8 ms·

I seriously hope the next US administration stops bending over backwards to protect the big 3. If we want to address climate change, we're gonna low cost green

I seriously hope the next US administration stops bending over backwards to protect the big 3. If we want to address climate change, we're gonna low cost greentech and china is currently the king of that in evs, batteries and solar. If we're really so concerned about 'supply chain' issues we could build up a strategic reserve of batteries and solar panels. If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as possible. One of the 'good news' stories re: the recent datacenter buildout is that grid storage is now being more widely deployed, and that compliments the roll out of renewable energy.

throw0101c 1y ago
> […] I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as possible. Because your own industrial base atrophies is one reason: > Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car. > Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now That's (partly) what did-in Japan and Germany in during WW2: they couldn't produce enough to actually run a war. Even the just the UK was out-producing Germany in many measures (e.g., aircraft). The Big 3 completely retooled for war in very short order. If things go hot again you want factory capacity available for retooling to be possible. A society just has to be willing to pay for that capacity instead of deciding that they want the cheapest widget made somewhere else. Given the use of drones in Russia-Ukraine, what is the drone-making capacity of the US versus some other countries?
epolanski 1y ago
Also, the only way to make your companies competitive is by having them face competition, not by protecting them by artificial and anti consumer duties.
tonyhart7 1y ago
They already doing that for decades, the problem is that move making china rich. Which is US don't want
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  The US has no ability to stop China from becoming wealthy, they already have the will and political leadership to build high tech for a global market. At this point, it's just angry old people sticking brooms in their own bike wheels at speed. How we made it: will China be the first electrostate? - https://www.ft.com/content/e1a232c7-52a0-44dd-a13b-c4af54e74282 https://www.ft.com/content/e1a232c7-52a0-44dd-a13b-c4af54e74... | https://archive.today/OSFYo https://archive.today/OSFYo
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    They sure has, problem is people also like cheap goods
Dylan16807 1y ago
> If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as possible. Are they even doing that? A few billion dollars a year is meaningful but it's not dumping for an industry this big.
- asadotzler 1y ago
  Anyone who mentions China's subsides without mentioning the US's $2.5B - $3.0B in subsidies for EVs is ignorant and bluffing, or intentionally misleading you.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    It depends on what they're worried about. A subsidy tied to car purchase is mostly irrelevant to an accusation of artificially cheap exports, because those subsidies don't apply to exports. Unless they're crazily large amounts or other manipulation is happening, they mostly just help the company scale faster and the export prices are legitimate.
thewebguyd 1y ago
Hear, Hear. We are seriously missing out over here in the US and continuing to be protectionist over the big 3 automakers is not going to improve our climate situation. I consistently hear 2 main arguments against electric vehicles in the US. Range, and cost. BYD & China is solving both. Range is important because we lack charging infrastructure still, and anyone who rents at an apartment complex, you are screwed and have to rely on public charging stations. Big batteries are important for these folks. People also still have range anxiety, so when a fuel efficient gas car will get ~400+ miles per full tank, only having more expensive cars with a ~250 mile range is a non starter for a lot of people in the US. Cost is self explanatory. One of the better electric cars sold in the US, the Ioniq 6 STARTS at $38k, which is already more than a significant chunk of the population can afford - you're looking at close to an $800/month payment at current rates for entry level. BYD could sell in the US at around $20,000.
- linotype 1y ago
  Now do Germany.
- rconti 1y ago
  Hopefully this will allow cheaper cars to get ~400mi of range but I doubt we'll ever see much more in mainstream cars. Batteries are simply too expensive and too heavy. Fuel tanks are cheap to build, but we still see no gasoline passenger cars with large tanks. The manufacturers sort of standardize around a "normal" capacity, and just want the one option to design, manufacture, crash test, etc.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Not to say EV charging has been solved, it is still very much in progress, but 64% of Americans live within 2 miles of a public charging station. We should continue to use policy to encourage "EV ready" infra in residential and apartment settings, places of business, commercial/retail, government, etc, but lots of folks can be served today. The vast majority US housing stock is single family homes (attached and detached combined), and those can, in most cases, be upgraded to support a dedicated circuit for charging. And, to your point, you'll also want to mandate new apartment building build outs are EV charging ready for their tenants. https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/23/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/23/electric-ve... Key takeaways from the above: > The number of EV charging stations has more than doubled since 2020. In December 2020, the Department of Energy reported that there were nearly 29,000 public charging stations nationwide. By February 2024, that number had increased to more than 61,000 stations. Over 95% of the American public now lives in a county that has at least one public EV charging station. > EV charging stations are most accessible to residents of urban areas: 60% of urban residents live less than a mile from the nearest public EV charger, compared with 41% of those in the suburbs and just 17% of rural Americans. Maps: https://supercharge.info/map https://supercharge.info/map | https://www.plugshare.com/ https://www.plugshare.com/ | https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest?country=US&fuel=ELEC https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest?country=US&fu...
