Main Edition
US
FR
August 27, 2024 - 7:30pm
The Midwest will decide who wins the White House in November. Much has been written about Kamala Harris’s not-so-subtle appeal to Michigan’s Muslim voters, and her choice of Tim Walz as running mate rounds the ticket out with a Minnesota governor who once praised an extremist Muslim cleric as a “master teacher”.
But away from the cheap tactics of identity politics — which will only fly with so many Midwesterners — Harris and Walz may have more trouble convincing the region of their environmental and industrial policies.
Over the last few months, the drive towards an all-electric auto industry has crashed against technological and economic realities. Electric vehicle mandates, which demand that EVs constitute roughly 70% of all car sales by 2032 (up from 7% today) are extremely ambitious.
Harris, like the Biden administration of which she is an integral part, has been doggedly in favour of these mandates. But now companies such as Ford, Stellantis and Volkswagen have begun to lay off workers or delay new plants due to the weak market. Ford has already cancelled plans to build an all-electric SUV, while Volkswagen has decided not to expand six battery plants in North America and Europe.
These developments, which will no doubt hurt the pockets of Midwesterners, could in turn damage the Democrats. Michigan alone boasts half a million auto workers, with Ohio and Indiana not far behind. The auto industry is also critical to manufacturing everything from steel to machine tools. If car factories disappear, so does much of the industrial infrastructure which supports them. Although Donald Trump is leading in Ohio and was ahead in the most recent polling data from Indiana — which was published before Biden dropped out — some of the strongest concentrations of industrial jobs are found in Wisconsin, a key swing state. Indeed, the Milwaukee area has a higher percentage of jobs in manufacturing than Detroit.
In the coming battle in the Midwest, it’s doubtful EV mandates and their likely impact on jobs will be an effective selling point for the Democrats. Despite progressive claims about a “renaissance” in US manufacturing, and enormous investments in EVs and batteries as well as semiconductors, the industrial sector has been in recession for the better part of the year.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe author makes a good point of examining the supply chain of a “new” industry and that of the industry that is to be replaced or superseded. If your state will not get the “new jobs”, while it loses the “old jobs”, why would you vote for that policy or any one supporting it?
The best defense may be to balance an employer-friendly business tax policy along with a worker-friendly living environment to attract both, and ultimately sustain your economy through any transition.
That’s why wealthy progressives like Red States. You can live like a Republican and speak like a Democrat.
I recently visited Colorado, which I understand it is generally regarded as a “blue” state. I didn’t see many EVs though, only the very occasional hybrid. I did however see lots of really huge “trucks” (as Americans call them).
A sycophantic media class will cast a spell over Kamala and she will be reborn as the Goddess of “Drill Baby, Drill”; the spell will end in mid-January and it will be nut zero as usual.
Young smart scientists are working on EV technology advancement not trying to make a bigger more polluting internal combustion engine . As Amerikans can note your government already has been feared enough to put tariffs on the great new Chinese electric vehicles which are far beyond the lagging USA.
Joel Kotkin has made a living out of lambasting smart Urban Development
This is stupid stuff. Yes “working on” is the apt phrase. Nuclear fusion is also being “worked on”. It would be much better if more of the technical experts were instead improving ICE vehicles, a proven and excellent technology still further, as Toyota are doing.
EVs at the current state of development are, tailpipe emissions excepted, worse on almost every conceivable practical metric than ICE vehicles. We can all see why, take ages to refuel, huge queues, the necessity of cables trailing across pavements in many houses, low range (still) etc, and because of all these and others appalling depreciation rate. Oh, and an absolutely abysmal environmental record in mining, shortage of raw materials, handing over the supply and assembly to a threatening totalitarian rival. Etc..How moronic can our virtue signalling useful idiot western leaders be?
Consumers, individual and corporate are not fools. The take up of EVs there has been so far, owes almost everything to vast government subsidies, incentives and (on the other hand) high taxes, including without any doubt in China.
Let’s hope Trump’s team gets this message loud and clear. EVs are a losing strategy, as is the rest of the green bad new deal. Policies that either subsidize green tech or mandate green solutions are immoral since they force the less fortunate people to pay for the virtue-signalling of the laptop class.
Top-down lifestyle mandates by agenda-driven Progressives never appeal to ordinary people – it’s why the Dems are so desperate to stifle dissent on the Internet and conduct as many show trials as necessary to keep themselves in power and giving orders.
Tap the breaks, or tap the brakes? Sigh.
Take hart, Dougie. We’ll figure it out, eventually.
I live in SD. It is 400M x 200M. Distances are large, population is small.
No one wants these EVs. They cannot go in the winter (-20F for periods in the winter). They do not accommodate long trips – we drive to VA 2x/Y. They are a hard sell here. I know a guy who bought a Tesla, and then he had an accident. To get the vehicle back on the road, he would need to purchase the entire battery assembly – $25K – and replace his current assembly.
The green scam is not playing well anywhere. For the last 50 years, we have been warned about rising seas. Here’s a very simple point about rising seas – they will never rise more than 1″. The amount of water needed to raise the ocean is huge, and does not exist. It’s all a big scam.
Not arguing about EV’s, the Tesla example. I believe you. And I don’t doubt the general point of the article. There are going to be many similar challenges as we adjust policies toward a livable future.
