News came out on Friday that President Biden is set to quadruple tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect the US auto industry from the rapid growth of Chinese EV manufacturing.
But instead of just de facto banning the competition from giving Americans access to affordable hot new EVs, the US should instead try making affordable hot new EVsitself.
The global auto industry is in a time of flux.
Cars are changing quickly, as is car manufacturing. The leaders of today, and of the last half-century, are not guaranteed to remain the leaders in the face of new entrants and new technology. And most of all, a new powertrain – electric – that will account for roughly 100% of cars on the road within a couple decades, which no serious person disputes.
Further, as one of the most polluting sectors globally and the most polluting in rich countries, it is necessary that transportation clean up its act, and fast, in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The sooner this happens, the easier it will be for all of us.
The new entrants to car manufacturing aren’t just in the form of startups like Tesla or Rivian, but in the form of nations which previously did not have a large presence in international auto manufacturing, but will take advantage of this flux to become more competitive in a changing global market.
The largest of these new entrants is the second most populous country in the world, the world’s largest exporter and its second-largest economy: China. China has heretofore not been a major player in car exports, but that’s changing.
China has been spending the last couple decades building up its manufacturing base, particularly in electronics, and particularly focusing on securing raw material supplies and partnerships and on building up refining capacity.
The strongest move in this respect has been Xi Jinping’s centerpiece Belt and Road Initiative, a set of policies intended to secure trade routes and mineral partnerships between China and less-developed, mineral-rich countries, generally in exchange for infrastructure development. It’s not unlike the actions of the West via the IMF and the World Bank, investing in development of poorer countries in order to secure material partnerships.
All of these entities have been credibly accused of exploitative actions towards the developing world – generally utilizing terms like economic imperialism, debt-trap diplomacy, or neocolonialism.
But the point of this is that China has been getting ready for this transition for a long time through concerted national effort, whereas the US is only recently doing so (via the Inflation Reduction Act and its attempts to onshore/”friend-shore” EV manufacturing and sourcing).
Japan and the 1970s as parable
We have, in fact, seen this story before. In the 1970s, the US auto industry was rocked by dual crises, a gas price crisis that left their large, gas-guzzling vehicles less competitive, and a steel crisis which greatly affected US steel manufacturers.
The steel crisis came courtesy of Japan, a country whose manufacturing methods far outstripped America’s, and which was determined to undercut American steel. It could produce steel cheaper and better than the US, and the low prices that Japan was offering were simply unbeatable by American manufacturers. As a result, many American steelworkers lost their jobs.
Here’s an article about the steel crisis from 2021 from the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which makes parallels to today’s situation between the US and China. In it, former steelworkers are quoted about what happened at the time:
The cost was cheaper, and their quality was better, too. We didn’t care about quality because we were the only game in town forever.
-Ed Cook, former president USW Local 3069
The U.S. steelmakers and, as time wore on, the automakers, were being outperformed by Japan and their superior technology advancements. Our employers didn’t invest in new technology until recognizing the concept of foreign competition was here to stay.
-Doug May, retired steelworker
The US tried to stop the bleeding with tariffs after accusing Japan of illegally “dumping” steel at unfairly subsidized below-market rates to gain export market share. But the tariffs didn’t stop the advancement of the technologically-superior Japanese steel industry, which remained strong even after their imposition.
The early-70s steel crisis was soon joined by the mid-to-late-70s oil crisis, where the US (and much of the Western world) saw oil shortages and high gas prices. At the time, American automakers mostly produced giant gas guzzlers, and Japanese automakers exploited this crisis by rapidly introducing smaller, more fuel efficient cars to America, just as the environmental movement was starting to gain steam and emissions regulations were starting to take effect.
Automakers responded by undergoing half-baked attempts to meet the standards while still trying to sell their gas guzzlers, by lobbying governments not to implement regulations, and begging for tariffs against competing Japanese autos. Not by actually rising to the challenge and making better vehicles, but rather by asking for the rules to be changed so they could get a free win by doing nothing new.
Eventually, Japan agreed to voluntary export restrictions and US automakers managed to get in gear and start making better cars. But as a result of this disruption in the 1970s, Japan is still considered one of the premier manufacturing industries in the world (automotive and otherwise), and has held the crown of the largest auto-exporting country on the globe for decades.
Between preparation, determination, and opportunity, Japan was able to gain a lasting lead.
All of China’s effort to build EV manufacturing bore fruit – while the country was initially slow to adopt EVs, in 2023 it had a whopping 37% EV market share (up from 5% in 2020 and .84% in 2015), leapfrogging several early adopter nations. But EV manufacturing has grown even faster, with Chinese EV production outpacing domestic demand and exports rising rapidly in recent years as well.