p_j_w 1y ago
> If we want to address climate change Given our recent election results, it seems to me that we don't want to.
chneu 1y ago
> If we want to address climate change At least 40% of Americans do not give a crap about addressing climate change. Many Americans see EVs as a waste of time and a direct attack on the US.
Aloisius 1y ago
> If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity Because the unfair advantage distorts the market leading to a potentially otherwise noncompetitive product destroying the competition at which point they can (and will) jack up prices, so not only do you get more expensive vehicles, but you've also destroyed an entire industry and several adjacent industries at the same time. It's not like you can't just snap your fingers and re-establish a vehicle manufacturing supply chain once it disappears. I get people just want cheap vehicles, but the short-term benefit simply isn't worth it.
- Dah00n 1y ago
  And US subsides are of course totally okay and not unfair at all? The US does the same thing while it cries and points fingers. The same in the EU.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Non-discriminatory subsidies are, in fact, ok. Purchase discounts for EVs in the US, for instance, didn't discriminate based on manufacturer. You could buy a foreign made EV and you still get the discount. Discriminatory subsidies, like for instance, funneling billions of dollars per year into Chinese-owned manufacturers of EVs, parts and even even shippers, is not ok. The US has, of course, been accused of discriminatory subsidies as well and countries have retaliated, correctly, with increased tariffs to offset the unfair advantage.
tw04 1y ago
The big 3 are not the ones asking for this. It actively hurts them. They aren’t delusional, they NEED government support to compete globally against Chinese EVs. Every big 3 CEO to a T has made it clear they know it’s if, not when ICE sales become a rounding error on their books. Point your gun where it belongs which is the oil industry and its lobbyists.
- pstuart 1y ago
  > Point your gun where it belongs which is the oil industry and its lobbyists. They are indeed the enemy. They've managed to convince a large swath of the population to hate everything that is not fossil-fueled.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Why can't we have better marketing for different types of people. Example: God made the sun and the sky. That's where heaven is. Fossil fuels come from under the earth. Something else really bad is down there too. I don't want to spell it out, but it's the opposite of heaven. Or for the "independent, lion-not-sheep" types: I don't depend on big companies. My energy comes from up above. You can't take the sky from me. etc.
    - johnea 1y ago
      Nice one! I've actually used this is meat space conversation while traveling the southeast US. When I'm in public conversation, say in a coffee shop, restaurant, or crowded park, and I know I'm in a place with a lot of "christians" around me, I'll say things very much like you describe: "Don't you know? Oil comes up from hell! It's made by the devil!" "Sunlight is falling down from heaven, it's a gift directly from god." "But for some reason, so many christians are against solar power, and want to burn more oil." Then I'll wrap up with a little apocalypse evangelism: "The bible says that in the end times, most christians will start to follow false prophets, and they're all going to go to hell!" I doubt it has much lasting effect, but I do see a few heads turn, with questioning, worried looks on their faces. You're the first other person I've seen mention this as a means of "converting the sinners".
billfor 1y ago
If you are willing to take the risk that if China invades Taiwan your car will no longer work or be serviceable.
- djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
  I highly doubt that would happen. Why would China want to destroy their reputation as the world's manufacturer?
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    Because someone takes power who is more concerned with image than economic long term success. See the US for a recent example of a country abdicating its strong economic position for no reason beyond the leaders' ego.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    Because ideology is a hell of a drug. Xi is a true believer.
    - Dah00n 1y ago
      With that logic, capitalism and "democracy" are ideologies too. The US is the same, just different.
      - Rover222 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - mensetmanusman 1y ago
        robot arm movements *all beliefs are the same*
outside1234 1y ago
I mean, at this pace, this isn't even green tech. Electric cars are just better and within two years will have better range. We are risking being totally left behind because they want to keep burning gasoline for Texas.
georgeburdell 1y ago
GM has the Bolt, Blazer, Siverado, and Hummer EV's. I think they're genuinely trying to make EV's work. Ford and Stellantis on the other hand...
- triceratops 1y ago
  They cancelled the Bolt in 2023.
  - tzs 1y ago
