A ConocoPhillips refinery in Wilmington, California.
Jonathan Alcorn | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The world needs to reduce carbon levels, and one way is through a carbon tax, a strategy the U.S. has been debating for decades.
With urgent calls to lower greenhouse gas emissions globally, putting a price on carbon was one of the major points of discussion among world leaders at the COP26 conference in Glasgow earlier this month. Consensus on a global carbon price is growing, according to Lord Greg Barker, executive chairman at EN+ and co-chair of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition.
“We need countries to come together to agree on international standards in order to make that big shift to the low carbon economy,” Barker told CNBC in an interview from COP26 last week. ”It would be much better for the world if there was a common carbon price.”
As of now, Barker says there are 69 countries with a carbon price ranging from $1 to $139 per metric ton. The U.S. is not one of them.
Barker told CNBC most economists agree that carbon pricing is the most effective tool there is to transition to a low carbon economy. Carbon pricing shifts the liability for the consequences of climate change to the polluters who are responsible, according to the World Bank.
The Biden administration has outlined $555 billion in spending to confront climate change, though the plan does not address carbon pricing. The bill does include a proposed methane fee incentivizing oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions.
A policy to apply a carbon tax was considered as a “plan B” during negotiations over the current climate package, according to the New York Times, after Biden’s clean electricity program was cut from the spending bill last month.
If the U.S. administration can’t get behind the rest of the world on carbon pricing, there are other ways to follow through with the initiative, says Barker, such as regulations, taxes, and emissions trading.
The U.S. has considered carbon import fees and emissions trading that would apply to carbon-intensive products imported to the country. “But carbon import fees only make sense if you have some kind of domestic U.S. carbon policy,” says Richard Newell, president of Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan energy and environment research organization.
He thinks a price on carbon ultimately is achievable as part of U.S. policy as the world grapples with the seriousness of climate change and turns more to financial incentives to reach a low-carbon ecosystem that supports the entire economy.
The Biden administration has a government-wide plan addressing how climate change could affect all sectors of the U.S. economy. The plan was part of a larger agenda to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and transition to a net-zero emissions economy.
“There is also going to be a desire to raise revenue to deal with climate change, and for other public purposes, and carbon pricing does all those things,” Newell said. He added that while an economy-wide carbon fee would be the best solution, the administration could start by applying carbon fees to individual sectors.
As the U.S. decarbonizes areas like the power sector and automotive sector, Newell says pressure on government regulation will intensify. “There will be an increasing recognition that to really decarbonize the economy, across all sectors, there is going to be a need for some comprehensive policies,” he said.
“There has been a significant shift across the country in terms of the seriousness with which people and legislators are confronting climate change,” Newell said. ”And that will continue to build beyond the focus on particular sectors.”
The debate over a carbon pricing mechanism right now takes place at a time of rising concerns about inflation and prices at the gas pump that have led to discussions about whether the government should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The methane fee sparked a debate with some worrying that raising the price of methane would increase electric and heating costs for individual consumers.
Fears of rising prices for low-income households and increasing costs for businesses will need to be considered.
“If politicians are smart and anticipate that they need to compensate, say families that might see their bills go up as a result of a carbon price, you can drive [carbon pricing] through,” Barker said.
In a plan put together by the Climate Leadership Council, a climate advocacy group co-founded by former Secretary of State James Baker, who served in the Bush and Reagan administrations, the idea isn’t to fund government efforts to fight climate. The Climate Leadership Council’s plan outlines that revenue collected from a carbon fee is “to be returned to American households,” said Carlton Carroll, Climate Leadership Council spokesperson.
“Nothing would do more to accelerate innovation and invest all citizens in a clean energy future than an economy-wide carbon fee, with corresponding dividends for the American people,” Carroll said.
The group’s carbon dividends plan cites four major benefits to consumers, including an increase in household disposable income nationwide.
Increasing carbon pricing could be done by taxing greenhouse-gas intensive goods and services, like gasoline, or by taxing carbon emitters individually. The Climate Leadership Council is among groups advocating for pricing carbon-intensive goods as part of a U.S. climate plan, “because it will go further, faster than any other single climate policy intervention,” says Carroll, “while also driving innovation throughout the economy and making families better off financially.”
Historically, there has been some bipartisan support for a carbon tax. The first carbon pricing proposal was introduced in 1990, and there have been several other propositions since. Though none have passed, Newell said the most recent carbon pricing proposal in Biden’s social safety and climate plan piqued the interest of Congress far more than anticipated.
The carbon tax proposed as part of the Build Back Better plan would impose a $20 fee per metric ton of carbon.
“I would say there was a surprisingly strong interest in a carbon fee as part of the ongoing budget reconciliation process,” Newell said.