While Biden has pushed for stronger emissions standards, automakers seem determined to lobby against progress, to give themselves a false sense of security that they can take their sweet time in transitioning to EVs.
But regardless of how much automakers kick and scream about needing to build something other than massive gas guzzling land yachts, technology and world industry will continue their inexorable advancement. The industry can catch up, or it can continue dragging its feet and moving slower than its competition, somehow hoping to catch up from the losing position it’s already in.
None of this kicking and screaming is happening in China.
As mentioned above, Chinese government has focused heavily on securing materials and on encouraging upstart EV makers (with a total of either $29 billion or $173 billion in subsidies from 2009-2022, depending on whose numbers you accept, either of which are less than the hundreds of billions in subsidy allocated by the US in the Inflation Reduction Act, or the $7 trillion global subsidy for fossil fuels).
But that’s just the thing, tariffs don’t generally work. We saw how they failed to forestall Japan, but there are many other examples showing their ineffectiveness or weird side effects, and economists generally agree that they are a poor measure to help domestic industry. Some company leadership favors the idea of tariffs, while other (perhaps more sober) leaders do not.
On the one hand, it could help domestic auto jobs, because free trade for Chinese EVs could result in a race to the bottom for auto manufacturing. And it could result in Chinese companies trying to set up manufacturing in the US to avoid tariffs – which could help US auto jobs, but these moves would likely spark a whole new round of controversy when announced.
But on the other hand, China is likely to implement retaliatory tariffs which will hurt US workers (for example, soybean tariffs which ruined the US soybean industry in 2018 – and resulted in more soybean demand from Brazil, which led to extensive clearcutting and fires in the Amazon). And the nature of today’s globalized economy and complex supplier relationships around the world can result in a lot of chaos when a major player implements a major tariff.
So in the end, US jobs likely won’t benefit overall, and US consumers will simply be denied a chance to buy cheap new EVs from China – like, for example, the excellent Volvo EX30. The EX30 is currently made in Geely’s China factory and starts at around $35k even after the 25% tariff.
A 100% tariff would bring it to a starting price of ~$54k instead (unless or until Geely moves production out of China, something BYD has also considered). The EX30 also happens to be one of the only small EVs that will be available in the US in the near term, so a tariff would further doom US consumers to the plague of SUVs that has befallen us.
By raising prices of vehicles that could undercut US autos, what this means is that inflation – the price of goods for US consumers, which includes autos – will increase. Cars will be more expensive as US manufacturers will have less competition, less reason to bring costs down, and less reason to offer reasonably-sized models. We’ll be stuck with the expensive land yachts that US automakers have been punting at us for so many years. People will continue to accuse EVs of being too expensive – as a result of policy that directly makes them so.
Meanwhile, one of Biden’s signature legislative wins, the Inflation Reduction Act, does include a different type of protectionist provision that seems to have accomplished its goals. It offers tax credits to EV purchasers, as long as those EVs include domestically-sourced components and are assembled in North America. This lowers the effective price of EVs, helping buyers, and stimulates investment in US manufacturing as well.
Of course there is a large short-term factor to this decision: the US election, which is just a few months out.
In this election, President Biden is running against a candidate who has no issue being loudly racist, and channels that racism into protectionist trade measures. The US’ current 25% tariff against China was implemented by him in 2018, and a centerpiece of his policy promises revolve around extending these short-sighted measures.
This trade policy is not made out of a consideration of what will be best for the auto industry or the US, but rather is a populist way to seize on Sinophobia, scapegoating the US’ main geopolitical competitor for various social ills happening domestically.
But that sort of sentiment is popular. US sentiment towards China is at record lows, making it a popular target for scapegoating. The sharp turn downwards in recent years is likely influenced by the loud scapegoating from Mr Trump, though it has affected voters across the party identification spectrum.
So Biden’s decision to increase tariffs on Chinese EVs may end up being popular, regardless of its positive or negative effects – after all, Trump’s previous round hurt the US economy, but was still popular.
But it is also good to remember that this election is indeed important. While President Biden’s tariff policy mirrors that of Mr. Trump, Biden’s overall environmental policy does stand out as head and shoulders above the destructive, ill-considerednonsense we saw from the EPA under fossil fuel advocates Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler.
So while this EV tariff increase doesn’t seem like a great idea, the alternative is, somehow, much worse. Isn’t that just the story of US politics in a nutshell.
But will the tariff change minds? While tariffs are popular, Trump has associated himself so closely with protectionist trade policy that voters with a thirst for protectionism seem more likely to vote for the candidate that has done more to shout his bombastic racist ideas from the rooftops.
It does seem that, with anti-Chinese sentiment at an all time high, any mention of China short-circuits a certain percentage of the electorate. Despite the demonstrably positive effect that Biden’s EV policy has produced in terms of investment in US EV manufacturing, that very same policy is often ignorantly criticized for helping China – which it does not do. Just have a look in the comments below, we’re sure a number of people who did not get this far into the article will echo exactly this incorrect sentiment.
