Fox News is no stranger to the tactic of fearmongering as a way to stir up its base. But the media network’s latest misdirection campaign attempts to use fear to attack a surprising new target: electric bicycles.
Electric bicycles are essentially normal bicycles but with the addition of a small electric helper motor and a lithium-ion battery for energy storage. They go faster than most pedal bikes while requiring less effort from the rider, which has made them a popular alternative vehicle in cities and suburbs. They’ve found favor as cheaper car replacements for many people. As a type of small EV, or electric vehicle, it’s not exactly a wonder that Fox News would put e-bikes somewhere on its enemies list.
But with a misleading story running last week entitled “How e-bikes are exploding and killing people,” the media giant leaves little room for doubt about just how far they’ll go with misdirection to try and scare people away from the fastest-growing form of low-cost, efficient, and effective transportation.
It’s true: All the long-term trends show that electric bicycle sales are skyrocketing. They’re outselling electric cars in the US, and in some areas, e-bikes are soon set to outsell all cars – gasoline or electric. They’re helping replace the tired image of Americans driving their single-occupant SUVs a mile down the road for a gallon of milk.
That makes them ripe for Fox News to hold up as some form of boogeyman to scare up their base, a group that is famously resistant to change. And e-bikes are exactly the kind of change that Fox News would vilify – a low-cost technology that helps Americans of all socioeconomic levels get around without a clutching dependence on Big Oil and Big Auto.
The basis of Fox News’ attack on electric bicycles is cherry-picked fire data in New York City.
You might have heard about electric bicycle fires in the news lately, as it is a topic that is getting increasing coverage despite the relatively few events. Even with minimal incidents compared to the number of e-bikes rolling around the city, examining any threat to public safety is certainly warranted. Between the dense urban population of NYC and the higher-than-average number of e-bikes used in the city, the issue has become a growing concern.
What you might not know (since it is much less frequently reported) is that most of these electric bike fires aren’t related to electric bikes at all – they’re much cheaper electric scooters. Most of the pictures of these fire aftermaths show charred husks of cheap Chinese e-scooters.
But regardless of the semantics, the underlying concern is this: Why do these batteries catch on fire, and how concerned should the public be?
Why can e-bikes sometimes catch on fire?
So what’s going on here? There are hundreds of thousands of high-quality e-bikes and e-scooters in the US with battery certifications and proper safety protocols. Even so, low-cost e-scooters (and yes, sometimes e-bikes too) have been increasingly imported to the US with low-quality lithium-ion batteries that, in very rare cases, have caught fire. It’s usually when people have used the wrong third-party chargers or have tried to do at-home repairs on the complicated battery systems.
That distinction isn’t overly complicated. It’s not that it requires any significant amount of nuance to understand. But it also isn’t as flashy as a Fox News headline of “How e-bikes are exploding and killing people.”
And it’s not that Fox News doesn’t realize the incredibly small size of the actual risk. A single line admission gets tossed near the very end of the article, presumably in a halfhearted attempt to claim some form of balance: “In the meantime, it’s important to note that the vast majority of e-bikes on the market are safe and reliable when used as intended and maintained properly.”
By Fox News’ own admission, there had been a single fatality in NYC this year from this spate of e-bike or e-scooter fires at the time of publishing.
But even while paying lip service to the small proportion of e-bike fires within the larger e-bike population, the story fails to properly frame the impact of the threat. For instance, did you know that cyclists in NYC are over 10 times more likely to be killed by a car than to be killed by an e-bike fire? In 2021, there was a single e-bike fire fatality compared to 19 cyclists killed by cars in NYC. That same year, there were over 200 pedestrians or micromobility (bike, scooters, mopeds, etc.) riders killed in NYC.
I don’t mean to unjustly minimize the real risk of e-bike fires but rather to justifiably demonstrate how minimal the risk truly is. Just like how there was a spate of Samsung cell phones with lithium-ion batteries catching on fire a few years ago, the actual risk was significantly smaller than the reporting made it feel. Dozens of phones out of millions is a similar ratio to the e-bike and e-scooter scenario now.
Does Fox News actually care about transportation dangers?
It is true that NYC has seen approximately one dozen deaths due to lithium-ion battery fires in micromobility vehicles in the last few years. And there have been legitimate, balanced reports from other news organizations about e-bike fires. In the same period, though, many hundreds of pedestrians have been killed by cars and trucks in the city. Thousands of pedestrians are killed by cars in the US each year. Often dozens per day. Dozens.
But that doesn’t play into the Fox News narrative, and so it doesn’t get coverage. It also doesn’t get included for reference to understand the size of the e-bike fire risk.
That’s because when you tell people the truth, that you’re between 10 to 30 times more likely to die by being hit by a car while walking around the city than from an e-bike battery fire, it doesn’t promote the right type of fear for Fox News. It shows that the true villain isn’t the e-bike but rather the car.
The truth doesn’t scare people away from effective, low-cost alternative transportation. Instead, it shows the very fact that Fox News wants to hide: that e-bikes aren’t the problem – cars are. E-bikes, in fact, are the solution. Steps are being taken to reduce battery fires, but even if they weren’t, a drastic increase in e-bikes used to replace cars would still save lives by reducing fatalities. It’s simple math.