    ...and later announced it would be coming back but on the new battery platform they were using for their other new EVs. It's supposed to go into production later this year.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Ford has ambitious plans. It's still vapor ware, but promising. https://www.axios.com/2025/06/18/ford-china-ev https://www.axios.com/2025/06/18/ford-china-ev Stellantis sells a good number of EVs in Europe, but almost entirely in form factors that won't sell in North America. Perhaps this expertise and experience will be useful. I hope domestic manufacturers survive the "protection" Trump is giving them, but the protection may prove fatal.
bigcat12345678 1y ago
> meet our climate goals as quickly as possible heheh The climate thing itself is a giant oligarchy influenced manipulative game play. This nation is built on capital. Capital by its nature looks to dominate humanity and freewill. The treacherous twists to turn a noble pursuit into a way for developed nations to continue dominate developing nations is beyond the space of this comment, but you can see that clearly over the history: Caesar Hitler Mao Trump Xi etc. We people have truly never been able to wield the power ourselves.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Few place climate change as more important than national security. Won’t happen.
- thfuran 1y ago
  The DoD has been saying for at least a decade that climate change as an interesting threat to national security.
asadotzler 1y ago
Talking about Chinese subsidies without mentioning US subsidies is almost enough to make me discount the rest of your comment. Anyone who mentions China's subsides without mentioning the US's $2.5B+ in EV subsidies is mostly likely ignorant and bluffing, or intentionally misleading you. And don't even get me started on how it took $80B in AIFP subsidies to keep our auto industry from just dying completely ~16 years ago. This "China subsidizes EVs" BS needs to end. Everyone subsidizes. The only meaningful questions are how much and to what end.
- have-a-break 1y ago
  China subsidized startups which generates additional industries. If anything you are proving the US doesn't understand research or science behind producing electric vehicles and simply funding EVs directly instead of associated organizations. Given the current climate theres no way to explain it without sounding like a crazy person.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
  Unfortunately the U.S. chooses to subsidize consumption as opposed to production. This fits well with the corporate donor driven political system where the government puts no pressure on the corporations on their production side allowing them to outsource their production to the rest of the world and instead focuses on growing the American market and consumer demand for them.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    Chinese EV subsidies are almost identical to American EV subsidies. They both subsidize consumption, in the form of rebates and tax credits for end consumers. One of the largest recipients of Chinese EV subsidies is ... (drumroll) ... Tesla, an American company.
- didntknowyou 1y ago
  people overplay the china subsidies. a lot of the time it is private companies slashing their prices on their own accord as a loss leader to compete with local competitors. also people overlook the "VC subsidies" allowing a lot of startups to defy economic reality until IPO slaps everyone in the face.
okdood64 1y ago
It's still incredible how many people STILL equate "Made in China" with low quality. These folks are stuck in the 90s. China builds things to spec. If you want low quality they'll give you that. But require high quality, they can do that too. You just need to pay for it.
- quasse 1y ago
  As someone who works in US manufacturing, the situation is much more dire and I think the "low quality / high quality" back-and-forth is burying the lede. It's not just that China has reached some kind of quality parity with North America. There are now significant market segments that the US functionally cannot manufacture because we completely ceded the institutional knowledge and infrastructure in favor of financialization and outsourcing of the US economy. My specific area of expertise is robotic / computer controlled manufacturing equipment and a lot of the components (high precision servos, sensors and other motion components) are functionally impossible to source domestically. There are still some boutique manufacturers making things in low efficiency / low volume in the USA but touring the manufacturing campuses of Chinese suppliers has been shocking in the last five years. The sheer scale of efficient, automated assembly they are capable of operating at makes a big-three automotive assembly line look like a dirt-floored shack with men knocking things together with rocks. They are laser focused on lights-out manufacturing at extreme volume in ways I have never seen in the US. Entire production lines of high complexity electronics that are completely vertically integrated (everything from the injection molding for the plastic enclosure to the PCB manufactured on one campus) with human hands touching them for the first time as they leave the automated quality control line to be boxed up. I don't think American people fully comprehend the brain and skill drain that has already taken place.
  - nobodyandproud 1y ago
    Do you think this can be reversed and brought back in one generation? Two? Three? Assume a generation to be about 21 years (birth to high school + trade training). Our business leaders since the 1980s failed to quantify the cost of a possible revamp, and I wonder what the true cost will end up being. I’ve seen some of the Great Lake cities and towns that are in sad shape; but I was too young (and being immigrants, also too poor) to tour those areas in any depth in the Reagan/Carter days so I can only imagine what they were like back then.

