Trump’s Electric Vehicle Rollback Helps Consumers, Won’t Hurt Climate – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

Before we let Democratic legislators get on their high horses about the Trump administration’s obliteration of California’s climate goals via its elimination of the federal electric vehicle mandate, let’s look at one statistic that should put matters in perspective.

Between 2003 and 2019, California reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent thanks to billions of dollars in spending and myriad mandates designed to shift energy use to electric generation. Yet 2020’s wildfires “caused twice the amount of greenhouse gas emissions” that were saved over those sixteen years, according to a University of Chicago report. Fires are obliterating any savings from our state’s high-profile move away from fossil fuels.

If man-made climate change is for real, then it’s imperative that we adopt the right policies rather than spend all our time fighting about the wrong ones. And it’s about time that we start questioning the value of ongoing federal electric vehicle credits, which are designed to prop up sales of vehicles that most Americans don’t want to buy, at least not yet.

As usual, Trump often explains matters in the most divisive manner possible. He once said electric vehicle policies are a “transition to hell.” But Trump also said “that electric vehicles were suitable for a ‘small slice’ of the population and that ‘you want every type of car imaginable’ to be available,” as reported by the Guardian in August. That’s the critical point.

Since the election, Trump signed an executive order, “Unleashing American Energy,” which set forth the following goal:

To eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice … by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable.

As the Associated Press reported, electric vehicle sales nationwide account for only 8 percent of new vehicle sales — and automakers “have pulled back ambitious plans to go electric” following declining sales and falling prices. The Trump policy has particular impact in California, as the administration “seeks to terminate a federal exemption that allows California to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035.” Electric vehicle sales in California are much higher than the national average, at 25 percent of vehicle purchases. But even those sales have stalled and fall well short of the state’s goals.

California’s goals are of national importance given that, as the San Diego Union-Tribune summarized, “[D]ue to the sheer size of California’s automotive market, carmakers end up complying with the Golden State’s stricter standards, thus resulting in a de facto policy for the entire country.” I’m a big fan of federalism, even when our state typically pursues the wrong course, but this does seem like a legitimate national issue — especially given that it’s dependent on a federal waiver.

This order has set up a battle between California and the feds. California Governor Gavin Newsom in November vowed that the state will step up if the $7,500 federal tax credit evaporates, which appears likely. But the real issue doesn’t revolve around tax credits and mandates, but consumer demand. Electric vehicles certainly offer some advantages, although the cost savings aren’t nearly as great as promised given the relatively high price of using public fast chargers.

“The Trump administration is not the biggest problem,” Pacific Research Institute economist Wayne Winegarden told the Union-Tribune. “It’s the price tag, the lack of [charging] infrastructure … People still have fears taking them on long drives. They’re still a niche product, more of a second car for wealthy people.” Indeed, that’s the fatal flaw in this electric vehicle revolution — it’s led by policymakers and ideologues rather than consumers.

For instance, California banned the sale of new gas-powered lawn equipment beginning last year, which mainly caused people to nurse along aging gas-powered equipment. I recently was at a home improvement store and, yes, manufacturers have developed electric lawn tractors. From what I saw, they cost at least two times what similar gas-powered ones cost. As I explained on these pages previously, electric lawn mowers are great tools for small lots — but adoption should be driven by consumer needs, not policy dictates.

Regarding electric vehicles, like many Americans, I often take longer trips. I’m spontaneous in my driving, so I don’t like to plan ahead to keep the vehicle charged. A couple hundred miles of range won’t work for me — but I’m open-minded enough to reconsider once those battery ranges hit the 500-mile mark. I’m not being unreasonable here; it’s just that electric vehicles don’t work for my needs. Why can’t California policymakers at least consider that in their equation?

It’s mainly a market problem that can only be papered over by subsidies and rebates. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute argued: “Our lawmakers would do well to heed this wake-up call. Rather than push Americans into vehicles they don’t want and can’t afford, they should focus on policies that allow greater consumer freedom and foster true innovation. The road to a prosperous future isn’t paved with government mandates — it’s built on the bedrock of options and innovation.”

And consumers aren’t stupid, nor unconcerned about climate issues. Note that the sales of gas-electric hybrids soared by 44 percent last year, given that they provide fabulous gas mileage, reduce greenhouse gases, and eliminate the charging and range-anxiety concerns endemic in all-electric vehicles. One can buy a high-quality non-subsidized hybrid in the $30,000 range, which is another plus. Policymakers need to let the market work — and hybrids might simply be the market coming up with a transitional product.

In California, our lawmakers are committed to the idea of technology forcing — the use of unachievable regulations that force the industry into meeting the government-developed standards. As I noted previously for The American Spectator, this process creates unintended consequences and distorts economic incentives, thus making the government rather than the consumer the king. Now, consumers seem to be rebelling against California’s aggressive use of it, and Trump’s approach promises to reset the calculation in a consumer-oriented direction.

All this effort to arm-twist consumers isn’t getting anywhere. California’s emissions account for less than 1 percent of global emissions, so even if we somehow eliminated all emissions, it wouldn’t make a dent in what’s spewing from Chinese and Indian factories. The state isn’t doing a great job meeting its own goals. “California is poised to fail to meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals by the end of the decade unless it can triple its efforts to reduce carbon emissions statewide, according to a critical new report,” per a Los Angeles Times article from last March.

Meanwhile, you might have noticed California had one of the worst wildfires in decades — made worse by the state’s incompetent wildfire-battling strategies. Whatever the federal administration does on the electric vehicle front won’t make any noticeable difference in the fight against climate change unless other California policies change. That’s just reality.

Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our spring 2025 print magazine.