Should Donald Trump be elected this fall, he should waste no time in reversing Joe Biden’s electric vehicle mandate. He not only overstepped his authority, he set the country directly on a course that would bring nothing but trouble. [emphasis, links added]
Acting like the authoritarian that the Democrats and media claim that Donald Trump is, Biden, with a pen and maybe a phone, has ordered through his Environmental Protection Agency to issue a rule that will require Americans to replace their internal combustion engine automobiles with battery-powered cars.
The rule doesn’t require Americans to buy electric vehicles, nor does it directly outlaw the sale of automobiles that run on gasoline.
But in effect, it is a mandate and a ban.
Forcing the country into EVs is an egregious abuse of power by executive edict. Biden’s rule has been referred to, for good reason, as “a “crackdown on cars,” a “bloodbath” for consumers, and an example of chutzpah.
American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers wisely suggests that “the American people need to rise up against this rule and reject it.”
Yes, he has a financial interest in making that statement. But he knows, as do many, that the booted regulatory regime we’re living under “has become the government’s primary mode of controlling Americans,” as Philip Hamburger, a Columbia University law professor, wrote in his 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”
While “administrative law has avoided much rancor because its burdens have been felt mostly by corporations,” says Hamburger, the beast is no longer being contained.
“Increasingly,” Hamburger says, “administrative law has extended its reach to individuals. The entire society therefore now has opportunities to feel its hard edge.”
In terms of practicality, well, to borrow and modify an aphorism from Swedish socialist economist Assar Linbeck, Biden couldn’t make more of a mess if he bombed his own country (which he has implied is not an impossibility).
Adding tens of millions of EVs to the roads will strain the grid right up to and beyond its capacity, as charging competes with “electricity-hungry data centers and clean-technology factories” for power. (But that’s fine because the government can then institute rationing – a dream come true for the political left.)
At the same time, Americans’ wallets will grow flatter as they have to pay higher electricity rates, scrimp to pay EVs’ luxury-item sticker prices, cover their costly repairs, and keep up with steep insurance premiums.
The EV mandate will also devastate the domestic automobile industry – yes, it would be a bloodbath, or a death spiral – and decrease mobility in an ostensibly free society.
Top image via YouTube screencap
Read rest at Issues & Insights
There is more than one reason the EV mandate can not work. The primary reason is the average family can not afford them. Elon Musk even volunteered this fact during an interview. If most consumers could afford them they are limited by the availability of minerals for the batteries. This is worse than many realize because it isn’t just the existence of the minerals. As the higher content ores run out, ores with lower contentions must be mined. The return is a diminishing logarithmic relationship resulting in the pricing being an increasing logarithmic relationship. Beyond these two obstacles many if not most power grids can not handle the number of EV’s that the Biden administration wants to force on the nation.
Take good care of your current vehicle. Like Cubans, you will be driving it for years and years and then some.
Agree but unfortunately the 1950s cars in Cuba were very simple to maintain by most anybody with some level of mechanical skills. However today’s cars are bursting in computer technology. Not gonna be as easy.
Steve, you are right but if you think about continuing to maintain the cars in the future that we own now is not different than maintaining them right now. It means taking them to professionals. My family can only afford older cars with the newest we are running being a 2007 and the oldest a 1999 model. From past experience the main problem we see in following the “Cuba syndrome” is the availability of parts. I hope that the market will respond to the increased demand for parts for older cars.