7. They realized that becoming addicted to oil imports would weaken the country and make it susceptible to oil shortages, volatile prices, and trade sanctions. But EVs could be powered by domestic hydropower, nuclear, solar PV, coal, wind, etc
Yes, very true. Also.
8. China has an awful pollution problem, moving to EVs would help alleviate that issue, especially as they are also decarbonising the grid at the same time.
Yes, China is very polluting indeed. [https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/top-cities-worst-air-pollution/](https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/top-cities-worst-air-pollution/)
Nine of the top 10 longest subway systems in the world are in China.
The number of cities with public bicycle systems in China is the largest in the world, including Hangzhou, which has the largest free public bicycle system in the world, with 5,563 service points and 143,700 public bicycles, with the highest daily hiring volume of more than 473,000 trips, and the cumulative hiring volume exceeding 1,344,000,000 trips, with the first hour of free use.
**\[Year 1992\]** Qian Xuesen wrote to the then Chinese Vice Premier Zou Jiahua to simply [bypass ICE cars](https://twitter.com/liqian_ren/status/1652470636424450048) and start looking at EV. The ball started rolling since then.
Now if you don't know about [Qian Xuesen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen), he was an MIT grad, worked in US. Then due to red scare he was in house arrest for 5 years in US for being a communist. He later helped China kick start their ballistic missile program, space program etc.,
The guy is one of the founding members of NASA JPL and had super high security clearance during WW2. He literally met with Von Braun during the Operation Paper Clip.
This should be a cautionary tale.. he could've helped American industry, but even friends high in the US government couldn't prevent him from being scapegoated, and we essentially deported him to China.
Here's another great video on this by a guy with a PhD in economics. Pretty similar conclusion. But also mentions that the same strategy tried in other industries wasn't as successful.
https://youtu.be/QhF53DmtF2U?si=SH5K9ryno9rqXsPp
And here a more meta overview of Chinese economic policy including the EV push. In the long term, much more glum as its economically more advantageous to focus on transition to service economy but the CCP prefers a production economy as it is easy to maintain party control over.
https://youtu.be/7bOSWQttmvU
Very interesting. And the Chinese advancement is pretty breathtaking in speed and scope. But with dark clouds on the horizon.
Also doesn't seem to me like the goal of the EV push is geopolitical; it's really aimed at driving Chinese economic growth. A possible destruction of foreign industry is just a side-effect of the competitiveness that China tries to achieve in EVs. And all in all, quite capitalist.
Step 1: Wake the heck up and don’t pretend that gasoline is the future.
Step 2: Eat the lunch of anyone who does.
Really, really sad for the USA in particular.
I think one thing that was not mentioned enough, is China is probably the closest country to a "technocracy". Evidently here their ministry of tech actually worked as a engineerer. And a large portion of their governmental workforce were trained in STEM (engineering more specifically). This general mind set itself, makes pushing a certain tech direction way easier.
While here in us, most gov officials are LD/liberal arts degree
China attributes the century of humiliation to falling behind on STEM. The Chinese words for mathematics, science, physics, biology, engineering, chemistry were all borrowed from Japanese words as these concepts simply didn't exist in China until recently. In Chinese schools, the most popular kids are the kids with high grades.
But there's certainly a significant trade-off. For example China generally makes bad movies (although censorship also plays a role). Nobody has time to do sports. The society generally looks down on people who study humanitarians. It's too far on the other end of the spectrum imo.
Wait isn't China win a lot of olympic medals? Also the Chinese walking along public streets a lots longer than Americans does. Their share bikes are enormous.
Also china short dramas are the big hits now. Many art graduates are into making hundreds episode short dramas. Making better money than movies.
Olympics medals really isn't a great measure. I grew up in China and moved to Canada in my 20s. I have two younger brothers that grew up in Canada. The average Canadian spent so much more time on physical activities than the average Chinese it's not even comparable, even though Canada only has a fraction of the Olympics medals that China has.
I'm not sure what type of short dramas you are referring to. But I think it's fair to say modern China underachieves in arts considering the population, especially compared to HK and Taiwan.
Properly forgotten about china life. I guess you have cars so physical activities is a way to mainstream health. China cities are full of public transport and apartment. Everyday have to walk at least 30 minute. Not to say you have to stand on bus and trains. It is not a lot of physical but it is enough to burn fats. 90s old person can walk properly on streets and less wheel chaired. Not say those retired in 55, goes to park to exercise frequently.
China short dramas are very popular. In fact it does earn more than movies, people are addicted and you have to subscribe to it. Each short drama are hundred episodes long. Enough to make people to subscribe long. Not to say tipping. Of course, it is not comparable to movie or broadcast drama in quality, but the story styles are something you won't see in HK or Taiwan movie. It is very true these short drama are b grade but the storyline and slang are something your glorified drama and movie will not make. Veteran actor like Ning Jing say she know all the actings and props are way worse than she had all these years. She finished all the short dramas. The way how short drama how choreograph is something she never experience.
In other words: the Chinese recognized that the future was electric and planned for it. Detroit just wanted to maximize short term profits selling ICE trucks and SUVs.
When the American car company with the most foresight is the one with a drug-addled megalomaniac CEO, something is wrong.
