How quickly things change.
It was barely more than a year ago that climate activists and federal bureaucrats thought they had maneuvered the internal combustion engine (ICE) automobile to the brink of extinction. ICE vehicles had become like dinosaurs, inferior to their new competitors the EVs, and therefore headed for the scrap heap of history. Customers were flocking to the trendy new EVs, which were seeing rapidly rising sales.
And the all-powerful federal bureaucracy was going to give the final push to put ICE vehicles out of their misery. On June 7, 2024 President Biden’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had issued a final rule (“Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond”) jacking up mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage, the only path forward for vehicle manufacturers would be rapid conversion to making only EVs. NHTSA’s mileage rule had also quickly followed an equally draconian mandate from EPA, finalized on April 18, 2024 (“Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles”) setting strict and declining limits for CO2 emissions that no ICE vehicles would be able to meet by the early 2030s. And meanwhile, 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act had extended a $7500 tax credit to buyers of new EVs through December 31, 2032.
So all the pieces were in place. By some time in the early 2030s, it would be effectively illegal to sell new ICE cars, and they would be rapidly disappearing from the roads.
Well, not so fast. Suddenly, the rapid advance of the EV may have stalled out completely. The federal regulators have reversed their direction. And customer preferences seemingly favorable to EVs may turn out to evaporate as soon as federal tax benefits end, an event now just a couple of months away.
NHTSA’s CAFE standards just got eviscerated by the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. Although the standards themselves have not yet been rescinded, the OBBB re-set the enforcement mechanism to have a maximum penalty of zero. This is from a July 8, 2025 memo from the law firm Sidley & Austin:
In one of its many changes, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4, 2025, eliminated civil penalties for noncompliance with federal fuel economy standards. Specifically, Section 40006 of the Act amends the language of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute to reset the maximum civil penalty to $0.00. Although the statute and its implementing regulations otherwise remain in place, this amendment removes any civil penalties for producing passenger cars and light trucks that do not meet fuel economy requirements.
As to the EPA-mandated CO2 emissions limits for vehicles, EPA announced on March 12, 2025 that it was beginning a process of reconsidering the vehicle greenhouse gas emissions rule that had just been adopted less than a year before. Excerpt:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In addition to imposing over $700 billion in regulatory and compliance costs, these rules provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate that takes away Americans’ ability to choose a safe and affordable car for their family and increases the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.
That one may be in the regulatory grinder for many months, but with little doubt as to what the final result will be, namely full rescission.
And the $7500 per new vehicle tax credit? After just having been extended to 2032 by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the credit has now been modified by the OBBBA to end as of September 30, 2025. From Kiplinger, July 12:
With the passage of President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax reform, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) the federal EV tax credit will expire for vehicles purchased or leased after September 30, 2025. As a result, buyers have only a short window left to take advantage of these federal savings.
All of a sudden, EVs and ICE vehicles are set to compete on a completely level playing field, with no mandates or tax credits propping up the EV side of the competition. How will that turn out? It remains to be seen, but data from the first half of the year indicate that the previous rapid increase in EV sales may already be stalling out. In a reversal for a previously rapidly-growing market segment, sales of EVs in the second quarter of 2025 declined significantly from the same period the prior year. From Cox Automotive, July 14, 2025:
[S]ales of new electric vehicles (EVs) in the second quarter of 2025 were lower year over year by 6.3%, in line with the Cox Automotive forecast. A total of 310,839 new EVs were sold in the U.S, down from 331,853 in the same period a year earlier. Sales in Q2 were higher than in Q1 by 4.9%, and total EV sales through the first half of 2025 set a record at 607,089, representing a 1.5% year-over-year increase.
Cox continues to predict a spike in EV sales in the third quarter of 2025, in the run-up to the expiration of the tax credit on September 30. However, after that, it is entirely likely that there will be a significant decline. Without the government mandates and subsidies, it’s hard to see EVs expanding much beyond being a niche product used as a second (or third) vehicle by affluent buyers.
Well, all you Americans can come over here to buy EVs ‘cos GB has just reinstated a big discount for those folk who buy a new EV.
The steering wheel will be on the wrong side for you but so what?
The US EPA will soon issue a recission of the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding. What will Mad Ed do?
Being both mad and dumb, he’ll carry on regardless.
So will California, New York and Massachusetts.
Only if the courts decide to uphold the California exception. Otherwise, national (Federal) emission regulations prevail.
Odd place for a states rights advocate to wind up in.
That will be a great day! A tipping point to end the climate cult.
