The more that is learned about the implications of the project to force EVs onto the public, the madder the whole scheme appears to be.
In the most recent Capital Letter, I wrote about comments from Akio Toyoda, the CEO of Toyota Motor Corp, on the wisdom of putting all our faith in electric vehicles. At the same time, Toyota will be spending billions investing in the EV sector (the company cannot risk ignoring the current direction of climate policy), a contradiction that illustrates not only the absurdity of governments’ throwing their coercive power and taxpayer money at the “right” auto technology, but also the massive capital destruction that may be looming if EVs flop.
The danger is not just to the balance sheets of large automakers, and drivers will struggle to dodge it. The EU has already agreed that the sale of new internal combustion (ICE) vehicles will be banned from 2035 (always keen to outdo Brussels when it comes to stupidity and bullying, Britain’s Conservative government — thank you, Boris Johnson — has opted for 2030). California has also chosen 2035 for its ban, and other states are or will be following its lead.
Coercion and central planning go hand and hand, but, as the dismal history of central planning shows, coercion does not guarantee success. One of the reasons for that is that central planners simply lack the ability to predict the adverse consequences of adopting the policy that they are pushing through. And even if they do succeed in identifying potential problems, they have a tendency to wish them away.
But as Allysia Finley notes in the Wall Street Journal, some states, at least, are beginning to ask questions about policy-makers’ ambitions for EVs. The whole article is very worthwhile reading, but here are some highlights (if that’s the word):
Maine notes in a plan submitted to the Federal Highway Administration this summer that “cold temperatures will remain a top challenge” for adoption, since “cold weather reduces EV range and increases charging times.” When temperatures drop to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A vehicle that’s supposed to be able to go 250 miles between charges will make it only 135 miles on average . . .
Charging stations in rural areas with little traffic are also unlikely to be profitable and could become “stranded assets,” as many states warn. Wyoming says out-of-state traffic from non-Tesla electric vehicles would have to increase 100-fold to cover charger costs under the administration’s rules . . .
New Mexico warns that “poor station maintenance can lead to stations being perpetually broken and unusable, particularly in rural or hard to access locations. If an EV charging station is built in an area without electrical capacity and infrastructure to support its use, it will be unusable until the appropriate upgrades are installed.” . . .
The administration aims to build 500,000 stations, but states will likely have to spend their own money to keep them running. Like other federal inducements, these grants may entice states to assume what could become huge financial liabilities.
And the list goes on.
The more that is learned about the implications of the project to force EVs onto the public, the madder the whole scheme appears to be. Fundamentalism (in this case climate fundamentalism) is like that, even more so, it seems, when given an extra boost by technocratic hubris.
Finley worries about the bill that is likely to be headed taxpayers’ way as a result, as well she might. But the damage won’t stop there.
It’s almost as if climate fundamentalists just don’t like the idea of people being free to move around too much or too far. But that cannot possibly be the explanation, or part of it, can it?