But really, they aren’t trying at all.
GM’s biggest sales increases are with Cadillac EVs last year.
Detroit followed the Tesla model, with the highest profit margins in the industry because their CEO convinced simps EVs should be expensive. So they jumped in early with poorly designed and expensive vehicles, thinking Tesla stans were everywhere.
There was a time, worldwide, if you just wanted a reliable and low cost sedan, you bought a Ford or Chevy, and they sold millions. But round 2016, Detroit lost interest in lower cost vehicles, and by 2020, they got addicted to price gouging cheap vehicles to make them expensive, and why not, people were paying $70,000+ for a Jeep and just taking it up the ass.
Given Detroit abandoned that part of the market, they shouldn’t care if Chinese EVs arrive, right? Because their $60,000 EVs are a better product, right?
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That‘s the main problem in Europe as well. I don‘t mind tariffs on heavily subsidized cars that are designed not to make profit but to destroy our industries. However, even then our manufacturers are in a constant crisis mode and unable to adapt. It‘s really pathetic.
But hey, when the car lobby is dead maybe that means more trains and cycling paths in the long run? Perhaps there‘s an opportunity here.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s all thanks to Germany though. They are the ones who have succeeded in scrapping the bill to ban new ICE vehicle sales after 2035
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
If it has to be forced, then it probably isn’t a good idea.
We’re only just now. Like this year just now, seeing batteries that can be made much cheaper and last much longer (sodium ion) and batteries that will last the actual lifetime of a vehicle (solid state lithiums, allegedly). The cars the past 5 years that have had LifePO4 batts will last decently long. Up until now you’ve been looking at EV’s that cost more, with batteries that will go bad in them that cost huge amounts of money to replace. A 10 year old Tesla with 200,000 miles on it is essentially garbage. No one will pay much for it because it’s about to need a $15,000 battery, and when it fails it’s going to the junk yard. My little ice car has nearly 300,000 miles on it and is old enough to vote. If the engine blows up I could buy a working used one for like $500 and install it myself, or pay somebody else a couple grand to deal with it all for me.
Passenger cars aren’t the end all be all to global warming or the environment, either. They aren’t the main cause. Most countries grid systems couldn’t handle a complete EV swap by 2035. Look at the issues these stupid ai server farms are causing grid systems.
My point is, no one should need to force ev. At this point it will become the better and obvious choice over ice on its own. It isn’t there yet for tons of people or countries.
dan@upvote.au 2 weeks ago
That’s pretty rare though. Less than 5% of EVs need a battery replacement after 10 years (including those with defective batteries), and modern EV batteries should last at least 20 years, after which they’re still estimated to have around 65-70% capacity.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s not like people want to do that for shits and giggles.
A different perspective is the market shift is inevitable. We can work with it to make the transition smooth, to help existing manufacturers retool, to more quickly build out the necessary infrastructure, ensuring least disruption and existing manufacturers are still in business. Or we can let the market be disrupted by new companies predominantly in other countries. The transition will be longer and rougher as jobs are lost, infrastructure lags, existing manufacturers cling to old technology, until eventually that entire industrial base collapses
Or of course there’s the perspective of acknowledging long term climate trends and understand the responsibility to our children, our society, our descendants, to make small steps to mitigate the harm we do them
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Never understood why EVs aren’t made with standardized hot swappable cells. Would solve the range problem and the wear problem.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
While we’re so stagnant it would be a challenge, do you not see the difference between
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Canada did the same thing. We also got rid of the carbon levy.
BoJackHorseman@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Isn’t profit supposed to bring prices down?
Looks like crapitalists are scared to shit of free market competition.
Riverside@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
China has the battery production technologies and capabilities, the electric motor production, an unbelievable economy of scale, and insane levels of automation in their EV Factories, those are the main reasons behind their pricing and not “subsidies to destroy our industries”. Most subsidies, AFAIK, were tax cuts to purchases in China.
Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Are the subsidies specifically for destroying foreign markets? (😈MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Maybe, maybe not. I’m not a huge fan of the Chinese government, but I don’t think their subsidies program are intended to directly destroy foreign markets so much as put the country at the forefront of development and production… which can be perceived as the above.
In depth study of the Chinese GreenTech subsidy system.
As the study goes into in depth, tax credits are just one part of the system. There’s also direct subsidies(funding) for R&D, which is understandably very expensive, and below market value land sales among other things. In 2019 China put the equivalent of 1.73% of their GDP into industrial support, with below market land sales being a substantial portion of that. Next highest on the graphic is Korea at 0.67% GDP equivalent.
Moving away from the subsidies thing.
(Found this out awhile ago when I was watching a video on how actually ridiculous the whole US - Greenland thing was.)
China has ~90% of the rare earth refinement capacity. Even if Trump wants/wanted Greenland for it’s resources, it would be over a decade to spin up enough refinement infrastructure to process whatever they would hypothetically extract.
China has invested HEAVILY in the entire supply chain from resource extraction to final product for a wide swath of GreenTech. When a lot of the rest of the world has switched from a majority production/export to majority consumption/import economy, or focused on soft products/research/etc of course they would see a country flooding their markets with products as adversarial. Regardless of if those foreign products are superior. Especially if the government of said foreign country is often interfering in political processes, intimidating other countries citizens, setting up extra judicial secret police networks in many countries, economic coercion…etc etc etc.
I’m not entirely convinced that the subsidy system is malicious, but the CCP isn’t above playing dirty. So I can fully understand the common reaction being that it is.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
While I’m positive they are playing dirty in many ways, the fundamental difference is they saw a long term transition, welcomed it, guided it. Whereas us sees a long term transition, pulls our head into our shell, holds on tighter to old ways of doing things, keeps focussing shorter and shorter term. Whatever China may be doing to “cheat”, it really seems like this is mostly self-inflicted
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
in 2023, Tesla released all the specs to move EVs to a 48V architecture to Detroit, saving a tremendous amount of wiring and eliminating the need for most sub systems and secondary computers. Detroit just ignored it, until 2026, and now Ford invented 48V architecture.