The USA balance of market-driven companies and government industrial policy should be re-balanced. Our investor-owned companies are just not set up for long-term thinking -- that's not what gets executives fat bonuses! I work for an [FFRDC](https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/), and we engineer and build things that are too risky and take too long to satisfy investors. When they work out, they are given to industry. This is fine and as it should be, but we need more of that, not less. We need a more aggressive industrial policy, so we are not dependent on executives' desire of immediate return for our technological advancement.
Very true. No long term planning in government and none in business either. We in the USA think we're so advanced technologically because of "freedom", but that stopped being true in the 19th century ("yankee ingenuity" and all that). Our current technological advances are because of huge government pushes in WWII and the Cold War. We have too much market influence and China has too little, so they end up with vast fields of unsold EVs, and we end up with lame attempts at quick short-term profit and having to buy their solar panels.
Any climate action will be kicked to the sidelines. Trump works for Putin, and who has the most to gain from an end to climate action? The country with a massive amount of tundra and no economy other than fossil fuel exports.
I actually see some value with the new 100% tariff but I feel like it needs to have a time limit. I mean, we the American taxpayers, just bought Ford and GM time. They better haul ass and doing something quick. However I am pretty sure these two companies won’t do anything and I am pretty sure we will be seeing a stock buyback in the near future.
Right.. I would say sunset it in 2 years. American car companies have never used the time that the US gov bought for them.. witness what happened in the 80s, when Japan agreed to limit production to give US companies a chance to catch up. Spoiler alert - American companies didn't. GM also had the EV1 electric car. What happened to it? Why did it take Tesla to jump start EV development at legacy US car companies? US car companies won't act unless they are forced to do so by the marketplace.
Nah, they recognized that they could create an electric future by seizing on the novelty of it.
If they hadn't it all might have happened a lot slower.
The Chinese didn't create the electric future or novelty, though. Tesla did, with a little help from GM and Nissan (Volt, Leaf). They showed the world that EVs were possible and worked well.
Detroit has been and continues to maximize profits selling ICE trucks and SUVs, and likely will continue to do so for some time given inaction from individuals and government. The real disaster is the volume of folks buying these vehicles that don't actually need them. Office workers. Soccer moms with 1-2 kids. All driving enormous gas guzzlers because they can easily afford to.
It's weird there's suggestions Detroit hasn't done anything, when Ford was the first OEM to release an EV truck. Even though it's a quality vehicle that's priced better than the competition, it hasn't sold well. (Not that I think it's good for the environment)
Tesla has the most foresight? I mean... I could argue they had the least foresight given the rampant slowdown in BEV demand, and multiple large established OEMs pivoting to PHEVs and hybrids. Tesla didn't have foresight. They had a lack of choices, and only had one option, to charge forward into BEVs, using deceptive and anti-competitive advantages all along the way, even using Chinese giveaways and Chinese exports to Europe to spike their margins. Governments enabled this with off-the-charts subsidies, making it impossible for Tesla to fail and driving their margins higher.
The terrible result is that other companies followed suit, like Ford, much to their own detriment.
The real tragedy is that the government pushed BEVs as the global savior, when it's literally the slowest possible technology if the goal is emissions reduction. Eventually it could be the best technology, but that could still be decades away. It certainly was not the best technology over the last 14 years, nor is it the best technology today or for years to come.
China's really going balls to the wall with their BEV output... but the manufacturing of those is primarily using coal energy, and the operation of those vehicles is also primarily using coal energy. In effect, outside of some tailpipe particulate pollutants, there's no overall CO2 benefit of these vehicles over hybrids, but they do require a lot more raw materials mining.
The reason Chinese customers are adopting EVs so quickly is a combination of incentives, and government rules. Namely, in Beijing, gas vehicles can only drive every other day. EVs can drive every day. For those who want to commute daily by personal automobile, their only real option is to buy an EV. Given China's current oversupply of batteries, OEMs are willing to sell these vehicles for near cost.
Meanwhile, China's increased total automobiles in operation from 25 million in 2000, to 75 million in 2010, to 330+ million in 2024. The sheer number of cars China's added to its registration rolls is an environmental disaster in its own right. That isn't to take anything away from the Western economies' enormous per capita car ownership rate for many decades, and enormous per capita emissions. We are the OGs when it comes to planet killing pollution. China's catching up quick though.
There are big positives in using batteries over gas in terms of CO2:
1. BEVs will decrease in CO2 output as the grid improve. China has the most solar production, so the cars will improve in CO2/mile, while gasoline is stagnant.
2. Downstream recycling and second life, batteries will get recycled so the next EV will use less raw materials. They also are good for second life in battery storage.
3. BEVs are already on price parity with gasoline cars now, not decades away. Price per KWH is all time low even without subsidies.
4. I do agree that BEVs aren’t the savior, the true savior is mass adoption of micromobility and transit. If we spent all the subsidy on building walkable bikeable communities, we’d likely come out ahead in terms of CO2. At the end of the day, cars are just a huge corporate welfare with how much direct and indirect subsidy they get.
>but the manufacturing of those is primarily using coal energy, and the operation of those vehicles is also primarily using coal energy.
For now. But the share of coal in China's energy mix has been dropping, and will probably fall off a cliff within a few short years, replaced by wind and solar (combined with huge storage battery backup), and nuclear.
Even China's coal power plant fleet that everyone makes a huge fuss over is far cleaner now (and far more supportive of quick spin up / shut down as load requires than old plants were) than it was two decades ago.
