Connect with us

Published

on

In 2024, the world sold 3.5 million more EVs than it did in the previous year, according to a new report by Rho Motion. This increase is larger than the 3.2 million increase in EV sales from the previous year – meaning that EV sales aren’t just up, but that the rate of growth is itself increasing.

However, an entire year of false political, media and industry statements might have had you thinking otherwise.

You’ve probably heard this lie many times over the course of more than a year: that, supposedly, EV sales are in trouble, and are slowing drastically.

This myth has been pushed by many, in many forms, with varying levels of wrongness. The position has been so pervasive that it might as well be universal – it has been taken as accepted fact that EV sales are down, even though they simply aren’t.

Sometimes it has been an intentional distortion from actors who oppose the growth of clean-air vehicles, but the attitude has become so pervasive that many have repeated it unthinkingly, without actually looking at the data. And thus this misinformation has become oft-repeated common knowledge, despite being incorrect.

But today, Rho Motion, an electric vehicle research consultancy, is out with a new report showing what we knew all along – that EV sales are still growing strongly.

No, EV sales didn’t slow

One form of this misinformation says that EV sales are down – which is to say that fewer people are buying EVs now than were in the past. This is phenomenally untrue – per the data at the end of the year (and quarterly data mid-year as well, as we pointed out), EV sales grew and set records in every territory around the world in 2024 except Europe, where they were down just 3%.

Rho Motion’s report, out today, shows that EV sales increased in all regions other than Europe, and across the globe as a whole. China experienced the largest growth at 40%, with North America growing by 9% and the “rest of the world” growing at 27%.

But even the European numbers are misleading, given that European EV sales were mostly up outside of its largest country Germany, which saw a decrease due to the country ending EV incentives in late 2023, leading to a pull-forward in demand and subsequent drop in sales.

But outside of that one region, driven largely by an end in incentives in one country, the rest of the world’s regions, and the globe itself, saw a drastic increase in EV sales.

This rise happened despite the world’s largest EV maker, Tesla, seeing its first sequential decline in sales since 2011, dragging down a market that may have otherwise risen even faster. Tesla’s sales drop was driven less by overall EV disinterest, as proven by continued EV growth across the world, and more by stale models and an incompetent CEO who has abandoned the mission of the company and cozied up with anti-EV interests, thus turning away customers.

No, EV sales growth didn’t slow, either

Another, lighter form of misinformation repeated throughout the last year stated that EV sales growth has slowed. There’s a difference between this statement and saying that sales are down – many headlines described EV sales as falling, cooling, slowing, etc., but those words would apply to a decrease, when in fact EV sales increased.

EV sales “growth” is different, and after so many people lied saying that EV sales were going down, some instead took the lighter position that EV sales would simply not grow as much in 2024 as they had in 2023. The suggestion here was that the rate of change of EV sales (that is, the second derivative of sales numbers) would reduce, and that that signaled trouble.

But we now know that even that assertion is wrong.

Looking into Rho Motion’s data for the last couple years, the world sold 17.1 million plug-in cars in 2024. In 2023, the world sold 13.6 million, and in 2022, the world sold 10.4 million. Rho Motion’s numbers do include both BEVs and PHEVs, but not cars without a plug.

Let’s look at the difference between those numbers. In 2023, EV sales grew by 3.2 million units across the world. But in 2024, EV sales grew by 3.5 million, which for those in the back is in fact a bigger number than 3.2 million.

This means that not only did EV sales grow in 2024, but the rate of growth even went up on a unit basis.

This rise in growth is obscured by using percentages rather than raw numbers (showing 31% growth in 2023, but 25% in 2024, as these numbers do), because any number that starts small and rapidly grows will inevitably experience lower percentage growth over time.

If, for example, your company sold 100 units in one year, then 1,000 units in the next, then 9,000 units in the next year, you would clearly understand that the third year is your best year in sales, and your biggest year of growth, as you added +8,000 unit sales compared to the previous year’s +900 unit sales growth.

But if you look at it on a percentage basis, your growth just went down from +900% to +800%. Even though your company is clearly doing increasingly better, you’ve added far more employees than ever before, your revenues are at an order of magnitude they’ve never reached before, etc., someone who is looking for impossible, infinitely-continuing exponential growth could try to look at this and claim that your company is doing worse than it was.

So, even these arguments focusing on slower sales growth are misleading. EV sales went up in 2024, and they went up by more than they did in the previous year. Some of us thought at the beginning of 2024 that this may end up being the case, even in the face of all this disinformation from anti-EV forces in media, industry and politics. Those of us who predicted that are vindicated, now that all the cards are on the table.