throw0101c 1y ago

> […] I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as possible. Because your own industrial base atrophies is one reason: > Democratic countries’ economies are mainly set up as free market economies with redistribution, because this is what maximizes living standards in peacetime. In a free market economy, if a foreign country wants to sell you cheap cars, you let them do it, and you allocate your own productive resources to something more profitable instead. If China is willing to sell you brand-new electric vehicles for $10,000, why should you turn them down? Just make B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps, sell them for a high profit margin, and drive a Chinese car. > Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now That's (partly) what did-in Japan and Germany in during WW2: they couldn't produce enough to actually run a war. Even the just the UK was out-producing Germany in many measures (e.g., aircraft). The Big 3 completely retooled for war in very short order. If things go hot again you want factory capacity available for retooling to be possible. A society just has to be willing to pay for that capacity instead of deciding that they want the cheapest widget made somewhere else. Given the use of drones in Russia-Ukraine, what is the drone-making capacity of the US versus some other countries?

epolanski 1y ago

Also, the only way to make your companies competitive is by having them face competition, not by protecting them by artificial and anti consumer duties.

tonyhart7 1y ago

They already doing that for decades, the problem is that move making china rich. Which is US don't want

toomuchtodo 1y ago
The US has no ability to stop China from becoming wealthy, they already have the will and political leadership to build high tech for a global market. At this point, it's just angry old people sticking brooms in their own bike wheels at speed. How we made it: will China be the first electrostate? - https://www.ft.com/content/e1a232c7-52a0-44dd-a13b-c4af54e74282 https://www.ft.com/content/e1a232c7-52a0-44dd-a13b-c4af54e74... | https://archive.today/OSFYo https://archive.today/OSFYo
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  They sure has, problem is people also like cheap goods

Dylan16807 1y ago

> If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity to meet our climate goals as quickly as possible. Are they even doing that? A few billion dollars a year is meaningful but it's not dumping for an industry this big.