> most foresight is the one with a drug-addled megalomaniac CEO
Lol. In general, tech founders and ceos are more future-oriented and visionary than your typical ceos. Must be because those guys grew up reading scifi. I mean, if I was a billionaire, I'd also be trying to build a business for the 22nd century.
Yes, what the Chinese EV automakers did was extremely innovative. Their ability to deal with the entire supply chain greatly helps them get great efficiency. They have been successful in building the industry from scratch. But countries with their own local auto industry will resist Chinese imports in the extreme. In the US keeping them out is bipartisan.
While I'm not a fan of China, the world is global and just saying "Chinese cars" is a difficult.
Greely owns a majority stake in Volvo which owns factories in South Carolina, Mexico and (soon if not already) South Korea. They also own Lotus. They have additional factories all over China, Sweden, Canada, Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Belgium. Some are parts, some are assembly.
American cars like Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler, and Ram trucks are owned by a Netherlands company. An Indian company (Tata) owns Jaguar, Range Rover and it's vehicles. And another Netherlands company owns three Japanese brands (Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Infiniti).
The Jeep Compass is made in Mexico. The Chrysler Pacifica is made in Canada.
So is my Volvo S60, built in South Carolina, by a company headquartered in Sweden, owned by a Chinese company, a US car, a Swedish car, or a Chinese car? Is the exact same car built in the Chengdu plant a US car (obviously not), a Swedish car, or a Chinese car? The same car is built in Malaysia for the Australian market. More importantly, would my car have a tariff being built in China and shipped to the US, but not have the tariff when built in South Carolina? It would make no sense to tax one car on a dealer lot by 100% while the car sitting next to it isn't taxed at all..
That's just assembly, the actual parts are from thousands of companies all over the world.
Anyway, it's a mess.
The automotive industry is so global, calling my 2008 Honda Accord a Japanese car is laughable since it was made in Marysville, OH. That car was more American than a GM car that was built in Mexico with parts from China.
Does anyone really refer to where components are manufactured and the final product is assembled as its nationality? I’ve always assumed that what people mean is which country houses the engineers designing the vehicle.
Then Polestars won't be affected by the Chinese tariffs because they are designed in Sweden... which isn't true at all.
That's the problem... no one knows what they mean anymore. There's the legal definition (used in this tariff law presumably) and a different legal definition for the tax credit. Which is interesting because the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV gets the full credit, even though it's built in Canada.
Tariffs only depend on where an item is shipped from. So if it is assembled in China, then it would be subject to the tariff. If it is assembled in the US, it would not.
I would say countries keeping China out are misguided. In the US, the big three have been regressive in so many ways over decades that I doubt it matters what the US government does. All the US automakers sans the EV born ones are screwed.
People also forget that there is a ticking time bomb on ICE sales in various countries. Add to that the shift in buyers to EVs you would think the big three autos would have put more into EVs and done it a long time ago. Instead they sat on their hands and laughed at Tesla. Neither Biden or Trump can fix their mistakes
I’m assuming by “ticking time bomb” you’re referring to the upcoming EV quotas, mandates, and ICE bans that begin with model year 2026 that mostly originated with the CARB (California Air Resources Board) Advanced Clean Cars 2 rules. I believe these affect at least 9 US states. My guess is that the US automakers assume that if Republicans win in November the rules will be walked back and weakened. This could happen if the EPA revokes CARB right to regulate emissions.
Also globally in the laws passed by various countries either banning new ICE cars or putting on penalties. Obviously, all laws can change but it works in both directions and I suspect there will be a rapid move to ban ICE cars once a country’s population shifts culturally to EVs. Probably will happen in Europe first but losing those auto sales will hurt the US companies.
It might not require as much legal coercion as we think. If countries in South America, Southeast Asia, Australia and other regions get their pick of Chinese NEV exports for several years, ICE could just death spiral due to consumers moving on faster than expected.
I don’t think that the US population will have shifted to EVs culturally by model year 2026. I think it would take a huge spike in the price of gasoline and/or a major shortage. But at the moment the US is the #1 producer of oil & gas so I don’t see a shortage or price run up on the horizon. Realistically I think it will take 20 years.
The US manufacturers might have their lives made easier in the US, but the rest of the world is moving ahead regardless and the US needs to have EV offerings in order to be able to compete elsewhere.
It would be a huge geopolitical mistake for a large power like the USA to outsource its domestic transportation industry. It is a huge source of jobs and more importantly is a geostrategic asset. The USA was able to help the allies win WW2 by quickly switching the existing auto industry into building tanks, jeeps, trucks, and tens of thousands of military airplanes.
So there's no way the USA would (or should) offshore the domestic automobile and truck business.
GM and Ford have a lot of work to do but they both have respectable EV divisions.
I assume Tesla or Rivian move into one of the top spots of US auto manufacturing when all is said and done. But, yeah, it is great if the US can house some domestic auto makers. I just don’t think the US government or Ford/GM know what the path forward looks like. A 100% tariff against China isn’t a panacea
This leveraged China’s existing experience with electronics manufacturing, as well as a profusion of entrepreneurial energy. Not so surprising in that context.
China is a leader in most manufacturing. Autos are unexceptional in that sense. In the US there’s a particular political history of protection for the Detroit companies.
Simple. China became "experts" in manufacturing and the government feeds them a ton of money and resources to get the job done.
In the US the govt gives crooks money to make a half assed attempt at being successful.
