil. And certainly a number of 70 cents a gallon is nearly 25% of the price of a gallon and does not pass the smell test.
I don’t mind taxpayers or money printers subsidizing my investments but I do agree that EVs are far enough along that using Climate Catastrophe as an excuse to subsidize them is just pork. Maybe that money should be diverted to promoting the acceleration of mining to further bring down their costs.
Strawman makes a new appearance at Fooldom! EVs are not going to make oil redundant! Only the balance will shift, less oil for transportation means cheaper oil for petrochemicals. Win-win!
We were unable to close Cannon AFB in New Mexico that the USAF wanted closed because of a bipartisan senatorial effort to keep it open. It took the USAF months to find a mission for the base.
Nor do I expect any of the 750 US bases around the world will be closed either.
His point was that oil IS subsidized and does not “stand on its own”. As such it was not a straw man argument. It was a direct rebuke of the flawed premise of the OP. You are correct about EVs shifting the balance of the use of petroleum, which would be good.