Starmer has made it clear that the party’s energy strategy is at the core of its commitment to tackle the cost of living.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-uk-clean-energy-superpower-fuel-poverty
Which inevitably means the cost of living – and taxes – will be going up… and up. Where is Mad Ed? What is he doing?
Miliband pushing to recognise Palestinian state – The Telegraph
Right.
New £63 million boost for Britain’s electric vehicle revolution
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-63-million-boost-for-britains-electric-vehicle-revolution
And no takers. Who can afford EVs?
“Shipping giant Matson declared last week that it would no longer transport electric vehicles (EVs) or plug-in hybrids on its vessels, citing the fire risks posed by lithium-ion batteries. “
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/07/29/the-false-promises-of-electric-vehicles-are-being-exposed/
It’s getting silly… Morning Midas, Felicity Ace (2022), and Fremantle Highway (2023)
I endorse this message, as Americans might say…
Don’t forget the sister ship, Sincerity Ace lost in 2019. Although they still claim the cause of the fire is ‘unknown’..
Worse than we thought…
Listening to Trump humiliate Starmer – and Khan – was delightful.
Starmer was way out of his depth and humiliated yet again…
‘I’m not a fan of your mayor. I think he’s done a terrible job, the Mayor of London… a nasty person.’
Starmer intervened to say: ‘He’s a friend of mine, actually.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14948979/flashpoints-Trump-meeting-Starmer-Sadiq-Khan-UK-wind-Jeffrey-Epstein-island.html
Trump is dead right, Khan is a very nasty [sectarian] person….
“Tooting election race infected by anti-Ahmadiyya hate campaign“
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/8451614.tooting-election-race-infected-by-anti-ahmadiyya-hate-campaign/
“Tory candidate Mark Clarke had to be locked into a room for his own safety after he was mistaken for Mr Butt by fundamentalists.
Mr Clarke’s election agent, Andre Walker, said: “We had to be locked in a room for our own security. The mosque committee were embarrassed by it and it was tense for a while…it was clear Nasser’s arrival would have been dangerous and a real problem. There was anger an Ahmadi was running.”
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/8451614.tooting-election-race-infected-by-anti-ahmadiyya-hate-campaign/
Needless to say, the msm ‘missed’ that and Khan won the election by a whisker.
Sadiq Khan’s only job is to temporize until Muslims take over the UK and impose Sharia.
All his posturing about seeing to London itself is just window-dressing.
‘He’s a friend of mine, actually.’
Trump does not possess the legendary British patience.
Reminds me a little of Charles Murray at Middlebury College.
“Britain’s electric vehicle revolution”
I went Internet searching for variations of “percent British autos imported” and got nothing but tarriff news for pages and pages. I still can’t tell whether it’s fit to make a snarky comment about not building their own revolution. Does Britain have a healthy auto industry? Are there brands that a person from USA would recognize and say “oh yeah, I remember that”? All the brands I can think of have been bought by some foreign company.
Britain is busy de-industrialising.
Let Norway do it. They do a better job of having it both ways.
Wait, I thought purchasing an EV meant that you cared about “saving the planet”. It was supposed to give you virtue signaling rights. But now it appears that it all comes down to the almighty dollar!
I am so disappointed right now.
Bruce, have heart. True believers were disappointed – or worse – when Musk became the face of DOGE. Torching a couple of Tesla dealerships just underscores their confusion.
An EV makes sense if you are an older couple living in the country with a driveway where you can charge it, and you never drive more than 100 miles in a day, and your driving is mostly local to the store or for short day trips. Slow charge times, range, the price of public charge points will not be an issue.
For most other people a mild hybrid makes sense now, they are reliable, they get much better mileage than regular ICE, they drive like any automatic ICE car, and they don’t need charging points.
The idea of moving the population as a whole to pure EVs though? Its not going to happen. People will hang on to their ICE or hybrids. Modern cars, you can mostly keep them going for another few years without really high repair bills. So the result of the attempt will either be failure, or if you make it impossible to buy mild hybrids or ICE, it will be the destruction of the new car market. And you will then have to raise prohibitive taxes on driving ICE. Which will be followed shortly afterwards by ejection from office.
The UK is headed down this route. Company cars are almost the only source of demand for EVs (apart from the niche market segment of the rural elderly), and that’s for tax reasons.
The transition is not going to happen. At least, not without a revolution in battery tech. And without that, the attempt will run into a brick wall of consumer refusal.
I enjoy driving a sports car with a manual transmission regardless.
I’ve done that since the 80s, but the manual is becoming a rare breed.