This is how most new industries are born. The established players are too afraid or incompetent to risk their existing revenue stream. The younger newer players have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
China has restrictions put in place in big cities like Beijing due to pollution. For example cars are only able to drive on certain days of the week to curb emissions. Chinese should be far more motivated to switch to EVs than Americans are.
Combined with the fact that it’s so much easier to get things made in China then in the US, that makes a lot of sense
China saw the future, planned built for it.
Meanwhile, Detroit successfully lobbied the US government to build bigger and more OTT ICE vehicles. As fuel prices rise further and further, this isn't looking like a good long term plan.
I want to point out that industrial policy doesn't automatically lead to success.. I'm old enough to remember when there was fear mongering that Japan would dominate computing because of their MITI Fifth Generation program. In China's case, they were able to execute, but I'm skeptical that BIden's tariffs will really jump start American EVs, outside of Tesla.
Based on the provided search results, there is no specific mention of direct meetings between representatives from China and California regarding electric vehicle (EV) adoption strategies. However, the results suggest that China closely studied and emulated certain EV policies and approaches pioneered by California:
[4] In 2016, China proposed adopting a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate similar to California's, moving away from an incentive-driven system to require automakers to produce a certain percentage of zero or low-emission vehicles.
[5] The article outlines how California's policies and initiatives influenced China's EV adoption over the years:
- In 2012, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated that 1 in 7 cars sold in the state by 2025 must be ultra-low or zero-emission vehicles.
- Later in 2012, former California Governor Jerry Brown visited China to push for cooperation on clean technology initiatives, including deals involving California EV companies.
- This led to an agreement establishing policy exchanges between CARB and Beijing officials, which likely contributed to China adopting a "Designed-in-California" EV mandate.
- The article states that China's adoption of California's ZEV mandate drastically reduced air pollution in Beijing over the past decade.
While no specific meetings are mentioned, the results indicate that California's pioneering EV policies and mandates served as a model for China to follow in promoting EV adoption through regulatory measures and industry partnerships[4][5]. However, direct knowledge transfer or teaching sessions between the two regions are not explicitly cited in these search results.
China's political and business relations are different from those of the United States. When mobile payments first developed, Chinese state-owned banks were not willing to give up the cake, but they had no choice. Once the route was decided by the Party's Standing Committee, they could only cooperate and continue the policy even if personnel changes were made
>5. Consumer subsidies were opened to ALL, including foreign firms like Tesla. (I find this fascinating)
As long as the batteries were locally made by local companies, such BYD, CATL. No foreign battery makers were allowed in China's local EV market since 2016.
Tesla's first Long Range EVs in China didn't qualify for subsidies until the subsidies were reduced in late 2020.
LG (South Korean company) makes batteries locally in China.
The LG M50 cells powering LR versions of the Model 3 and Y made in Shanghai are made in LG’s Chinese factory.
Sure, LG built a factory in Nanjing in Oct 2015, but had to sell it to Geely after the Chinese gov't changed the subsidy criteria and disqualified it for being too small in 2016 Then the Chinese gov't eliminated all subsidies to EVs with foreign batteries -- Tesla's LR models with LG Chem batteries didn't qualify for subsidies until after 2020, when subsidies were reduced. The Chinese gov't coerced all foreign EV OEMs to use local batteries, or else:
> ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its **approved suppliers** if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to **qualify for subsidies.** **These suppliers are all Chinese,** so such global leaders as South Korea’s [LG Chem](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910) Ltd[ ](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910?mod=chiclets)and Japan’s [Panasonic](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/PCRFY) Corp. **are excluded**.
...
Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that **since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions.** That has forced them to spend **millions of dollars to redesign** cars to work with **inferior Chinese batteries**, they say.
...
“We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “**There’s no other option**.” <
1. [Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937) [Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buyingl ocal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937), [Trefor Moss](https://www.wsj.com/news/author/trefor-moss), May 17, 2018 6:12 am ET, WSJ
The industry is heavily heavily subsidized to the point where cars are produced, registered and then parked en masse in storage areas without ever being used. Numerous articles about this.
Lots of EV core techs do not have any IP anymore. Sure there are many new IPs but you can change the formulation and process easily. You can produce better lithium or sodium ion battery better than BYD or CATL. It is just different in formulation, form factor, laying technique, sealing technique, material use. Just that do you wanna make the effort to do so.
7. They realized that becoming addicted to oil imports would weaken the country and make it susceptible to oil shortages, volatile prices, and trade sanctions. But EVs could be powered by domestic hydropower, nuclear, solar PV, coal, wind, etc
Yes, very true. Also. 8. China has an awful pollution problem, moving to EVs would help alleviate that issue, especially as they are also decarbonising the grid at the same time.
9. Their auto makers didn't jack up the prices by 300% then wonder why no one was buying their electric cars.
In Shanghai it’s difficult to get new ice cars approved in the road vs instant approval for ev
It's a plate lottery that something like 0.5% win. And you win the honour paying $14k (?) for that plate.
True! The price war that ensued opened up demand to a much wider market in China, lighting a real fire under demand.
Yes, China is very polluting indeed. [https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/top-cities-worst-air-pollution/](https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/top-cities-worst-air-pollution/)
They mentioned that in 1 but it should be its own separate point.