If Fox News cared about saving lives or protecting people, it wouldn’t pander fear about NYC’s single-digit deaths per year from lithium-ion batteries in micromobility vehicles. It would highlight the city’s hundreds of deaths per year from cars killing pedestrians. But you won’t hear about that because the goal isn’t to save lives. It’s to use fear and misdirection in an attempt to resist a changing transportation paradigm that is slowly shedding our nation’s dependence on Big Oil and Big Auto.
Fear keeps people hooked, and Fox News is well practiced at wielding it. When someone peddles that fear in an attempt to prop up a boogeyman, we should always ask ourselves why.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (C) delivers a speech as he attends a demonstration ahead of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) session tasked with issuing the first Advisory Opinion (AO) on States’ legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague on July 23, 2025.
But for some, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion on state’s legal obligations in the face of climate change could emerge as a watershed moment for financial markets.
Günther Thallinger, a board member at Allianz, one of the world’s biggest insurers, said that close watchers of the ICJ’s July 23 ruling described it as perhaps the most significant climate development since the 2015 Paris Agreement.
At the time, the pronouncement marked the ICJ’s first-ever opinion on climate change and laid out that climate action is not optional.
The court said in a unanimous ruling that governments and countries have a legal obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions, protect present and future generations from the climate crisis and to cooperate internationally.
Notably, the ICJ also found that fossil fuel production, including licensing and subsidies, “may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.”
This opinion for investors, for capital market participants, really means something.
Günther Thallinger
Board member at Allianz
The ruling, which was the brainchild of young law students in low-lying Pacific island states and championed by the government of Vanuatu, is widely expected to have far-reaching legal and political consequences.
Speaking in a personal capacity, Thallinger said that while the ICJ’s opinion is based on existing law and conventions, the ruling could yet have meaningful ramifications for a vast range of assets — whether one cares about climate change or not.
“If one takes as an investor what the International Court of Justice just said, then a revaluation of these assets needs to happen. Every prudent investor must do this now,” Thallinger told CNBC by video call.
“Even if they don’t like the discussion around climate change, even if they would say they denigrate the Court of Justice completely, they must expect that, in some countries, some governments, some courts are going to follow this opinion,” Thallinger said.
“If they follow this opinion, it has asset valuation implications, quite clearly. So, this opinion for investors, for capital market participants, really means something.”
Licensing and subsidies
On the issue of licensing and subsidies, Thallinger said the ICJ’s ruling could prove to be a significant development.
That’s because licensing and permitting for the mining sector, for example, and government subsidies for fossil fuels could be at risk following the court opinion. The burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas is the chief driver of the climate crisis.
“If subsides are unlawful, then one should expect that subsidies are somehow stopped at a certain point in time,” Thallinger said.
“Now, certain business processes live on these subsidies or at least benefit to a certain degree on these subsidies. And, as always for an investor, usually you look simply at the cashflow, and if the cashflow part is missing or all of a sudden becomes much smaller then that means another valuation,” he added.
President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Yuji Iwasawa (C) and members issue first Advisory Opinion (AO) on States’ legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague on July 23, 2025.
John Thys | Afp | Getty Images
The U.S. and China, the world’s two biggest carbon emitters, provided a mixed response to the ICJ’s ruling.
“As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in response to the court opinion, Reuters reported.
A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said the ruling has a “positive significance” for advancing international climate cooperation and sought to reaffirm the Asian country’s status as a developing country.
Mixed signals
Not everyone is as concerned about the ICJ’s ruling from an investor standpoint.
“I feel like the wide spectrum of views that exist in the investor community on climate change, and the action that investors are supposed to take, will probably mean that the decision is a bit of a Rorschach test,” Lindsey Stewart, director of institutional insights for Morningstar, told CNBC by video call.
“People are just going to see things that kind of confirm their existing view,” he added.
A Rorschach test refers to a psychological assessment during which a person is asked to describe what they see in a series of inkblots.
Ida Kassa Johannesen, head of commercial ESG at Saxo Bank, said the ICJ’s intervention is a non-binding advisory opinion, rather than a ruling, “and this distinction is crucial.”
Companies with significant environmental footprints, such as those in the oil and gas, mining and heavy industry sectors, are likely to face increased litigation risk, which could affect their costs, valuation and reputation, Johannesen told CNBC by email.
“As a result, investors and particular large institutional investors may begin to reallocate capital away from high-risk sectors to manage exposure to climate-related legal and reputational risks,” she added.
Saxo Bank’s Johannesen pointed out that the U.S. and China both expressed reservations about the ICJ’s opinion, emphasizing its non-binding nature and calling for flexibility in climate action.
The Trump administration also recently signed into law the U.S. president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a package that is favorable to mining and oil and gas companies.
“All this sends mixed signals which would probably lead to fragmented market responses between the world’s 2 largest economies and the [rest of the world], slow down global regulatory convergence and ultimately limit the (short-term) impact on markets and investor behavior,” Johannesen said.