asadotzler 1y ago
Anyone who mentions China's subsides without mentioning the US's $2.5B - $3.0B in subsidies for EVs is ignorant and bluffing, or intentionally misleading you.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  It depends on what they're worried about. A subsidy tied to car purchase is mostly irrelevant to an accusation of artificially cheap exports, because those subsidies don't apply to exports. Unless they're crazily large amounts or other manipulation is happening, they mostly just help the company scale faster and the export prices are legitimate.

thewebguyd 1y ago

Hear, Hear. We are seriously missing out over here in the US and continuing to be protectionist over the big 3 automakers is not going to improve our climate situation. I consistently hear 2 main arguments against electric vehicles in the US. Range, and cost. BYD & China is solving both. Range is important because we lack charging infrastructure still, and anyone who rents at an apartment complex, you are screwed and have to rely on public charging stations. Big batteries are important for these folks. People also still have range anxiety, so when a fuel efficient gas car will get ~400+ miles per full tank, only having more expensive cars with a ~250 mile range is a non starter for a lot of people in the US. Cost is self explanatory. One of the better electric cars sold in the US, the Ioniq 6 STARTS at $38k, which is already more than a significant chunk of the population can afford - you're looking at close to an $800/month payment at current rates for entry level. BYD could sell in the US at around $20,000.

linotype 1y ago
Now do Germany.
rconti 1y ago
Hopefully this will allow cheaper cars to get ~400mi of range but I doubt we'll ever see much more in mainstream cars. Batteries are simply too expensive and too heavy. Fuel tanks are cheap to build, but we still see no gasoline passenger cars with large tanks. The manufacturers sort of standardize around a "normal" capacity, and just want the one option to design, manufacture, crash test, etc.
toomuchtodo 1y ago
Not to say EV charging has been solved, it is still very much in progress, but 64% of Americans live within 2 miles of a public charging station. We should continue to use policy to encourage "EV ready" infra in residential and apartment settings, places of business, commercial/retail, government, etc, but lots of folks can be served today. The vast majority US housing stock is single family homes (attached and detached combined), and those can, in most cases, be upgraded to support a dedicated circuit for charging. And, to your point, you'll also want to mandate new apartment building build outs are EV charging ready for their tenants. https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/23/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/23/electric-ve... Key takeaways from the above: > The number of EV charging stations has more than doubled since 2020. In December 2020, the Department of Energy reported that there were nearly 29,000 public charging stations nationwide. By February 2024, that number had increased to more than 61,000 stations. Over 95% of the American public now lives in a county that has at least one public EV charging station. > EV charging stations are most accessible to residents of urban areas: 60% of urban residents live less than a mile from the nearest public EV charger, compared with 41% of those in the suburbs and just 17% of rural Americans. Maps: https://supercharge.info/map https://supercharge.info/map | https://www.plugshare.com/ https://www.plugshare.com/ | https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest?country=US&fuel=ELEC https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest?country=US&fu...

p_j_w 1y ago

> If we want to address climate change Given our recent election results, it seems to me that we don't want to.

chneu 1y ago

> If we want to address climate change At least 40% of Americans do not give a crap about addressing climate change. Many Americans see EVs as a waste of time and a direct attack on the US.

Aloisius 1y ago

> If china wants to continue subsidizing their industry below costs of manufacture I see no reason why we shouldn't exploit their generosity Because the unfair advantage distorts the market leading to a potentially otherwise noncompetitive product destroying the competition at which point they can (and will) jack up prices, so not only do you get more expensive vehicles, but you've also destroyed an entire industry and several adjacent industries at the same time. It's not like you can't just snap your fingers and re-establish a vehicle manufacturing supply chain once it disappears. I get people just want cheap vehicles, but the short-term benefit simply isn't worth it.