But that’s a hard thing to explain, which has taken me thousands of words already (sorry) to merely scratch the surface of. The simplicity of “China bad” is a lot more comforting and simple to accept, despite lacking nuance.
How do we beat China? Not by tariffs, but by trying harder
Apologies for taking so long to get around to the point, but I hope that after laying out the actions China has taken to grow its EV industry, the history of foreign entrants into the auto industry, the effectiveness of tariffs, and the effectiveness of other trade policies and the politics behind them, the conclusion of how to go forward is already clear.
In order to beat China, we need to stop messing around with comforting but ill-considered policies that won’t work, and instead commit ourselves to the massive industrial shift that we need in order to catch up with a country that has already been doing so for over a decade.
We cannot do this by moving slower than a target that is already ahead of us. We have to move faster. And the West doesn’t get there by taking $1 billion in bribes to tank domestic industry, by softening targets or backtracking on EV plans. In particular, having one party that actively opposes any attempt to prepare the US auto industry for the future is certainly not helpful. This back-and-forth is not happening in China – they are committed.
The US auto industry has become accustomed to offering huge, expensive gas guzzlers, and to being “the only game in town.” But that didn’t work for the US in the 70s, and it won’t work now.
Even if prices on small Chinese EVs are unattainable, the way to solve that is through smart industrial and materials policy (as China has spent years on and we’ve only just started), through targeted subsidy to a new and important industry (which we’re doing, though republicans want to eliminate that), and by perhaps redirecting tax breaks that currently encourage giant vehicles to stop encouraging huge gas guzzlers and instead encourage right-sized EVs (and end other policies like the EPA footprint rule which EPA is finally doing something about).
So, if you’ll forgive me for taking this apparently unpopular anti-tariff stance, I think it’s clear that simply doubling the price of the competition isn’t the best way to ensure US auto stays competitive. It won’t help US consumers, it likely won’t have a net positive effect on US jobs (across sectors), it will lull industry into a false sense of security, it doesn’t help the environment, and perhaps least important but still worth mention, it violates the oft-repeated-but-never-honestly-held principle that government should “avoid picking winners and losers.”
Instead, lets focus on encouraging the new tech and discouraging the old tech, and moving quickly to beat China at their own game. If we want to pick winners, then why don’t we pick us.
This is how we get the American auto industry, a jewel in the crown of America for more than a century, into competitive shape for the future. We should have been doing more earlier, but as the famous (possibly Chinese) proverb says: “the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today.”
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Last week, Parker Hannifin launched what they’re calling the industry’s first certified Mobile Electrification Technology Center to train mobile equipment technicians make the transition from conventional diesel engines to modern electric motors.
The electrification of mobile equipment is opening new doors for construction and engineering companies working in indoor, environmentally sensitive, or noise-regulated urban environments – but it also poses a new set of challenges that, while they mirror some of the challenges internal combustion faced a century ago, aren’t yet fully solved. These go beyond just getting energy to the equipment assets’ batteries, and include the integration of hydraulic implements, electronic controls, and the myriad of upfit accessories that have been developed over the last five decades to operate on 12V power.
At the same time, manufacturers and dealers have to ensure the safety of their technicians, which includes providing comprehensive training on the intricacies of high-voltage electric vehicle repair and maintenance – and that’s where Parker’s new mobile equipment training program comes in, helping to accelerate the shift to EVs.
“We are excited to partner with these outstanding distributors at a higher level. Their commitment to designing innovative mobile electrification systems aligns perfectly with our vision to empower machine manufacturers in reducing their environmental footprint while enhancing operational efficiency,” explains Mark Schoessler, VP of sales for Parker’s Motion Systems Group. “Their expertise in designing mobile electrification systems and their capability to deliver integrated solutions will help to maximize the impact of Parker’s expanding METC network.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The manufacturing equipment experts at Nott Company were among the first to go through the Parker Hannifin training program, certifying their technicians on Parker’s electric motors, drives, coolers, controllers and control systems.
“We are proud to be recognized for our unwavering dedication to advancing mobile electrification technologies and delivering cutting-edge solutions,” says Nott CEO, Markus Rauchhaus. “This milestone would not have been possible without our incredible partners, customers and the team at Nott Company.”
In addition to Nott, two other North American distributors (Depatie Fluid Power in Portage, Michigan, and Hydradyne in Fort Worth, Texas) have completed the Parker certification.
Electrek’s Take
T7X all-electric track loader at CES 2022; via Doosan Bobcat.