But Mindy Lubber, CEO of sustainability investment organization Ceres, told CNBC earlier this year that while a carbon tax is one way to prevent the U.S. from being locked into a fossil fuels economy and spur the development of new energy and transportation systems, it has proven controversial in the past, and is a complicated policy tool, making it harder for all sides to reach agreement on, especially in a Senate where the votes are so tight.
A carbon tax could be closer than some people think, says Flannery Winchester, spokeswoman for the progressive Citizens Climate Lobby. ”It has gone from a hopeful idea to one that is on the verge of becoming a reality,” she said.
The White House and 49 senators were on board with a carbon tax, but not the key vote from West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.
“But there is clearly a lot more consensus than there’s ever been that this policy is effective for meeting America’s climate goals,” Winchester said.
Kia’s first electric sedan, the EV4, has officially hit the market. Kia opened EV4 orders at under $30,000 (41.92 million won) in South Korea ahead of its global rollout. It even has the longest driving range of any Hyundai Motor Group EV rated with over 330 miles (533 km).
Kia EV4 orders open in Korea for under $30,000
Since debuting as a concept in October 2023, Kia’s EV4 has become one of the most highly anticipated electric vehicles.
Last month, we got our first look at the production model during Kia’s 2024 EV Day (check out our recap of the event). Kia showcased four EV4 models, two sedans and two hatchbacks.
The EV4 is part of Kia’s new “EVs for all” strategy with prices ranging from around $30,000 to upwards of $80,000. After launching the EV5 and EV3, both electric SUVs, Kia aims to corner another segment with the EV4.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Kia opened EV4 orders in Korea on Monday, starting at just 41.92 million won, or around USD $29,000. With incentives, Kia expects the actual purchase price to be around 34 million won, or roughly $23,500.
Kia EV4 sedan (Source: Hyundai Motor)
Powered by a 58.3 kWh battery, the standard “Air” model is rated with up to 237 miles (382 km) driving range. The long-range EV4, starting at 46.29 million won ($31,800), gets up to 331 miles (533 km) range from an 81.4 kWh battery, the most of among Hyundai Motor Group EVs.
As Kia’s most aerodynamic vehicle yet, the EV4 has ultra low drag coefficient of just 0.23, which unlocks maximum driving range.
Trim
Starting Price
Kia EV4 Standard Air
41.92 million won ($28,900)
Kia EV4 Standard Earth
46.69 million won ($32,000)
Kia EV4 Standard GT-Line
47.83 million won ($32,900)
Kia EV4 Long Range Air
46.29 million won ($31,800)
Kia EV4 Long Range Earth
51.04 million won ($35,000)
Kia EV4 Long Range GT-Line
51.04 million won ($35,900)
With a 350 kW charger, the long range EV4 can charge from 10% to 80% in around 31 minutes, while it will take about 29 with the standard model.
The EV4 is Kia’s fourth EV to arrive in Korea, following the EV6, EV9, and EV3. As its first EV in the segment, Kia claims it will “set a new standard for electric sedans.”
Kia EV4 sedan (Source: Hyundai Motor)
As you can see, the EV4 has a unique sports car-like silhouette with an added roof spoiler, which Kia says is “the new look of a sedan fit for the era of electrification.”
Inside, the electric sedan is loaded with the latest software and connectivity. Kia’s new ccNC infotainment system, with dual 12.3″ driver display and navigation screens, sits at the center of an otherwise minimalistic setup.
Kia EV4 sedan interior (Source: Hyundai Motor)
For the first time, it also includes a new “interior mode, “enabling you to easily change the seating and lights to maximize interior space.
Kia’s vice president and head of its domestic business, Won-Jeong Jeong, said the EV4 “will present a new direction in the domestic electric vehicle market, which has been formed around SUVs.”
Will it have the same “charm” in the US, Europe, and other markets? We will find out soon, with the EV4 rolling out globally this year. What do you think of Kia’s first electric sedan? Would you buy one for around $30,000?
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
If you’ve ever thought, “Man, I wish my scooter was faster, smoother, and had more underglow,” then Segway has been reading your mind. The company just opened pre-orders for its new Ninebot Max G3, the latest in its Max series, and it’s packing more features than ever before.
The scooter brand has long pitched Segway’s Max series as a go-to for riders who want a solid commuter scooter that doesn’t break the bank while still offering decent range and comfort. But now, Segway seems to have cranked things up to eleven—or at least up to 28 mph (45 km/h), which is a nice jump in speed compared to the previous Max G2’s 22 mph (35 km/h) top speed.
That extra speed comes courtesy of a 2,000-watt motor, giving the G3 a 0-15 mph (25 km/h) sprint of just 2.4 seconds. Not bad for a standing scooter.