Gas car sales are in long-term decline

Meanwhile, one thing that all of these headlines ignore is that gas car sales are in long-term decline.

Among all the false focus on EV sales throughout the year, relatively fewer headlines have noted that global gas car sales hit their peak in 2017, have not hit that peak again, and likely will never hit that peak again. They’re down about a quarter from that peak, and show no signs of recovering, as it’s likely that any increase in vehicle sales will be taken up by growth in EV sales, not gas car sales.

So the growth in EV sales should look even stronger when compared to the long-term weakness of gas car sales.

This is great news for the world, and for everyone’s health, as gas cars create pollution that damages every organ in the body, kills millions of people per year, and is a primary driver of climate change which is already causing an uptick in natural disasters and threatens to displace over a billion people.

Of course, cars themselves, regardless of powertrain, still have numerous other negative environmental effects, and a shift to micromobility and mass transit would be even more environmentally preferable. But as long as gas cars are unfortunately still being made, seeing them trend downward and be replaced by vehicles that don’t spew poison from their tailpipes during every second of operation should be cause for celebration for all living things on Earth.

But what isn’t great is that, even with today’s news showing how false all of these headlines have been throughout the year, we’re not sure any of this is going to stop in our current post-truth era. The lies have not just been proven wrong today, but were wrong all along – EV sales weren’t down at any point over the course of the last year, but people kept ignoring the data and saying it.

Why does it matter? These lies influence policy – and cause more pollution

All of this matters because these constant incorrect statements have caused changes in plans for both automakers and governments who are pulling back their EV targets, and because it contributes to incorrect consumer perceptions which in turn actually can affect demand, all of which dooms humanity to worse health and climate outcomes.

Early on as this pattern of lies started to show itself in the media, David Reichmuth of the Union of Concerned Scientists suggested that one motivation behind the false headlines could be to influence regulations. The idea goes that, by pretending EV sales were “cooling,” despite that they were not, automakers could convince governments to pull back on their future commitments, thus allowing them to continue business as usual instead of having to put in effort to make actually good cars that don’t poison everything around them.

But those regulations already passed and timelines were loosened after automaker whining, so congratulations, you got what you wanted. You get to do little to change, you left open the door for new entrants to take over your industry, and you get to poison people a bit more for a few more years. You can stop lying now.

And yet, the headlines continued, and so many outlets continued to push the same false narrative that they had for more than a year claiming that EV sales are down. Some number of consumers who hear these constant falsehoods may have their EV buying decisions delayed as a result, which could in turn have suppressed EV sales below the even higher level that they might have been at without so much incorrect reporting.

And yes, higher EV sales growth rates would be preferable to the current status quo and are needed to meet climate targets. Or rather, a faster decline in gas car sales is what’s truly needed – and would be beneficial to all living beings on this planet.

The environment cannot wait, and humans can’t spend the next 10-20 years breathing down the poison coming out of the tailpipe of each gas-powered vehicle sold today. This needs to end and it needs to end now. The faster we act, the easier it will be for the world to reach carbon reductions that are objectively necessary to achieve.

But overall, the point of this article is that media headlines and political statements suggesting a slowdown in EV sales are simply incorrect. And it’s hard to imagine that these headlines, which continued for more than a year, were not intentional.

Each journalist, politician, or auto company CEO who perpetuated the myth of an EV sales slowdown could have read any one of our articles, or googled a single number showing year-over-year EV sales in any region or for most countries and most brands, and found that outside of a few outliers, they are still going up. The information is out there and easy to find.

Today’s report ought to be the final nail in the coffin that gets people to stop repeating this nonsense. Thankfully, we’ve seen it less in the last couple months, so hopefully it’s petering out by now, but we expect this falsehood will still linger on in some realms. But if you hear it, now you know the truth: EV sales are up, and they were up more in 2024 than they were in 2023.


Know what else is growing? Home solar! Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Published

on

By

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.

It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.

Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.

The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:

  • You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
  • You lose the adaptive air suspension
  • No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
  • Textile seats instead of vegan leather
  • Fewer speakers
  • No rear screen for the backseat
  • No power outlets in the bed

The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.

But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.

Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:

When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.

Tesla describes the product:

Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.

For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.

Electrek’s Take

I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.

Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.

I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.

It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.

It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

Published

on

By

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.

After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.

Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.

Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.

Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.

Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.

That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.

Why carbon prices matter

The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.

Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.

Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.

For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.

But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.

Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth

Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”

Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.

The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.

While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said: 

While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.

One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.

And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.

Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).

The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.


Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. 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. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

Published

on

By

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.

The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending