One country is disincentivizing or even blocking renewable energy production, rolling back climate protection measures, trying to revitalize the coal industry, slashing investment in scientific research of all kinds, demonizing higher education, and spending vast and rapidly increasing amounts of public funds to create direct, physical conflicts.
Another country is increasing their renewable energy generation capabilities dramatically each year, encouraging EV adoption, investing very heavily in scientific research, and also investing in military (although without initiating direct physical conflicts).
One of these two countries is riding on momentum, but the drag from waste and mismanagement of resources is increasingly slowing it. The other country is building momentum while reducing drag.
The difference in these approaches will be obvious in a decade, and in two decades one of the two countries will be just another chapter in a book about the rise and fall of empires.
While I agree with your overall point, I'm reminded of "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" here. The US is a huge economy with a massive military infrastructure. I don't think it's fading to fallen empire status that quickly.
Yeah, because famously neither Rome nor Spain nor England had massive military infrastructures for their times.
1950 The UK is not that or anything like it.
Today. Does anyone really care much about what the UK says or does on the world stage? Ordinary British are better off now than 1910 and it isn't close.
So what you say is obviously true as long you define "quickly."
I’m saying this as a non European. I’m an American who is making plans to split my time between the US and Costa Rica (here now) and maybe Panama and would love to see them become close to Europe politically.
A fall that looks completely avoidable given what we have been taught about how the world works.
'Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.'
We’re not developing cool tech if we don’t have the industrial capacity to make it or a domestic market. We’ll just get poorer and further behind.
This is not how the adult world works, and we are all in organizations to know how difficult it is to spin up teams, and get them to a degree of excellence.
America with project 2025 has basically been burning libraries of experience, and it’s not going to come back without decades of slow, painful work to rebuild it.
Since this concept is only visible to people who think and have seen organizational decay, it is going to have a minor impact on the zeitgeist.
Instead voters are going to wonder every year why things aren’t better, not be interested in the boring institution building, and will vote whatever sounds good.
Underpinning all of this, the fundamental flaw that is laying all democracies low, is the challenge of managing our information economies.
We’ve developed ways to pollute and control our speech that don’t involve government control. We have information and media ecosystems that shape discourse by embracing abundance. Our legacy social defenses are “more speech = more good”, and so we have no new ideas how to deal with this new feature of modern life.
The other factor is the increasing concentration of wealth, resulting in those elites being the only voters that count, since they end up consolidating power. The top few households matter more to the economy than everyone beneath them.
These are the two big challenges that we have to address philosophically and practically for the advantages of democracy to kick in again.
Let's not stop at the two biggest economies: the US and China. Let's add the EU to the mix. The EU saw, inflation adjusted in USD, hardly any growth since the 2008 financial crisis to now. While both the US and China's GDPs grew like crazy.
I agree that China atm is doing something very right but if you believe the US not on a good path, you should look at the EU. The EU has nothing but one company left in the top 50 of the biggest worldwide companies by market cap. Not that long ago the UK was the world's first superpower and France just before that.
And now my EU is headed on a path leading to third-worldness.
The times they are a changin'.
Let's use a different derogatory word to illustrate this same point. Imagine if using renewables was associated with being "communist" or "terrorist" or "a child molester". Remember how Bitcoin is often perceived, "it's used by criminals to buy drugs and pay for hitmen, so we should not endorse it, even if it might have some good uses".
This is how about half of the country _perceives_ "woke".
I'm not saying it's a correct behavior, but that's how many people perceive it. So working on its brand and marketing is probably a good idea to disconnect the concept of renewables from the word "woke".
> ...
> The difference in these approaches will be obvious in a decade, and in two decades one of the two countries will be just another chapter in a book about the rise and fall of empires.
The interesting question is: why. I'd say the US ultimately will be judged to be another victim of the "shock doctrine" (in its case, the China Shock). In other words (at least in a democracy): letting the economists and libertarians run wild with the economy will create a backlash that will ultimately weaken it.
The supposedly smart people in charge needed to pay less attention to their pet theories, and way more attention to the common people. They didn't, and this is the result.
Energy doesn't appear immaculately from the heavens. You need to spend a lot of conventional fossil fuel to be able to make renewables
It actually does. There is a big fusion reactor up there that gives us a lot of direct energy, if you don't live near the poles it is enough for everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
It'll never go below $100 a barrel.
It went bellow $100 a barrel for the last few years because as US shale processing came online, opec decided to also keep production high which cut oil prices from $100/barrel to ~$50/barrel where it's roughly stayed for the last decade.
There's not another "new way to extract oil for cheap" technique on the horizon. Israel and Iran are both destroying oil extraction and processing facilities in the gulf region, it'll take years and a huge amount of money just to rebuild those. By the time that's finished, assuming it finishes, inflation will have firmly caused the price of oil to stay above $100.
This is basically a permanent increase. We are sort of at global warming catastrophes now. It's not a question of if it will be bad, it's a question of how long and how intense. The longer this war/military operation/regime change/whatever we are doing goes forward, the worse it will be. And, unfortunately, I don't think there's any specific goal the trump admin is trying to achieve. This is such an obvious F-up and Trump will only pull out if he can somehow make a claim that it isn't.
> Israel and Iran are both destroying oil extraction and processing facilities in the gulf region
This isn't like Katrina where oil infrastructure was being temporarily evacuated, shut down, and taking some water and wind damage.
The oil infrastructure is being blown to smithereens. And not just pumps that are sucking oil out of a hole in the ground. Refineries. Big expensive factories that process oil. Stuff we don't even bother to build in progressive parts of the world because the combination of environmental regulations and concerns about climate change mean it's possible they'll never pay off their massive construction costs.
[1] although the estimate is around $50 per barrel full-cycle cost https://incorrys.com/energy/oil-supply/international-oil-sup...
There are massive reservoirs of expensive oil in Canada and Venezuela. If Canada and Venezuela limit output then the price will go above their cost of production. If not, it will settle at their costs. ($80).
Kind of moot since it will take well over a decade for their production to ramp high enough to satisfy current world demand.
The best for for lower prices in the shorter term is likely lower demand through renewable alternatives.
The west coast is the only part that relies on middle eastern oil. And a spike in prices will just get them in line and connected to the rest of the shale powered system.
I don’t like any of this, but I think the doom and gloom lies elsewhere.
Californian here. There is no discussion or any desire to build an oil pipeline from TX/LA across NM and AZ to deliver oil to refineries here. Ha, if you think the Keystone XL pipeline was controversial... it'll never happen.
Calif produces about 20% from its own but tired wells. Some oil is imported from the Middle East but larger volumes come by ship from South America and Alaska.
yes
> has the potential to be good for parts of the us energy sector.
No way this is good for anyone other than oil producers. The only potential positive it'll have on the US energy and shipping sectors is this is going to put even more pressure on adopting renewables as fossil fuel cost spikes.
The west coast is adopting EVs at a faster pace than the rest of the country. You could just as well see accelerated adoption of EVs in personal and freight transportation, Chinese manufacturers opening up US EV production, and so on.
The answer isn't necessarily drawing shale from Alberta that we can't really process anyways (without mixing it with light crude from Texas anyways).
It truly is a great strategy if you want to make a quick buck now before you become irrelevant in five years.
The US getting dragged into Israel’s war does not serve anyone’s interests other than Israel’s.
Iran's modern history doesn't suggest this at all. Quite the opposite - they have been continually invaded. To me, theirs seems like an explicitly defensive stance. They have no airforce, navy, or tanks and such to speak of - just missiles and drones. Not a force suited to invading other countries.
You could argue about their support for regional militia's but I still wouldn't concede that indicates any desire to start a war.
> Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?
reads like <font size=2> /s </font>.
I know EV purists will complain about the complexity of maintaining the gas engine, but this hits the perfect sweet spot for me - it doesn't weigh a million tons, it cost under 40k new, and the one weekend a month when I need to I can drive 300 miles each way on a single tank of gas.
When we bought are last car, I would've bought one of those if there had been a Toyota or Honda minivan. We ended up going for a regular hybrid instead. Hopefully this category gets adopted by more car makers
Tradeoffs everywhere, so "perfect" is very much not the word I'd apply.
I think they're the worst. I don't want additional points of failures after all. I want fewer points of failures.
I want all-electric or all-ICE. If I changed cars the minute they were freehold (i.e. long-term rental), then sure, all that extra points of failure is irrelevant.
Right now, with reliability of ICE cars the way they are, my daily driver is a 2004 VW, and there does not seem to be any indication that it will need replacement in the future.