A firefighter falls on the ground while working to extinguish a wildfire in San Cibrao das Viñas, outside Ourense, northwestern Spain, on August 12, 2025.
Miguel Riopa | Afp | Getty Images
A spokesperson at ABP, one of Europe’s largest pension funds, welcomed what they billed as “the spirit” of the court’s opinion, but said they do not anticipate any short-term ramifications for financial markets.
“The ICJ’s advisory opinion sends a signal that climate inaction may constitute a breach of international law. However, given its non-binding nature, we don’t expect immediate changes in national policies or financial markets,” an ABP spokesperson told CNBC by email.
The Dutch pension fund, which doesn’t invest in fossil fuels and says it actively supports climate solutions, highlighted that Europe, for example, already has a lot of climate legislation in place.
Global EV sales are still riding high, with 1.6 million EVs sold in July 2025, according to new data from global research firm Rho Motion. That’s up 21% from July last year, even though sales dipped 9% from June. It brings total EV sales for the first seven months of the year to 10.7 million – up 27% compared to the same period in 2024.
China stays on top
China continues to dominate, with 6.5 million EVs sold year-to-date, accounting for over half of all global EV sales. BEVs are still the top choice, with sales up 40% this year. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) didn’t fare as well, with domestic sales down 15% month-over-month and 10% year-over-year.
Even though Chinese EV sales dropped 13% in July from June, EVs made up over 50% of all passenger car sales for the third month in a row. The government is helping keep momentum going with another round of Q3 funding for its EV trade-in scheme, and a final 2025 round is expected in October.
Europe’s EV momentum is speeding up
Europe saw a 30% year-to-date jump in EV sales, reaching 2.3 million units. Germany and the UK are leading the pack – Germany’s up 43%, and the UK is up 32%. But France posted just a 9% year-over-year gain in July and is still down 11% for the year.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
To help turn things around, France is revamping its EV leasing program for low-income households starting September 30, aiming to support more than 50,000 purchases.
Meanwhile, Italy is the dark horse of 2025. Thanks to fresh incentives totaling around $700 million, EV sales are up 40%, and the country is quickly catching up to its neighbors. EV market share in Italy now stands at 11%, compared to 27% in Germany and over 30% in the UK.
North America stalls out except for one short-term boost
North America is lagging, with just a 2% bump in EV sales year-to-date. In the US, that’s partly due to policy uncertainty and tariffs. Automakers took a multi-billion-dollar hit in Q2, although some of that was offset by reduced requirements to buy zero-emission vehicle credits.
A spike in demand is expected in Q3, as buyers rush to take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV tax credit before it expires on September 30, but a cooldown is then anticipated.
Some automakers are shifting their EV strategies: Ford recently announced a new “Universal EV Platform” and plans to launch a $30,000 midsize electric pickup with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries by 2027.
And on the trade front, the US has inked deals with South Korea, Japan, and the EU to impose a 15% tariff on imported cars.
The bottom line
Chart: Rho Motion
Global EV sales are still charging ahead, even if the road is bumpy in some regions. China’s holding steady, Europe’s revving up, and North America’s waiting to see what happens next. Rho Motion data manager Charles Lester said, “Despite regional variations, the overall trajectory for EV adoption in 2025 remains strongly upward.”
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Another monthly subscription? Some Volkswagen EV drivers will now need to pay extra to unlock their vehicle’s full potential.
Volkswagen has put performance behind a paywall, at least for ID.3 drivers in the UK. The Volkswagen ID.3 Pro and Pro S are now listed with 201 hp on the UK website.
To unlock the vehicle’s full performance of 228 hp, drivers will now need to pay extra. You can choose from a monthly subscription, starting at £16.50 ($22) per month, or you can opt for a one-time lifetime fee of £649 ($880).
However, the one-time fee is attached to the vehicle, not the buyer. So if it’s sold, the upgrade goes with it. As Auto Express pointed out, the monthly payment is nearly three times that of a standard Netflix membership.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Although the performance upgrade locks the extra power behind a paywall, Volkswagen said it doesn’t affect range.
Volkswagen ID.3 (left) and ID.4 (right)
Volkswagen isn’t the first, and likely not the last, to make drivers pay for their vehicles’ full potential. Remember when BMW tried to charge $18 a month for heated seats and other features in 2022?
Yeah, that didn’t go over so well. BMW has since dropped the subscription. Other brands, including Polestar, offer similar performance upgrades.
Volkswagen ID.3 GTX (Source: Volkswagen)
Will Volkswagen try to charge EV drivers in the US or other parts of Europe extra for performance? Given the backlash from BMW, it’s not likely. We’ll see how it goes over in the UK first.
The company is gearing up to launch a new series of entry-level EVs, starting with the ID.2 next year. An SUV version of the ID.2 is scheduled to launch shortly after, followed by the production version of the ID.1, which is set to arrive in 2027. Volkswagen is also considering a “mini Buzz” that could replace the Touran, but nothing has been confirmed.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.