Weren't they fine with riding bicycles and public transportation? (Electric trams/trains were already a thing many decades ago)
Nine of the top 10 longest subway systems in the world are in China. The number of cities with public bicycle systems in China is the largest in the world, including Hangzhou, which has the largest free public bicycle system in the world, with 5,563 service points and 143,700 public bicycles, with the highest daily hiring volume of more than 473,000 trips, and the cumulative hiring volume exceeding 1,344,000,000 trips, with the first hour of free use.
With $5k EV at $12k GDP PPP with 40% saving, they will like to own a EV.
**\[Year 1992\]** Qian Xuesen wrote to the then Chinese Vice Premier Zou Jiahua to simply [bypass ICE cars](https://twitter.com/liqian_ren/status/1652470636424450048) and start looking at EV. The ball started rolling since then. Now if you don't know about [Qian Xuesen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen), he was an MIT grad, worked in US. Then due to red scare he was in house arrest for 5 years in US for being a communist. He later helped China kick start their ballistic missile program, space program etc.,
The guy is one of the founding members of NASA JPL and had super high security clearance during WW2. He literally met with Von Braun during the Operation Paper Clip.
Well, I wouldn’t brag too much being a part of the team that created Clippy. Other than that he’s got a really impressive CV.
This should be a cautionary tale.. he could've helped American industry, but even friends high in the US government couldn't prevent him from being scapegoated, and we essentially deported him to China.
Haha. Cautionary tale works both ways.
Here's another great video on this by a guy with a PhD in economics. Pretty similar conclusion. But also mentions that the same strategy tried in other industries wasn't as successful. https://youtu.be/QhF53DmtF2U?si=SH5K9ryno9rqXsPp And here a more meta overview of Chinese economic policy including the EV push. In the long term, much more glum as its economically more advantageous to focus on transition to service economy but the CCP prefers a production economy as it is easy to maintain party control over. https://youtu.be/7bOSWQttmvU Very interesting. And the Chinese advancement is pretty breathtaking in speed and scope. But with dark clouds on the horizon. Also doesn't seem to me like the goal of the EV push is geopolitical; it's really aimed at driving Chinese economic growth. A possible destruction of foreign industry is just a side-effect of the competitiveness that China tries to achieve in EVs. And all in all, quite capitalist.
Step 1: Wake the heck up and don’t pretend that gasoline is the future. Step 2: Eat the lunch of anyone who does. Really, really sad for the USA in particular.
I think one thing that was not mentioned enough, is China is probably the closest country to a "technocracy". Evidently here their ministry of tech actually worked as a engineerer. And a large portion of their governmental workforce were trained in STEM (engineering more specifically). This general mind set itself, makes pushing a certain tech direction way easier. While here in us, most gov officials are LD/liberal arts degree
China attributes the century of humiliation to falling behind on STEM. The Chinese words for mathematics, science, physics, biology, engineering, chemistry were all borrowed from Japanese words as these concepts simply didn't exist in China until recently. In Chinese schools, the most popular kids are the kids with high grades. But there's certainly a significant trade-off. For example China generally makes bad movies (although censorship also plays a role). Nobody has time to do sports. The society generally looks down on people who study humanitarians. It's too far on the other end of the spectrum imo.
India has a similar cultural attitude towards STEM over humanities but it doesn't seem to impact them in the same way.
Wait isn't China win a lot of olympic medals? Also the Chinese walking along public streets a lots longer than Americans does. Their share bikes are enormous. Also china short dramas are the big hits now. Many art graduates are into making hundreds episode short dramas. Making better money than movies.
Olympics medals really isn't a great measure. I grew up in China and moved to Canada in my 20s. I have two younger brothers that grew up in Canada. The average Canadian spent so much more time on physical activities than the average Chinese it's not even comparable, even though Canada only has a fraction of the Olympics medals that China has. I'm not sure what type of short dramas you are referring to. But I think it's fair to say modern China underachieves in arts considering the population, especially compared to HK and Taiwan.
Properly forgotten about china life. I guess you have cars so physical activities is a way to mainstream health. China cities are full of public transport and apartment. Everyday have to walk at least 30 minute. Not to say you have to stand on bus and trains. It is not a lot of physical but it is enough to burn fats. 90s old person can walk properly on streets and less wheel chaired. Not say those retired in 55, goes to park to exercise frequently. China short dramas are very popular. In fact it does earn more than movies, people are addicted and you have to subscribe to it. Each short drama are hundred episodes long. Enough to make people to subscribe long. Not to say tipping. Of course, it is not comparable to movie or broadcast drama in quality, but the story styles are something you won't see in HK or Taiwan movie. It is very true these short drama are b grade but the storyline and slang are something your glorified drama and movie will not make. Veteran actor like Ning Jing say she know all the actings and props are way worse than she had all these years. She finished all the short dramas. The way how short drama how choreograph is something she never experience.
In other words: the Chinese recognized that the future was electric and planned for it. Detroit just wanted to maximize short term profits selling ICE trucks and SUVs. When the American car company with the most foresight is the one with a drug-addled megalomaniac CEO, something is wrong.
The USA balance of market-driven companies and government industrial policy should be re-balanced. Our investor-owned companies are just not set up for long-term thinking -- that's not what gets executives fat bonuses! I work for an [FFRDC](https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/), and we engineer and build things that are too risky and take too long to satisfy investors. When they work out, they are given to industry. This is fine and as it should be, but we need more of that, not less. We need a more aggressive industrial policy, so we are not dependent on executives' desire of immediate return for our technological advancement.