- I don't want to own 2 cars. Over 10 years I'm skeptical that the TCO would be less for 2 used cars than 1 new Toyota.
- With incentives the PHEV was less expensive than a mild hybrid, and I do use L1 charging to get the full range every night.
- I guess I could have bought a used EV and put in an L2 charger. New EVs were out of my price range. There's a lot more research involved in buying a new EV and I didn't want to go that deep to avoid a lemon.
The battery of a PHEV is relatively small and will be strained much more (as compared to an EV), especially if you drive a lot in EV modus. PHEV batteries tend to wear out faster for this reason. This drives up cost of ownership.
Then you still have the maintenance / cost of the ICE drivetrain. It does not make sense to me.
I feel that a lot of people buy vehicles because of the long-distance trips they make a few times a year. Long-distance trips are not a big deal anymore with the current status of the fast-charging stations.
Yes you may still do 600 miles on a single tank of gas with a ICE or PHEV, but you have to stop and rest, use the bathroom, drink something. Everytime you stop is a charging opportunity.
Anno 2026 there is so much choice for 'pure' EVs for the budget you stated, especially second-hand.
And then you may be able to charge at home, with solar, it's a no-brainer to me. This is possible with an PHEV too, but well, we discussed that here.
With appropriate battery management, this doesn't really drive up the cost, it just moves the depreciation curve around.
Think of it from the other side - with an EV, you're paying up front for a bunch of battery value in a consumable good that you'll never depreciate.
But the day of the PHEV has come and gone. The massive price gap between PHEV and BEV is now negligible, and the charging experience is so much better now.
(And the larger gas vehicle can still be a non-plug-in hybrid.)
Both cost $133 to drive 1000 miles(including ammortized oil changes for camry). Camry was $15000 cheaper AND has a 500 mile range.
Even at todays war-time gas prices, the EVs are not always the financially sound choice thanks to runaway costs of electricity in my state.
At that cost solar must pay off very quickly.
Basically EV first with a generator.
I wouldn't bother with a PHEV for a vehicle I buy as I'm always going to buy EVs from now on, but for rentals a PHEV makes a lot of sense.
Now that I'm comfy with "oh, install yet-another charging phone app" (a handful offer a website too) and the prevalence and backwards-compatibility of modern DC chargers and learning how to check which standards are supported by where, I'd be comfy with a full-EV, but I could understand being intimidated by that without the practice of driving a PHEV.
But to be blunt: It's a hump you'd get over, as long as you had access to an overnight charger of any kind (even just 110V mains) at home.
The port war is basically over here in North America - CHADEMO and CCS2 aren't a thing here and any charge station that offers those is just an old station that was hedging their bets. The only real standards you'll see are
- J1772 (the old AC power system),
- CCS1 (DC upgrade to J1772, backwards-compatible with J1772 chargers, looks like a J1772 with extra bits on the bottom)
- NACS (the Tesla port).
And unless you've got an old J1772 AC-powered car (like my Prius Prime), you can get adapters. So basically if you get a CCS1 car you need 1 adapter, and if you get a NACS car you need 2 (both CCS1 and J1772) if you want to be able to charge literally anywhere. The only wrinkle then is how fast you need to charge, and AFAIK NACS standard has more options for crazy-fast charging.
I will first point out that for DC fast charging, there are only two connectors to think about. It is not really more complicated than that. It's a learning curve, but not much different than learning the difference between gasoline, diesel, and which octane to put in your car.
You would have your charging station at your house. That removes a whole lot of the burden.
Then, there’s just the sheer size of the expansion and reliability in charging networks over the past year or two. Where I live, there is no direction where I can travel on an interstate where there aren't chargers on premier networks at normal rest stops/truck stops (rather than in odd parking lots behind Walmarts or what have you).
You've also got newer non-Tesla EVs that have NACS compatibility or NACS built-in, doubling the size of the charging network for those vehicles.
You wouldn't have the problem of lacking the right adapter if you owned the car.
With long trips, we are talking about multiple hours of driving before needing to charge, so I think we need to rethink the amount of burden it really is to plan your route ahead of time. It’s gotta be less of a burden than getting multiple oil changes per year or visiting a gas station every week or two to cover your daily commuting.
I think the only people for whom EVs don’t work are people who take long road trips with a frequency that far exceeds the national average (e.g like a monthly 600+ mile trip).
PHEVs are (largely) for consumers who don't understand how EVs work (but think they do) and are too scared of having to sit in their car and charge for an hour anytime they leave the town perimeter.
In reality with most EVs, you can drive 500 miles with one 30 minute charge. That's 7 hours of driving at 65mph, and one 30 minute charge. I know everyone claims to be a psychopath driver who never stops on a road trip for more than 5 minutes every 7 hours when they learn this, but the reality is you don't even notice the charging stop. Unlike gas pumps, it's the norm to leave your car on the charger while you go do something else (eat, sight see, shop, w/e).
It's only really trips that are >500 miles where this starts to become apparent. Or on trips through remote areas. Or having no idea how EVs work, driving till you're almost empty, then deciding it's time to get off the highway and find a charger.
The consumer segment that actually needs PHEVs is incredibly small, but the segment that thinks they need them is huge, hence the market.
The first time I did the trip, for each 665 mile leg, I spent about 75 minutes charging, which certainly gives more charging time per mile than your estimate, but it's also because I wanted to arrive at my destination with 80%, and also I gave ABetterRoutePlanner pessimistic numbers regarding my range, and as a result, was charging at higher SoC's than planned. Still though, even with the poor planning, I spent literally zero minutes sitting in the car waiting for it to charge.
A year and a half ago, I drove from Portland to San Diego and back. 2,200 miles. I had zero complaints about charging times.
I did have some minor range anxiety last year driving around Yellowstone, since I'd only have access to a charger at the start and end of my day. Just had to remind myself that I wasn't really driving THAT far throughout the day, and that the driving I WAS doing was going to be relatively slow.
I'm just gonna call bullshit on that one. https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/range-electric-car looks like it's got a bunch of recent vehicles, and pegs average range at 390km or 242mi. The _highest_ range there is 720km or 450mi, and a 300KW charge runs it 10-80% (+500km range, not miles) in a half hour.
If you _don't_ have the absolute best range + infrastructure to support the charge at that rate: I've got a 2020 Kia Soul w/ 64kWh battery and lines up with the 390km range rating. Did a road trip last year. My charger caps out at 73kW or so on a DC charge, and a charge at that rate (40%-80%) gave me ~150km in a half hour. 10-80% is ~220-250km and takes an hour.
Now, I did the road trip with two kids and a dog, so an hour's potty/walk break every 2-2.5h driving worked out for us, but I don't think that's entirely generalizable. I do also agree that unless we're road-tripping, it's a nonissue. We put a level 2 charger in the garage, and plug in overnight once or twice a week and no range stress at all.
Plug-in hybrids use three times more fuel than manufacturers claim, analysis finds - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/18/plug-in-... - February 18th, 2026
Smoke screen: the growing PHEV emissions scandal - https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/smoke-screen-t... - October 16th, 2025
But in the article:
> Porsche hybrids consumed more fuel – around seven litres per 100km – than other PHEVs when the electric motor kicks in, and significantly more than non-PHEVs in combustion engine mode.
> The lowest fuel consumption levels were found in the cheaper end of the PHEV market, in Kia, Toyota, Ford and Renault vehicles, which often used under one litre per 100km, or as much as 85% less fuel than the Porsche.
So it seems like they are putting all cars in the same bucket based on the worst performing one: Porsche. Pretty misleading
Also, even if the claim applied to all cars, for a Chrysler Pacifica PHEV for example, instead of 82 MPGe (32 mi electric-only range), you'd get ~39.2 mpg (using 6 L/100 km, the figure from the article), which is still better than a Toyota Sienna hybrid at 36 mpg, and way better than a Honda Odyssey at 22 mpg (gas only)
…Porsche hybrids consumed more fuel – around seven litres per 100km – than other PHEVs when the electric motor kicks in, and significantly more than non-PHEVs in combustion engine mode. The lowest fuel consumption levels were found in the cheaper end of the PHEV market, in Kia, Toyota, Ford and Renault vehicles, which often used under one litre per 100km, or as much as 85% less fuel than the Porsche.
That range is a significant caveat. If your round trip commute (or one way commute, if you can charge at work) is outside the electric range, then you'll be relying on gas every day. In my situation it's worked out extremely well. I charge at home and only need to fill the gas tank about three or four times a year.
I wonder if they are just being miss-sold. They clearly make no sense if you don’t have somewhere to plug them in.
On the other hand it is clearly working for the GP.