And with 50 miles (80 km) of range, Segway claims its efficiency optimization, which they call SegRange, squeezes even more miles out of each charge. If you manage to drain the 597 Wh battery in a day, you can top up in just 3.5 hours (or 2.5 hours with an optional faster charger).
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Hitting those higher speeds means stability is more important than ever, and Segway seems to be addressing that with dual hydraulic suspension on both ends, plus what they’re calling the SegRide stability enhancement system.
Fancy marketing names are one thing, but what really matters is how well this setup absorbs bumps and keeps the scooter planted at higher speeds. If it delivers, it could make for one of the smoothest rides in the category.
Traction and braking also get an upgrade, with Segway Dynamic Traction Control helping riders maintain grip and dual-piston disc brakes front and rear ensuring you can actually stop when needed. Segway has even thrown in an anti-lock braking system for a more controlled stop – something usually only seen on scooters and motorcycles. Bosch and BluBrake have both brought ABS to e-bikes, but it is quite rare in the standing electric scooter world.
Segway has been adding more tech to its scooters each year, and the Max G3 is no exception. The new 2.4-inch TFT smart display offers turn-by-turn navigation, real-time ride stats, and even notifications for incoming calls.
It also comes with AirLock autonomous unlocking, which means you can use your phone to lock and unlock it without fumbling with a key. If you’re worried about losing it, it’s Apple Find My compatible, so you can track it down when someone inevitably “borrows” it without asking.
Lighting is another area where Segway went all out. The Max G3 features a 360-degree lighting system, including an automatic headlight that’s three times brighter, underglow lighting, and turn signals that sync with that underglow lighting. Because what’s the point of having a fast, high-tech scooter if it doesn’t glow like a Fast and Furious car while you ride?
The Segway Ninebot Max G3 seems ready to take a stab at competing in the premium commuter scooter space, with performance upgrades that should make it a blast to ride while keeping it safe and comfortable. At $899.99 for the pre-order price before it jumps to $1,399.99, it could be a steal for anyone looking to upgrade their ride without venturing into ultra-premium pricing.
If you’re ready to jump on one, pre-orders are open through March 24 with promotional pricing. Deliveries are expected to begin around the end of March.
What do you think? Should we try to get our hands on one for a test ride when they roll out? Let us know in the comments section below.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The legend of the ‘Tesla killer’ is not a myth anymore. It came true, and it’s not an electric vehicle from a legacy automaker or a new EV startup; it’s Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO.
In the early days of Tesla, the media loved to use the term ‘Tesla killer’ every time a legacy automaker launched a new EV.
At the time, we scolded them for using it, as they would apply it to electric vehicles that didn’t match Tesla’s performance, production volumes, or profitability.
Sure enough, none of them came even close to negatively affecting Tesla, let alone “killing” the company.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
But things are changing now. Tesla is not growing at an insane pace like it was for a decade. In fact, it’s not growing at all anymore. Tesla’s global sales declined annually for the first time in 2024, and it is starting even worse in 2025.
Most Tesla fans, myself included, thought that while Tesla’s market shares would go down amid more EV competition, its sales would continue to grow as EV adoption takes over the industry. That’s exactly what happened for a few years, but the trend reversed in 2024, and it’s not because of EV adoption.
Global EV sales surged by 25% in 2024, while the sales of the biggest EV automaker, Tesla, declined by 1%.
There are many reasons to explain this situation, but there’s one main culprit: Elon Musk.
Musk has been completely delusional about Tesla achieving self-driving capability for years, which led him to neglect the rest of Tesla’s automotive business as he thought that by the end of every year for the last 6 years, Tesla would be able to flip a switch and make all its vehicles self-driving – automatically increasing their value and making them infinitely more competitive than other vehicles.
How did Musk neglect Tesla’s automotive business?
The clearest example is the fact that Tesla launched a single new vehicle in the last 5 years: the Cybertruck, which proved to be a total flop.
The Cybertruck launched in 2023 at a much higher price and significantly shorter range than what was promised when unveiled in 2019. With a reservation backlog at over 1 million units, Musk said that he could see Tesla eventually selling 500,000 units a year and Tesla planned for an initial production capacity of 250,000 units a year.
Now, a year and a half into production, Tesla is having issues selling the Cybertruck at 10% of its planned production capacity installed at Gigafactory Texas.
Musk also canceled Tesla’s plan to build a “~$25,000 electric car”, which would have greatly fueled demand and allowed Tesla to grow its delivery volumes. The CEO didn’t believe that the vehicle program would make sense if Tesla solved autonomy. He said in October 2024:
“I think having a regular $25,000 model is pointless. It would be silly. It would be completely at odds with what we believe.”