Not really, if you’re only doing ~6,000 miles p/a, then by the time the battery dies, you’ve probably only covered 60,000 – 70,000 miles, whereas an ICE might be good for another 20 years and another 100,000 miles.
IMO, BEV only make sense for a narrow niche of people who travel 500+ miles p/w, but rarely more than 200 in any one day, someone with an unusually long commute for example.
A city runabout…
A 15 minute city.
EVs still don’t make sense even if your “use case” fits their worse-than-useless character, because they have that nasty propensity to light themselves on fire – and your house with it in all likelihood.
“Modern cars, you can mostly keep them going for another few years without really high repair bills.”
Was in the 1980s or for trucks and muscle cars.
Small commuter cars are too densely packed under the hood for engine repair, too integrated in terms of panels and accessories for bodywork and made of plastic (get a new one) instead of metal (fix the old one).
Certain things like automatic window motors or trunk lights are easily accessible. Certain other things like heater? Forget it.
Modern cars have enormous costs. My Subaru dealer adds AU$700 to the service that includes changing the spark plugs. A regular oil change service with a mandatory list of checks is around AU$300. My daughter’s Golf needed a new water pump that doubled as its super charger and that was AU$1400.
Is your argument you can do it yourself for less or that you know someone who is good but will do it for less?
>>> Story Tip:
National climate inaction just got harder – DW – 07/23/2025
and the lawyers are filled with joy…
>>> Story Tip:
Is the EU’s Green Hydrogen Drive in Africa another Exploitative Pipe Dream?
The gas is greener on the other side,,,
I don’t think zeroing out the CAFE fines will have much effect. All it takes is one change of administration to unzero it. No car manufacturer is going to change their ten year or even 5 year plans on that basis. The best that will happen is some minor shuffling of production goals; more SUVs and trucks, fewer small cars. They won’t suddenly start adding V-8s to more cars or shut down small car production lines.
The difference is that zeroing out the fines, is a change in the laws. Not the regulations.
In order to switch it back, a future administration will have to get congress to change the law again.
Big, risk averse, companies don’t like public law breaking decisions even if the penalty is zero.
The GOP margin in Congress is thin. Trump only won by 1.5% against possibly the most reviled candidate I can remember. There’s too much risk of flipping and passing a worse bill to bet a company on.
If they limit their actions to that. But the EPA push in the direction of sanity will go further.
Only until Congress and the President flip.
😄😆😅🤣😂
In what fantasy world did that happen?! Well over 90% of new vehicle sales have remained ICE vehicles, and that wasn’t changing despite all the taxpayer funded tax credits etc.
Rapid advance?! 😄😆😅🤣😂 only when you look at “percentage increases.” And still well over 90% ICE new vehicle sales.
A “niche product used as a 2nd or 3rd vehicle by affluent virtue signallers” is all that EVs ever were or will be.
Essentially nobody given free choice would trade a car that can take you long distances and refuel in 5 minutes for one that goes not so far and takes 45 minutes to refuel (IF you’re first in line). Especially when the latter choice has a nasty habit of lighting itself on fire.
Add to that the fact that you will go through 2 or 3 batteries in the time it takes to wear out one IC engine. Each battery costing as much as twice what an engine replacement would cost.
Had to go back to see that the quotes were actually Menton’s sarcasm. He wasn’t directly quoting anyone.
It didn’t present like sarcasm.
I think we can all agree that if it takes government subsidies or tax credits to keep the EV market viable, then it’s something that can exist in a capitalist market.
Can exist?
Micro economics – Supply and demand curves is a concept the general needs a better understanding
A – products sell at a price where the demand curve and the supply curve intersect.
B – A tax credit artificially shifts the demand curve up resulting in a higher sales price.
C – With the tax credit, the buyer purchases the product at a price close to the natural market price after the credit ( inflated price less tax credit = natural market price)
D – the effect is the seller gets most of the benefit of the buyers tax credit in the form of a higher sales price. The buyer breaks even (almost)
Not all EV incentives have been eliminated. Most states still give free use of roads. Not sure how federal taxes on fuel work, the federal government may also be providing this subsidy. And some, like California, allow EVs full use of the HOV lanes.
HOV lanes are just another way for state governments to subsidize the products they want you to buy and the behaviors they want you to adopt.
Realize that ALL subsidies have failed to achieve ANY reduction in global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore ALL the tax money spent on the effort so far was wasted as its intended effect did not happen at all.
Let them have their last meal, in 3 to 5 years time you’ll hardly see them on the road anymore due to the lack of spare batteries lol.
but… but.. The Electric Viking doesn’t agree. His latest video. He must never check the news.