Dah00n 1y ago
And US subsides are of course totally okay and not unfair at all? The US does the same thing while it cries and points fingers. The same in the EU.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Non-discriminatory subsidies are, in fact, ok. Purchase discounts for EVs in the US, for instance, didn't discriminate based on manufacturer. You could buy a foreign made EV and you still get the discount. Discriminatory subsidies, like for instance, funneling billions of dollars per year into Chinese-owned manufacturers of EVs, parts and even even shippers, is not ok. The US has, of course, been accused of discriminatory subsidies as well and countries have retaliated, correctly, with increased tariffs to offset the unfair advantage.

tw04 1y ago

The big 3 are not the ones asking for this. It actively hurts them. They aren’t delusional, they NEED government support to compete globally against Chinese EVs. Every big 3 CEO to a T has made it clear they know it’s if, not when ICE sales become a rounding error on their books. Point your gun where it belongs which is the oil industry and its lobbyists.

pstuart 1y ago
> Point your gun where it belongs which is the oil industry and its lobbyists. They are indeed the enemy. They've managed to convince a large swath of the population to hate everything that is not fossil-fueled.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Why can't we have better marketing for different types of people. Example: God made the sun and the sky. That's where heaven is. Fossil fuels come from under the earth. Something else really bad is down there too. I don't want to spell it out, but it's the opposite of heaven. Or for the "independent, lion-not-sheep" types: I don't depend on big companies. My energy comes from up above. You can't take the sky from me. etc.
  - johnea 1y ago
    Nice one! I've actually used this is meat space conversation while traveling the southeast US. When I'm in public conversation, say in a coffee shop, restaurant, or crowded park, and I know I'm in a place with a lot of "christians" around me, I'll say things very much like you describe: "Don't you know? Oil comes up from hell! It's made by the devil!" "Sunlight is falling down from heaven, it's a gift directly from god." "But for some reason, so many christians are against solar power, and want to burn more oil." Then I'll wrap up with a little apocalypse evangelism: "The bible says that in the end times, most christians will start to follow false prophets, and they're all going to go to hell!" I doubt it has much lasting effect, but I do see a few heads turn, with questioning, worried looks on their faces. You're the first other person I've seen mention this as a means of "converting the sinners".

billfor 1y ago

If you are willing to take the risk that if China invades Taiwan your car will no longer work or be serviceable.

djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
I highly doubt that would happen. Why would China want to destroy their reputation as the world's manufacturer?
- margalabargala 1y ago
  Because someone takes power who is more concerned with image than economic long term success. See the US for a recent example of a country abdicating its strong economic position for no reason beyond the leaders' ego.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Because ideology is a hell of a drug. Xi is a true believer.
  - Dah00n 1y ago
    With that logic, capitalism and "democracy" are ideologies too. The US is the same, just different.
    - Rover222 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - mensetmanusman 1y ago
      robot arm movements *all beliefs are the same*

outside1234 1y ago

I mean, at this pace, this isn't even green tech. Electric cars are just better and within two years will have better range. We are risking being totally left behind because they want to keep burning gasoline for Texas.

georgeburdell 1y ago

GM has the Bolt, Blazer, Siverado, and Hummer EV's. I think they're genuinely trying to make EV's work. Ford and Stellantis on the other hand...

triceratops 1y ago
They cancelled the Bolt in 2023.
- tzs 1y ago
  ...and later announced it would be coming back but on the new battery platform they were using for their other new EVs. It's supposed to go into production later this year.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Ford has ambitious plans. It's still vapor ware, but promising. https://www.axios.com/2025/06/18/ford-china-ev https://www.axios.com/2025/06/18/ford-china-ev Stellantis sells a good number of EVs in Europe, but almost entirely in form factors that won't sell in North America. Perhaps this expertise and experience will be useful. I hope domestic manufacturers survive the "protection" Trump is giving them, but the protection may prove fatal.