What Musk, and by extension Tesla, believes is that the automaker is on the verge of solving self-driving, but he has thought that to be the case every year for the last 6 years.
There’s no evidence that it is now on the verge of happening, or at least, not on the hardware that Tesla has delivered so far.
It’s clear that this crucial mistake about the timeline of self-driving has led Musk to make many mistakes about how to manage Tesla in the last few years.
For example, Tesla’s decision to remove turn signals and gear shift stalks from vehicles started with Model S and Model X in 2021. The CEO saw them as superfluous in a self-driving world, which he thought was imminent. Now, Model S and Model X sales have crashed.
Tesla brought the same design to the Model 3 with the refresh last year. Seeing the mistake years later, Tesla decided to keep the turn signal stalk with the Model Y refresh this year, and the stalk is rumored to make a comeback on the Model 3.
Perhaps the biggest mistake Musk has made about self-driving is promising that “all Tesla vehicles built since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving” to a level that would enable a robotaxi service, which in SAE self-driving terms would mean level 4-5.
He said that Tesla would “painfully” replace the computers in all vehicles of owners who purchased the “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) software package. However, we noted that Tesla is likely in more trouble than that since it promised that “all Tesla vehicles built since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving” – not just those whose owners bought the FDS package. Considering this greatly affects the resale value of those vehicles, you can make the argument that there are millions of Tesla owners out there who are owed a retrofit or compensation for Tesla’s mistake.
This is a current liability at Tesla worth billions of dollars, and there are already examples of lawsuits about this issue.
These are all management mistakes that ultimately fall on Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO.
Then, there are plenty of mistakes that Musk has made outside of Tesla that is affecting the company. The hard turn to the right, buying Twitter, boosting misinformation and Russian propaganda on the platform, financially backing Donald Trump, joining the administration and slashing critical government program indiscriminately.
Regardless of if you agree or not with Musk’s politics, these are things that you simply shouldn’t do as the face of a major consumer product company as you will undoubtedly anger a large part of your consumer base.
That’s exactly what’s happening.
There are now weekly demonstrations at Tesla stores around the world, and sales are crashing in many markets, especially in those where Musk got politically involved, like Germany, where Tesla sales are down 70% so far this year.
Musk is virtually erasing two decades of hard work to build Tesla’s brand into the world’s leading when it comes to electrification and renewable energy.
Now, for a large part of the population, Tesla is just seen as the piggybank of an out-of-touch oligarch.
Tesla is not dead yet, but if Musk continues to be the face of the company, it looks like it’s certainly going in that direction as this brand issue and declining demand is not going away.
Some of his fans cling to the idea that the automaker is about to solve self-driving, but this belief is largely based on Musk’s claims, which have been consistently wrong.
Now, it’s not to say that Tesla hasn’t made great progress on that front, but if we are to listen to the company’s own goal to be safer than humans, it means achieving “miles between critical disengagement” equivalent to human miles between collisions, which is 700,000 miles, according to NHTSA.
While Tesla might not die under Musk, I sincerely think that, at best, it will be a fraction of what it was at its peak, which means no bigger than it is now or in 2023.
Musk’s brand is toxic and doesn’t look to be improving significantly now that he has attached himself to identity politics, culture wars, and Trump.
Looking at Tesla fans and shareholders who still support him, their main hope appears to be self-driving and robots. On the self-driving front, I think it’s delusional to believe that Tesla will solve self-driving on its current hardware.
I think it has made some great progress, which may result in Tesla achieving valuable levels of self-driving on next-generation hardware in the next few years. However, others are on the same path, and you have to balance Tesla’s effort against the giant liability it created for itself by promising it on millions of other vehicles.
As for the robots, I’m actually somewhat bullish on humanoid robots, and I do believe that Tesla has some competitive advantage on that front. However, it’s foolish to think they will simply leapfrog the competition, which is significant in the sector.
Tesla’s core business remains selling cars and batteries. There’s no doubt that the business of selling cars is not going well for Tesla right now, and under Musk, there’s no clear path to improvement. The energy business is booming, but margins are falling, and competition is increasing—especially from companies like CATL and BYD, which supply the cells that Tesla uses for its stationary batteries.
On the car side, Tesla is indeed planning to launch cheaper cars this year, but that plan was a pivot after Musk canceled the “$25,000 Tesla.” These new vehicles are expected to be built on the same platform as Model 3 and Model Y, so they will be closer to these models and cannibalize them.
I’d be surprised if they are enough to avoid Telsa from having its annual deliveries decline again this year.
I have been saying this for a while, but it’s time for Elon to go.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.