Gas Cars Will Disappear From The United States Sooner Than You Think
Does the Big Beautiful Bill terminate state laws that ban ICE vehicles?
Motto of the true Climate Grifter: “Always be grifting”.
look at the expression on his face- looks like he knows the truth but just can’t admit it
another case of “smoke too much dope”? 🤣
What color is the sky in Electric Viking’s world. Even with his rose colored glasses, it’s electric blue.
When the owners face the price tags of maintenance and repair (primarily tires and batteries), the EVs will find themselves at the precipice awaiting the signal to start the lemming march over the cliff.
EVs have their place, of course, a niche. Mandates are depriving citizens of liberty and pursuit of happiness.
It takes so much time and effort to make a significantly different product line. The design, testing, meetings, redesigns, arguments, …. years of wasted effort replicated at every manufacturer that attempted to follow regulations.
The problems in American vehicle sales are apparently not limited to EVs, there may be problems with ICE sales efforts as well.
In exploring one of the less reputable corners of the Internet (YouTube) I recently came across a video with the “definitely not over-the-top” title of “Car Market APOCALYPSE: $847 Billion in Unsold Cars! (Industry DEAD)”.
.
In the comments underneath can be found gems such as :
“The industry priced out 95% of customers who could comfortably afford cars and then panic when cars are not selling. Sounds like insanity to me.”
“America wants a good product at a fair price – instead were offered subpar products that no one asked for and unbelievable prices – greed – you reap what you sow”
“Dear auto industry: we want cars in the $18,000-$22,000 range that gets decent mileage. Stop giving us $100,000 cars with all the bells and whistles.”
“Who can afford these prices? Not me.”
“Remember when you could walk into a dealer and buy an honest pickup for 4K and understand how to fix it yourself on your driveway? I remember the Ford Ranger with a four cylinder engine, no unnecessary electric garbage and easy to repair. Do we really want or need all this electric features?”
“Customers refused to buy any car or truck cost more than $45k now. We don’t need more luxuries, amenities, or high tech junks, we need reliables.”
.
NB : The last one has echos of “Wind & Solar” in the electricity market … but I digress …
Does this mean that America is just like Europe, where the 97% of rip-off artists give the 3% of honest car dealers a bad name ?!?
The One Big Terrible Bill is going to hamstring the US’s competitiveness in the global EV market and further cede global economic power to China. If you all are celebrating that, well that’s pretty sad.
So less competitive in making something essentially nobody asked for or wants?!
Yeah that sounds like a big Debbie Downer..
Nobody wants? EVs are expected to outsell ICE vehicles in China this year, the largest car market on earth. Europe is going to follow suit within a decade. The US is being absolutely clobbered in this space and our manufacturing is going to be left in the dust, The Big Terrible Bill absolutely guarantees that won’t change for the foreseeable future.
Yes, China – shining example of a free market economy. The “Big Besutiful Bill” does nothing to prevent US car manufacturers from investing in or manufacturing EV’s. Theyt are stiull free to do that if they belive that the market for them is there. I’m sure that Ford andf GM are really looking forward toinvesting $$ to develop new EV models that they can ship from the US to China to take advantage of that huge market.
In China, there is no free choice of products, so using China as an example of consumer demand for the rest of the world is just silly. ALL production in China occurs at the direction of and with the permission of the Chinese Communist Party.
But you already knew that.
The EV market in China is thriving because of huge advancements in EV and battery tech, often making EVs a cheaper and better choice for Chinese consumers than ICE vehicles. The US is lagging wildly far behind in this tech and it is absolute going to dominate the global market over the next decade or so. You have to be completely and utterly ignorant of the Chinese EV market to think otherwise.
Nothing to do with incentives, then….
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-announces-extension-purchase-tax-break-nevs-until-2027-2023-06-21/
“June 21 (Reuters) – China unveiled on Wednesday a 520 billion yuan ($72.3 billion) package of tax breaks over four years for electric vehicles (EVs) and other green cars, its biggest yet for the industry as it seeks to boost slower auto sales growth.”
Two years in, so plenty of that 72.3 billion still to come.
The Chinese government sees an emerging market it already dominates, one that will drive massive economic and technological growth, and it’s investing aggressively to solidify that lead. Ironically, Trump has correctly identified a threat to American global competitiveness in China. The problem is that his solutions, gutting support for clean tech and EVs, virtually guarantee that China continues to dominate, at our expense.
well move to China then, lol
Just as long as we can get all the Cybertrucks off the road.
Elimination of subsidies for the solar and wind connected rubbish has been a long time coming. The elimination should be law, not executive action, to slow its Demo-lition later.