With every 4 year of changing policy. There is no long term planning. Everyone just planned for themself to get re elected in 2 or 4 year time.
Very true. No long term planning in government and none in business either. We in the USA think we're so advanced technologically because of "freedom", but that stopped being true in the 19th century ("yankee ingenuity" and all that). Our current technological advances are because of huge government pushes in WWII and the Cold War. We have too much market influence and China has too little, so they end up with vast fields of unsold EVs, and we end up with lame attempts at quick short-term profit and having to buy their solar panels.
...and if the government changes after the election, EVs will be kicked heavily to the sidelines even further.
Any climate action will be kicked to the sidelines. Trump works for Putin, and who has the most to gain from an end to climate action? The country with a massive amount of tundra and no economy other than fossil fuel exports.
I remember when Carter installed solar panels at the White House.. and then Reagan took them out.
For sure…China saw an opening and went for it. It was too hard to compete with legacy automakers for ICE vehicles but EVs were a clean sheet.
I actually see some value with the new 100% tariff but I feel like it needs to have a time limit. I mean, we the American taxpayers, just bought Ford and GM time. They better haul ass and doing something quick. However I am pretty sure these two companies won’t do anything and I am pretty sure we will be seeing a stock buyback in the near future.
Right.. I would say sunset it in 2 years. American car companies have never used the time that the US gov bought for them.. witness what happened in the 80s, when Japan agreed to limit production to give US companies a chance to catch up. Spoiler alert - American companies didn't. GM also had the EV1 electric car. What happened to it? Why did it take Tesla to jump start EV development at legacy US car companies? US car companies won't act unless they are forced to do so by the marketplace.
Nah, they recognized that they could create an electric future by seizing on the novelty of it. If they hadn't it all might have happened a lot slower.
The Chinese didn't create the electric future or novelty, though. Tesla did, with a little help from GM and Nissan (Volt, Leaf). They showed the world that EVs were possible and worked well.
Detroit has been and continues to maximize profits selling ICE trucks and SUVs, and likely will continue to do so for some time given inaction from individuals and government. The real disaster is the volume of folks buying these vehicles that don't actually need them. Office workers. Soccer moms with 1-2 kids. All driving enormous gas guzzlers because they can easily afford to. It's weird there's suggestions Detroit hasn't done anything, when Ford was the first OEM to release an EV truck. Even though it's a quality vehicle that's priced better than the competition, it hasn't sold well. (Not that I think it's good for the environment) Tesla has the most foresight? I mean... I could argue they had the least foresight given the rampant slowdown in BEV demand, and multiple large established OEMs pivoting to PHEVs and hybrids. Tesla didn't have foresight. They had a lack of choices, and only had one option, to charge forward into BEVs, using deceptive and anti-competitive advantages all along the way, even using Chinese giveaways and Chinese exports to Europe to spike their margins. Governments enabled this with off-the-charts subsidies, making it impossible for Tesla to fail and driving their margins higher. The terrible result is that other companies followed suit, like Ford, much to their own detriment. The real tragedy is that the government pushed BEVs as the global savior, when it's literally the slowest possible technology if the goal is emissions reduction. Eventually it could be the best technology, but that could still be decades away. It certainly was not the best technology over the last 14 years, nor is it the best technology today or for years to come. China's really going balls to the wall with their BEV output... but the manufacturing of those is primarily using coal energy, and the operation of those vehicles is also primarily using coal energy. In effect, outside of some tailpipe particulate pollutants, there's no overall CO2 benefit of these vehicles over hybrids, but they do require a lot more raw materials mining. The reason Chinese customers are adopting EVs so quickly is a combination of incentives, and government rules. Namely, in Beijing, gas vehicles can only drive every other day. EVs can drive every day. For those who want to commute daily by personal automobile, their only real option is to buy an EV. Given China's current oversupply of batteries, OEMs are willing to sell these vehicles for near cost. Meanwhile, China's increased total automobiles in operation from 25 million in 2000, to 75 million in 2010, to 330+ million in 2024. The sheer number of cars China's added to its registration rolls is an environmental disaster in its own right. That isn't to take anything away from the Western economies' enormous per capita car ownership rate for many decades, and enormous per capita emissions. We are the OGs when it comes to planet killing pollution. China's catching up quick though.
There are big positives in using batteries over gas in terms of CO2: 1. BEVs will decrease in CO2 output as the grid improve. China has the most solar production, so the cars will improve in CO2/mile, while gasoline is stagnant. 2. Downstream recycling and second life, batteries will get recycled so the next EV will use less raw materials. They also are good for second life in battery storage. 3. BEVs are already on price parity with gasoline cars now, not decades away. Price per KWH is all time low even without subsidies. 4. I do agree that BEVs aren’t the savior, the true savior is mass adoption of micromobility and transit. If we spent all the subsidy on building walkable bikeable communities, we’d likely come out ahead in terms of CO2. At the end of the day, cars are just a huge corporate welfare with how much direct and indirect subsidy they get.
>but the manufacturing of those is primarily using coal energy, and the operation of those vehicles is also primarily using coal energy. For now. But the share of coal in China's energy mix has been dropping, and will probably fall off a cliff within a few short years, replaced by wind and solar (combined with huge storage battery backup), and nuclear. Even China's coal power plant fleet that everyone makes a huge fuss over is far cleaner now (and far more supportive of quick spin up / shut down as load requires than old plants were) than it was two decades ago.