bigcat12345678 1y ago

> meet our climate goals as quickly as possible heheh The climate thing itself is a giant oligarchy influenced manipulative game play. This nation is built on capital. Capital by its nature looks to dominate humanity and freewill. The treacherous twists to turn a noble pursuit into a way for developed nations to continue dominate developing nations is beyond the space of this comment, but you can see that clearly over the history: Caesar Hitler Mao Trump Xi etc. We people have truly never been able to wield the power ourselves.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

Few place climate change as more important than national security. Won’t happen.

thfuran 1y ago
The DoD has been saying for at least a decade that climate change as an interesting threat to national security.

asadotzler 1y ago

Talking about Chinese subsidies without mentioning US subsidies is almost enough to make me discount the rest of your comment. Anyone who mentions China's subsides without mentioning the US's $2.5B+ in EV subsidies is mostly likely ignorant and bluffing, or intentionally misleading you. And don't even get me started on how it took $80B in AIFP subsidies to keep our auto industry from just dying completely ~16 years ago. This "China subsidizes EVs" BS needs to end. Everyone subsidizes. The only meaningful questions are how much and to what end.

have-a-break 1y ago
China subsidized startups which generates additional industries. If anything you are proving the US doesn't understand research or science behind producing electric vehicles and simply funding EVs directly instead of associated organizations. Given the current climate theres no way to explain it without sounding like a crazy person.
hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
Unfortunately the U.S. chooses to subsidize consumption as opposed to production. This fits well with the corporate donor driven political system where the government puts no pressure on the corporations on their production side allowing them to outsource their production to the rest of the world and instead focuses on growing the American market and consumer demand for them.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  Chinese EV subsidies are almost identical to American EV subsidies. They both subsidize consumption, in the form of rebates and tax credits for end consumers. One of the largest recipients of Chinese EV subsidies is ... (drumroll) ... Tesla, an American company.
didntknowyou 1y ago
people overplay the china subsidies. a lot of the time it is private companies slashing their prices on their own accord as a loss leader to compete with local competitors. also people overlook the "VC subsidies" allowing a lot of startups to defy economic reality until IPO slaps everyone in the face.

okdood64 1y ago

It's still incredible how many people STILL equate "Made in China" with low quality. These folks are stuck in the 90s. China builds things to spec. If you want low quality they'll give you that. But require high quality, they can do that too. You just need to pay for it.

quasse 1y ago
As someone who works in US manufacturing, the situation is much more dire and I think the "low quality / high quality" back-and-forth is burying the lede. It's not just that China has reached some kind of quality parity with North America. There are now significant market segments that the US functionally cannot manufacture because we completely ceded the institutional knowledge and infrastructure in favor of financialization and outsourcing of the US economy. My specific area of expertise is robotic / computer controlled manufacturing equipment and a lot of the components (high precision servos, sensors and other motion components) are functionally impossible to source domestically. There are still some boutique manufacturers making things in low efficiency / low volume in the USA but touring the manufacturing campuses of Chinese suppliers has been shocking in the last five years. The sheer scale of efficient, automated assembly they are capable of operating at makes a big-three automotive assembly line look like a dirt-floored shack with men knocking things together with rocks. They are laser focused on lights-out manufacturing at extreme volume in ways I have never seen in the US. Entire production lines of high complexity electronics that are completely vertically integrated (everything from the injection molding for the plastic enclosure to the PCB manufactured on one campus) with human hands touching them for the first time as they leave the automated quality control line to be boxed up. I don't think American people fully comprehend the brain and skill drain that has already taken place.
- nobodyandproud 1y ago
  Do you think this can be reversed and brought back in one generation? Two? Three? Assume a generation to be about 21 years (birth to high school + trade training). Our business leaders since the 1980s failed to quantify the cost of a possible revamp, and I wonder what the true cost will end up being. I’ve seen some of the Great Lake cities and towns that are in sad shape; but I was too young (and being immigrants, also too poor) to tour those areas in any depth in the Reagan/Carter days so I can only imagine what they were like back then.