With the rise of electric equipment assets like Bobcat’s T7X compact track loader and E10e electric excavator that eliminate traditional hydraulics and rely on high-voltage battery systems, specialized electrical systems training is becoming increasingly important. Seasoned, steady hands with decades of diesel and hydraulic systems experience are obsolete, and they’ll need to learn new skills to stay relevant.
Certification programs like Parker’s are working to bridge that skills gap, equipping technicians with the skills to maximize performance while mitigating risks associated with high-voltage systems. Here’s hoping more of these start popping up sooner than later.
Based on a Peterbilt 579 commercial semi truck, the ReVolt EREV hybrid electric semi truck promises 40% better fuel economy and more than twice the torque of a conventional, diesel-powered semi. The concept has promise – and now, it has customers.
Austin, Texas-based ReVolt Motors scored its first win with specialist carrier Page Trucking, who’s rolling the dice on five of the Peterbilt 579-based hybrid big rigs — with another order for 15 more of the modified Petes waiting in the wings if the initial five work out.
The deal will see ReVolt’s “dual-power system” put to the test in real-world conditions, pairing its e-axles’ battery-electric torque with up to 1,200 miles of diesel-extended range.
ReVolt Motors team
ReVolt Motors team; via ReVolt.
The ReVolt team starts off with a Peterbilt, then removes the transmission and drive axle, replacing them with a large genhead and batteries. As the big Pete’s diesel engine runs (that’s right, kids – the engine stays in place), it creates electrical energy that’s stored in the trucks’ batteries. Those electrons then flow to the truck’s 670 hp e-axles, putting down a massive, 3500 lb-ft of Earth-moving torque to the ground at 0 rpm.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The result is an electrically-driven semi truck that works like a big BMW i3 or other EREV, and packs enough battery capacity to operate as a ZEV (sorry, ZET) in ports and urban clean zones. And, more importantly, allows over-the-road drivers to hotel for up to 34 hours without idling the engine or requiring a grid connection.
That ability to “hotel” in the cab is incredibly important, especially as the national shortage of semi truck parking continues to worsen and the number of goods shipped across America’s roads continues to increase.
And, because the ReVolt trucks can hotel without the noise and emissions of diesel or the loss of range of pure electric, they can immediately “plug in” to existing long-haul routes without the need to wait for a commercial truck charging infrastructure to materialize.
“Drivers should not have to choose between losing their longtime routes because of changing regulatory environments or losing the truck in which they have already made significant investments,” explains Gus Gardner, ReVolt founder and CEO. “American truckers want their trucks to reflect their identity, and our retrofit technology allows them to continue driving the trucks they love while still making a living.”
If all of that sounds familiar, it’s probably because you’ve heard of Hyliion.
In addition to being located in the same town and employing the same idea in the same Peterbilt 579 tractor, ReVolt even employs some of the same key players as Hyliion: both the company’s CTO, Chandra Patil, and its Director of Engineering, Blake Witchie, previously worked at Hyliion’s truck works.
Still, Hyliion made their choice when they shut down their truck business. ReVolt seems to have picked up the ball – and their first customer is eager to run with it.
“Our industry is undergoing a major transition, and fleet owners need practical solutions that make financial sense while reducing our environmental impact,” said Dan Titus, CEO of Page Trucking. “ReVolt’s hybrid drivetrain lowers our fuel costs, providing our drivers with a powerful and efficient truck, all without the need for expensive charging infrastructure or worrying about state compliance mandates. The reduced emissions also enable our customers to reduce their Scope 2 emissions.”
Page Trucking has a fleet of approximately 500 trucks in service, serving the agriculture, hazardous materials, and bulk commodities industries throughout Texas. And, if ReVolt’s EREV semis live up to their promise, expect them to operate a lot more than 20 of ’em.
Fleet electrification expert Tony Nisam took to LinkedIn yesterday to post a deal that he ran across at a Washington State Costco that stacks a $25,500 manufacturer rebate with $3,000 in “regular” Costco Member Savings, $2,750 in “LIMITED-TIME” Manufacturer to Member Incentives, plus an additional $250 for Costco Executive members.
Do a bit of math (add up 25,500 + 3,000 + $2,750 + 250), and you’ll calculate an almost unheard of $31,500 discount on one of the best, most capable commercial vans on the market – ICE or electric. And that’s before you factor in the 0% interest financing (72 mo.) being advertised at Blade Chevrolet, the Mount Vernon, Washington, where VIN 2G58J2TY6S9104313 (the exact van shown, below) is shown as stock number 16757.
If you’re not a Costco member yet and you’re looking for a new truck for your business or even a unique #vanlife ride with zero emissions, modern tech, and a nationwide dealer network, GM makes that $130 Executive membership seem like a no-brainer.
Is a $39,000 price cut enough to get you to take a look at a new Brightdrop? At $45,235 (from a starting price of $84,235), can you afford not to? Head down to the comments and let us know.