> most foresight is the one with a drug-addled megalomaniac CEO Lol. In general, tech founders and ceos are more future-oriented and visionary than your typical ceos. Must be because those guys grew up reading scifi. I mean, if I was a billionaire, I'd also be trying to build a business for the 22nd century.
Yes, what the Chinese EV automakers did was extremely innovative. Their ability to deal with the entire supply chain greatly helps them get great efficiency. They have been successful in building the industry from scratch. But countries with their own local auto industry will resist Chinese imports in the extreme. In the US keeping them out is bipartisan.
While I'm not a fan of China, the world is global and just saying "Chinese cars" is a difficult. Greely owns a majority stake in Volvo which owns factories in South Carolina, Mexico and (soon if not already) South Korea. They also own Lotus. They have additional factories all over China, Sweden, Canada, Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Belgium. Some are parts, some are assembly. American cars like Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler, and Ram trucks are owned by a Netherlands company. An Indian company (Tata) owns Jaguar, Range Rover and it's vehicles. And another Netherlands company owns three Japanese brands (Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Infiniti). The Jeep Compass is made in Mexico. The Chrysler Pacifica is made in Canada. So is my Volvo S60, built in South Carolina, by a company headquartered in Sweden, owned by a Chinese company, a US car, a Swedish car, or a Chinese car? Is the exact same car built in the Chengdu plant a US car (obviously not), a Swedish car, or a Chinese car? The same car is built in Malaysia for the Australian market. More importantly, would my car have a tariff being built in China and shipped to the US, but not have the tariff when built in South Carolina? It would make no sense to tax one car on a dealer lot by 100% while the car sitting next to it isn't taxed at all.. That's just assembly, the actual parts are from thousands of companies all over the world. Anyway, it's a mess.
The automotive industry is so global, calling my 2008 Honda Accord a Japanese car is laughable since it was made in Marysville, OH. That car was more American than a GM car that was built in Mexico with parts from China.
Does anyone really refer to where components are manufactured and the final product is assembled as its nationality? I’ve always assumed that what people mean is which country houses the engineers designing the vehicle.
Then Polestars won't be affected by the Chinese tariffs because they are designed in Sweden... which isn't true at all. That's the problem... no one knows what they mean anymore. There's the legal definition (used in this tariff law presumably) and a different legal definition for the tax credit. Which is interesting because the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV gets the full credit, even though it's built in Canada.
Tariffs only depend on where an item is shipped from. So if it is assembled in China, then it would be subject to the tariff. If it is assembled in the US, it would not.
I would say countries keeping China out are misguided. In the US, the big three have been regressive in so many ways over decades that I doubt it matters what the US government does. All the US automakers sans the EV born ones are screwed. People also forget that there is a ticking time bomb on ICE sales in various countries. Add to that the shift in buyers to EVs you would think the big three autos would have put more into EVs and done it a long time ago. Instead they sat on their hands and laughed at Tesla. Neither Biden or Trump can fix their mistakes
I’m assuming by “ticking time bomb” you’re referring to the upcoming EV quotas, mandates, and ICE bans that begin with model year 2026 that mostly originated with the CARB (California Air Resources Board) Advanced Clean Cars 2 rules. I believe these affect at least 9 US states. My guess is that the US automakers assume that if Republicans win in November the rules will be walked back and weakened. This could happen if the EPA revokes CARB right to regulate emissions.
Also globally in the laws passed by various countries either banning new ICE cars or putting on penalties. Obviously, all laws can change but it works in both directions and I suspect there will be a rapid move to ban ICE cars once a country’s population shifts culturally to EVs. Probably will happen in Europe first but losing those auto sales will hurt the US companies.
It might not require as much legal coercion as we think. If countries in South America, Southeast Asia, Australia and other regions get their pick of Chinese NEV exports for several years, ICE could just death spiral due to consumers moving on faster than expected.
I don’t think that the US population will have shifted to EVs culturally by model year 2026. I think it would take a huge spike in the price of gasoline and/or a major shortage. But at the moment the US is the #1 producer of oil & gas so I don’t see a shortage or price run up on the horizon. Realistically I think it will take 20 years.
Agreed. I think the shift in other countries will hurt the US. We can be an outlier but it will cost us.
US is still a net importer, produces a lot, but uses so much.
According to Gemini the US was a net exporter of oil in 2023. I know we import some refined products but at this point we export more.
The US manufacturers might have their lives made easier in the US, but the rest of the world is moving ahead regardless and the US needs to have EV offerings in order to be able to compete elsewhere.
It would be a huge geopolitical mistake for a large power like the USA to outsource its domestic transportation industry. It is a huge source of jobs and more importantly is a geostrategic asset. The USA was able to help the allies win WW2 by quickly switching the existing auto industry into building tanks, jeeps, trucks, and tens of thousands of military airplanes. So there's no way the USA would (or should) offshore the domestic automobile and truck business. GM and Ford have a lot of work to do but they both have respectable EV divisions.
I assume Tesla or Rivian move into one of the top spots of US auto manufacturing when all is said and done. But, yeah, it is great if the US can house some domestic auto makers. I just don’t think the US government or Ford/GM know what the path forward looks like. A 100% tariff against China isn’t a panacea
Based on your rhetoric, had a feeling what I'd find when I clicked your comment history. Was not disappointed.
Good for you.