But, for measurements of ocean levels one can consult these resources from the NOAA/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
div > p:nth-of-type(5) > a”>https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
and
div > p:nth-of-type(9) > a”>https://coastal.climatecentral.org/
These display sea level rise at tidal gauges globally. As climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe notes (Texas Tech, Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy), these include “both the movement of land up or down as well as sea level rise – that’s why some of the arrows are going down… These resources let you see how rising seas will flood cities and coastlines around the world.”
She also notes that “Maps and time series of changes in Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet are available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center”:
div > p:nth-of-type(15) > a”>https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
div > p:nth-of-type(17) > a”>https://nsidc.org/ice-sheets-today
I live on the coast — like, right on the coast, LOL — so, unlike someone from, say, SD, sea level is a concern to me and my family, to our next generation. I realize some will dismiss these resources out of hand. I understand that. I make this referral to anyone who may feel resistance yet still values the precautionary principle — if not for themselves, today, then at least on behalf of their kids and their kid’s kids, tomorrow. We get to vote, they only get to inherit.
Much of the Netherlands lies below sea level. There are not many Dutch people drowning! And even in Bangladesh the numbers dying in major monsoon floods has drastically fallen, not risen.
This is a silly fixed cake size Malthusian type argument, of the kind that has never been borne out since the Industrial Revolution. How is this? Humans are ingenious and inventive, we don’t just sit there Canute-like and wait to drown! We are despite everything getting richer and more, not less able to deal with climate change.
But if you really think you and your family are threatened, then you can of course move.
Hi Andrew. You mention not many Dutch people drowning… but drowning isn’t the only threat for the Netherlands, or the most relevant. Remember too, that the concern isn’t only for what’s happening today, it’s also about conditions in the coming years.
Currently, the Dutch face a significant threat to fresh water supply, related to climate change. Saltwater is leaching into groundwater and rivers. It used to get carried off by rivers and rain, but that process is declining due to prolonged droughts and relatively low river discharge.
The Dutch are using sand to hold the coastline, make higher and wider dikes, reinforce dunes and surge barriers, locks, etc. They’ll need to bring in enormous amounts of sand from elsewhere given that what they can dredge or dig from the North Sea is limited.
You mention drastically lower deaths in Bangladesh due to monsoon floods, but didn’t identify your source. I’d like to check it out if you have it at hand.
Also a reminder: the subject was rising sea levels, not flooding. You need to be careful with context. It matters.
With regard to floods, the death rate isn’t the only important metric. People are losing everything as their land and holdings are ruined. They are forced to leave, becoming refugees. There are many serious side effects of this, including health, impoverishment, strained government resources. Bangladesh faces not only the threat of rising sea level but also extreme weather events and shifting patterns of rainfall. These several conditions are related to global warming.
“You can of course move.” You know, I have to say that that remark is pretty glib. Coming from someone in SD with no skin in the game when it comes to ocean levels. My family has lived here for generations. This is our home. We would like to see increasing movement to mitigate the effects of global warming before the next generations are forced to physically move. We are doing what we can to encourage that mitigation, in various ways, from making home adaptations so we use much less energy, to contributing to organizations doing things like restoring local marshlands, and investing in a diversified socially responsible portfolio.
We are indeed getting more able to deal with climate change. I like Dr. Hayhoe’s analogy, visualizing the atmosphere like an overflowing swimming pool. You first turn off the hose that’s over-filling it (stop emitting greenhouse gases), then open a drain to release the excess water (various ways of carbon capture).
The most effective means of turning off the hose is quickly phasing out fossil fuels, the main drivers of the problem, and switching to multiple clean energy sources. We also need to improve land use, agricultural practices, and certain behaviors. Carbon capture and storage tech can have limited but significant value in areas like concrete and steel manufacture.
At the same time, we need to remove the existing CO2 (drain the pool) and keep it stored out of the atmosphere. Doing things like halting deforestation, and rectifying damaged ecosystems.
As part of this, we can offset carbon emissions from manufacturing that is challenging to decarbonize. There needs to be a robust verification system, but individuals and companies can offset emissions by investing in projects like tree planting or renewable energy development.
I am regularly inspired by so many engaged people, and by all the truly fascinating innovations developing in various arenas, including from heterodox economists. I find many, many reasons for hope. The people I follow, like like Dr. Hayhoe, haven’t a Malthusian bone in their bodies.
What’s been occupying my thoughts recently is: How are these characters going to walk back this nonsense when 2040/45 comes around? Will they just keep at it until they actually cause a massive global recession, or worse. Will the West be covered in economic wreckage; this time with broken wind turbines and overgrown solar farms everywhere one looks?
I assume that Big Money, the uber-capitalists, will slam on the brakes. Will that be the beginning of neo-feudalism?
Will future historians say “The people were too stupid to rule themselves” as they rub shoulders with our New Masters?
Remember the awful mandates during the pandemic??
Down the memory hole! That’s how.
The first sentence in the penultimate paragraph is the key political fact that will not change. The Democrats in the US (like their equivalents in Europe – unimaginative, intolerant “we know better” types) won’t give in on that issue because, like everything else these days, it has become tribalized. It is not a question of rational argument or respecting consumer choice but “liberal” dictat. The current crop of Western “leaders” are going to blindly push on with this policy for the next few years. Elections around 2030, however, might see significant changes.
Auto workers who want abortions will still vote for Dems because they can get welfare from Dems for not working. People who like abortion will not sway to vote Republican no matter what other issues they face, because they believe “women’s rights” are the most important thing ever.