Why some Scrooges want to stop California from handing out ,000 e-bike vouchers

Why some Scrooges want to stop California from handing out $2,000 e-bike vouchers

Published

8 months ago

December 25, 2024

admin

In what couldn’t have been more on-the-nose timing, a group of local California newspapers published an editorial on Christmas Eve calling for the end of a generous $2,000 voucher program intended to help low-income Californians afford electric bicycles for transportation.

The editorial was provided by the Southern California News Group, a collection of California newspapers owned by the hedge fund Alden Global Capital.

In it, the writers air a number of grievances against the program, which recently closed its first round of applications intended to provide around 1,500 e-bike vouchers of between US $1,750 to $2,000 each. The vouchers can be used to offset the price of electric bicycles and associated gear such as protective equipment, locks, etc.

The first complaint in the op-ed is that the total number of vouchers provided in the first round was relatively small compared to the large size of the California e-bike market. However, instead of suggesting that the budget be increased to help more Californians achieve transportation independence, as we called for recently, the editorial takes the opposite position of suggesting that the program simply be canceled.

Next, the writers bemoan an increase in electric bicycle and electric scooter accidents in recent years, suggesting that this should be weighed against the benefits of helping more Californians afford such vehicles.

However, the argument seems to conveniently overlook the fact that the vast majority of such accidents aren’t caused by e-bike riders, but rather those riders are in fact usually the victims. The actual danger to safety on roads is vehicular traffic, i.e. cars and trucks.

Furthermore, many studies have shown that in crashes caused by e-bike riders, such as when an e-bike rider hits another cyclist or pedestrian, the injuries are on average considerably lighter and more recoverable than in car-related crashes.

If the goal was to protect Californians, then instead of firmly clutching their pearls, perhaps the editorial writers should have urged a reduction in the use of cars and trucks, not a reduction in e-bike vouchers.

The op-ed even goes on to lament the number of children riding electric bicycles in California, though admits further on that children aren’t eligible to receive vouchers as part of California’s e-bike incentive program.

Electrek’s Take

California’s e-bike incentive program is certainly far from perfect. We even discussed many of its shortcomings last week. But the program’s essence is to do a good thing—using public tax money to benefit the public. The solution should be to improve the program, not to remove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that most people who are vehemently against the program are those who don’t directly benefit from it, even if they fail to realize that they will ultimately indirectly benefit.

Electric bicycles are one of the most cost-effective ways to provide transportation independence to marginalized and low-income groups. But it’s more than just that. They’re also the best way to get people out of cars and reduce traffic for everyone. Even ignoring the long-term environmental effects related to reducing the impacts of climate change, e-bikes are uniquely capable of making a larger impact on air quality today by helping to remove sources of emissions from a vehicle’s production all the way through its lifetime use and even to its eventual disposal/recycling. When someone rides an e-bike instead of taking a car, taxi, or bus, everyone’s lungs benefit.

Sure, the California program isn’t perfect. But if a media group owned by a wealthy hedgefund and catering to a well-to-do readership doesn’t like it, then that means it’s probably doing something helpful to people who actually need it. That’s the kind of world I want to live in, at least for as long as it’s still liveable.

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

Environment

Why a landmark ruling from the world’s top court puts financial markets on notice

Published

4 hours ago

August 15, 2025

admin

Why a landmark ruling from the world’s top court puts financial markets on notice

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.

John Thys | Afp | Getty Images

Gripped by corporate earnings season and U.S. President Donald Trump‘s back-and-forth tariff policy, investors largely shrugged off a historic climate ruling from the world’s top court.

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.

Environment

Global EV sales hit 10.7M in 2025 – Europe surges, US stalls

Published

11 hours ago

August 14, 2025

admin

Global EV sales hit 10.7M in 2025 – Europe surges, US stalls

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

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.

Environment

Volkswagen is making some EV owners pay extra to unlock full potential

Published

11 hours ago

August 14, 2025

admin

Volkswagen is making some EV owners pay extra to unlock full potential

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 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.

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.