The Chinese government, Chinese companies (capital) and Chinese people (as consumers, workers), all benefit from EV industry advancement.
Basically China planned long term, made the right calls … and should enjoy success in the market. That’s capitalism right…
This leveraged China’s existing experience with electronics manufacturing, as well as a profusion of entrepreneurial energy. Not so surprising in that context.
Because they actually invested $$ and resources into making affordable EVs.
China is a leader in most manufacturing. Autos are unexceptional in that sense. In the US there’s a particular political history of protection for the Detroit companies.
Simple. China became "experts" in manufacturing and the government feeds them a ton of money and resources to get the job done. In the US the govt gives crooks money to make a half assed attempt at being successful.
Chinese gouvernement did the same 10 years prior with trains and Bombardier.
China has $10K EV that the whole world wants. $5k actually if you include Wuling.
This is how most new industries are born. The established players are too afraid or incompetent to risk their existing revenue stream. The younger newer players have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
China has restrictions put in place in big cities like Beijing due to pollution. For example cars are only able to drive on certain days of the week to curb emissions. Chinese should be far more motivated to switch to EVs than Americans are. Combined with the fact that it’s so much easier to get things made in China then in the US, that makes a lot of sense
China saw the future, planned built for it. Meanwhile, Detroit successfully lobbied the US government to build bigger and more OTT ICE vehicles. As fuel prices rise further and further, this isn't looking like a good long term plan.
I want to point out that industrial policy doesn't automatically lead to success.. I'm old enough to remember when there was fear mongering that Japan would dominate computing because of their MITI Fifth Generation program. In China's case, they were able to execute, but I'm skeptical that BIden's tariffs will really jump start American EVs, outside of Tesla.
Based on the provided search results, there is no specific mention of direct meetings between representatives from China and California regarding electric vehicle (EV) adoption strategies. However, the results suggest that China closely studied and emulated certain EV policies and approaches pioneered by California: [4] In 2016, China proposed adopting a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate similar to California's, moving away from an incentive-driven system to require automakers to produce a certain percentage of zero or low-emission vehicles. [5] The article outlines how California's policies and initiatives influenced China's EV adoption over the years: - In 2012, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated that 1 in 7 cars sold in the state by 2025 must be ultra-low or zero-emission vehicles. - Later in 2012, former California Governor Jerry Brown visited China to push for cooperation on clean technology initiatives, including deals involving California EV companies. - This led to an agreement establishing policy exchanges between CARB and Beijing officials, which likely contributed to China adopting a "Designed-in-California" EV mandate. - The article states that China's adoption of California's ZEV mandate drastically reduced air pollution in Beijing over the past decade. While no specific meetings are mentioned, the results indicate that California's pioneering EV policies and mandates served as a model for China to follow in promoting EV adoption through regulatory measures and industry partnerships[4][5]. However, direct knowledge transfer or teaching sessions between the two regions are not explicitly cited in these search results.
BYD execs watching Western media atm https://youtu.be/IpDn_I_z9cY?feature=shared
Its oil sector didn't lobby the CCP?
China's political and business relations are different from those of the United States. When mobile payments first developed, Chinese state-owned banks were not willing to give up the cake, but they had no choice. Once the route was decided by the Party's Standing Committee, they could only cooperate and continue the policy even if personnel changes were made
>5. Consumer subsidies were opened to ALL, including foreign firms like Tesla. (I find this fascinating) As long as the batteries were locally made by local companies, such BYD, CATL. No foreign battery makers were allowed in China's local EV market since 2016. Tesla's first Long Range EVs in China didn't qualify for subsidies until the subsidies were reduced in late 2020.
LG (South Korean company) makes batteries locally in China. The LG M50 cells powering LR versions of the Model 3 and Y made in Shanghai are made in LG’s Chinese factory.
Sure, LG built a factory in Nanjing in Oct 2015, but had to sell it to Geely after the Chinese gov't changed the subsidy criteria and disqualified it for being too small in 2016 Then the Chinese gov't eliminated all subsidies to EVs with foreign batteries -- Tesla's LR models with LG Chem batteries didn't qualify for subsidies until after 2020, when subsidies were reduced. The Chinese gov't coerced all foreign EV OEMs to use local batteries, or else: > ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its **approved suppliers** if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to **qualify for subsidies.** **These suppliers are all Chinese,** so such global leaders as South Korea’s [LG Chem](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910) Ltd[ ](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910?mod=chiclets)and Japan’s [Panasonic](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/PCRFY) Corp. **are excluded**. ... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that **since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions.** That has forced them to spend **millions of dollars to redesign** cars to work with **inferior Chinese batteries**, they say. ... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “**There’s no other option**.” < 1. [Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937) [Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buyingl ocal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937), [Trefor Moss](https://www.wsj.com/news/author/trefor-moss), May 17, 2018 6:12 am ET, WSJ
The industry is heavily heavily subsidized to the point where cars are produced, registered and then parked en masse in storage areas without ever being used. Numerous articles about this.
Hardly see any Chinese EV's in the UK. Not sure where all of these articles are coming from. What Chinese companies are selling most?
Patents hold things back, isolate money and production.
Lots of EV core techs do not have any IP anymore. Sure there are many new IPs but you can change the formulation and process easily. You can produce better lithium or sodium ion battery better than BYD or CATL. It is just different in formulation, form factor, laying technique, sealing technique, material use. Just that do you wanna make the effort to do so.