Conservation and efficiency are ALWAYS desirable, even critical. Energy efficiency can double or triple the life span of our fossil fuels. Waste, whether by subsidy or waste by inefficiency, is still waste.
Above, and I quote: “…mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage…”
That statement is incorrect.
The Mercedes Hybrid (attached photo) is not a baby carriage, but a full size sedan with admirable performance characteristics. It achieved 67+ miles per gallon of fuel more than a decade ago. The Volkswagen Polo is a Turbo-diesel compact car the same size as a Prius, achieves 71 MPH. The brouhaha over VW mileage tests concerned one mpg error.
The modern diesel engine is also clean. That transition happened before 2010, but the Polo is still not sold in the USA, due to outdated laws banning diesels. Worse, the USA mandates EU standard, low sulfur diesel, raising the diesel price above gasoline – to sell in Europe at higher prices than here.
The fuel efficiency of autos can substantially increase through innovation; however, auto companies prefer to maximize profits, not mileage. ICE autos have reached 260 mpg in research compact size autos. Regenerative braking, aerodynamic body styles (e.g. Tesla extends its range via aerodynamics), can add another 20% to the mpg. Turbines can also reach higher efficiencies and can use low grade hydrocarbon fuels.
Innovation in efficiency needs encouragement, possibly even subsidy, as long as it returns a positive improvement in efficiency. The 20-25% efficiency of an Otto cycle engine can obviously be improved a factor of two or three. A full-size sedan with 100 mpg is not out of the question.
References? Very large two-stroke marine diesel engines can reach 55% due to their larger size, two-stroke operation, variable compression ratios, advanced waste heat recovery, turbochargers and fuel injection. They also benefit from predominantly fixed-speed operation. If the manufacturers could produce more efficient marine engines they would, as fuel accounts for a large percentage of operating expense for cargo ships.
Modern diesel-electric locomotives convert about 30-36% of diesel fuel potential into useful work, taking into account both engine and drivetrain losses. Again, manufacturers would produce more efficient engines if they could.
Gasoline engines can certainly be improved, but I don’t see anything on the horizon to get a two- or three-fold efficiency increase.
But improving engine efficiency only looks at one side — why does nobody talk about increasing fuel supply and reducing fuel cost by expanded exploration and new extraction and refining technologies?
Both are needed and technology will evolve.
In theory even a fusion reactor works..
Certainly ICEs can be improved, honestly I believe to much more modest levels than you predict…and at what cost?
The Dem growth and development strategies of subsidized power markets, subsidized transportation, subsidized jobs, and subsidized families had its limits after all.
Unfortunately, Canada EV grants for purchasers are returning after a 6 month hiatus.
An Europe has nothing better to do than to impeed the circulation of regular ICV and reselling or exporting them. Straight to the trash if your car is older than 10 years and can’t pass vehicle inspection or is deemed “unreparable” by some paid bootlicker.
I simplified a bit, but that’s more or less the reality from 2026 on. You as an owner are stripped of your right of ownership..sounds fun ey? Not even in communist countries went they ever that far.
All government support and mandates for EVs should immediately be withdrawn.
jacking up mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage,
Toyota Prius (standard hybrid)
Hyundai Elantra Hybrid
Kia Niro Hybrid
Toyota Camry Hybrid
Prius Prime (plug‑in hybrid)
Honda Insight (first gen, early 2000s)
Volvo V50 1.6 DRIVe (diesel spread)
VW Lupo 3L, Daihatsu Charade (EU diesels)
Cognitive dissonance
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.
This is relevant to all those people who want to reduce the size and power of government and reduce the amount of money they give to the government whilst at the same time disliking the idea that this reduction in tax paid to the government exists for a product they dont like.
What nobody is mentioning is that nearly half of EV owners return to ICE (or hybrid) vehicles. Apparently they “ain’t all that.”
https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future-mobility/our-insights
McKinsey Mobility Consumer Insights (Apr 2025)
Earlier McKinsey (mid‑2024)
https://www.teslarati.com/study-less-than-1-percent-ev-owners-switch-back-ice/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Global findings (Global EV Drivers Alliance, Dec 2024)
Yes, I was referring to the mid-2024 survey. I don’t have enough interest to follow this closely and was holding on to older information. Question is, what has happened in the course of a year to change so many owner’s minds? It’s curious and one might wonder if one of the surveys was flawed? I’ll not suggest which one because it could just as easily be the one from 2024 as the more recent one.
Or growing acceptance with ongoing improving charging network. At the end of the day, the EV market share is the only indisputable measure and I think its fair to say EV market share is growing.