I think Toyota might be the only company with a good PHEV drive-train. A Prius or Rav4 PHEV can do highway speeds on battery. And they have a heat pump so the gas engine doesn't kick in unless it gets very cold.
Another factor is home charging availability. The Canadian government gives a rebate for PHEV vehicles, but they took away the subsidy to install L2 chargers. It's very attractive right now to buy a PHEV and never charge it just to get the purchase rebate.
So I have the exact same feeling! Getting into an ICE car now feels like taking a massive step backwards in so many ways.
"America Fell Out of Love With the Sedan. Detroit Wants to Bring It Back" [1].
"Detroit Automakers Want To Bring Back Sedans. Will They Last This Time?" [2]
"General Motors Could Bring Buick Back to Sedans with a New RWD Model" [3]
"Buick Is Reportedly Considering a New Sedan for the United States" [4]
"Are sedans coming back? How looser EPA rules and rising SUV costs could reshape the U.S. car market" [5]
"Ford Confirms it is getting back to the sedan and minivan game in America as well as an Escape successor" [6]
"Detroit Abandoned Sedans, Now It Wants Them Back" [7]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/sedans-cars-trucks-detroi...
[2] https://www.thedrive.com/news/detroit-automakers-want-to-bri...
[3] https://autos.yahoo.com/new-vehicles-and-reviews/articles/ge...
[4] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a70738088/report-buick-sed...
[5] https://www.autonocion.com/us/american-automakers-considerin...
[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/1qy8802/ford_confirms... or https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/1qy8802/ford_confirms...
[7] https://www.carscoops.com/2026/02/detroit-three-sedan-comeba...
What we really need are incentives for companies to build more affordable EVs. California could play a role here, but given the strong opinions we have about Elon Musk, nothing will be done.
https://driveauthority.com/cheapest-ev-car-in-china/
All you really need is a political snap of the fingers to remove tariffs, so they can start selling them in the US.
Of course, there is absolutely no way this will happen with the current administration.
Would be incredible for US auto consumers.
But might put some of our automakers out of business.
The petrol era is coming to an end. Our current administration might desperately want to remain a petrol state (for reasons that escape me), but it will only delay the inevitable. The EU is not much better either. The writing has been on the wall, and even since the Russian invasion into Ukraine not much has happened.
What is going on? Are we all insane, or is it just intense lobbying of yesterday's petrol industry?
The EV1 was a $70k car (2026 dollars) with economy car size and fittings, with a 75mi range and 3 hour charge time. There is no conspiracy, the tech wasn't there yet.
the share of renewables of the EU at ~55% of net energy generation is almost twice as high as China's or America's, only Latin America fairs better. Germany essentially front ran this industry 20 years ago. Although as usual it turns out better to be second than first a bit of credit here please.
The reasons are simple: liberals want renewable energy, therefore renewable energy is bad and must be destroyed.
It's oppositional defiant disorder on a cultural scale.
Even since 2002 I've had to dodge quiet e-bikes in Beijing. They just sneak up on you without any noise, and they have a lot more momentum than a human powered bike.
What's the general speed limit where you are?
There’s plenty of techniques to reduce noise coming from highways, then that leaves the noise in city streets where EVs are vastly, vastly superior from a noise perspective. It just brings down the noise floor overall.
Honestly if they honked a bit less that might make a large difference too...
https://www.byd.com/us/news-list/DENZA-Z9GT-to-start-Europes...
But BYD is pushing forward, and though there's some infrastructure to build it'll get there eventually.
In practice I bet 5-minute charging will mainly be used to show off for your golf buddies. Co-locate it with the megawatt-scale chargers we'll be building for trucks next to major highways anyways, and it can be offered as a very profitable luxury product without too much extra effort.
Even if they tripled their sales for the last two weeks, it wouldn't be relavent to if their bet will ultimately pay off.
We don't know what the future holds for this conflict or oil prices in general. Maybe it ends tomorrow, maybe its a decade long affair.
Nothing will be done at Federal level.
But california is big enough to make things moving without any federal level law.
For example, what about this:
- no sales taxes on new EV sales
- free registration for 5 years
- free bridge tolls for 5 years
This will be paid by increasing gas taxes, sales taxes on ICE, and registration fees for ICE.
That might convince some of companies to start making EVs again.
(I don't know what my point is, just that people have short memories, and are generally speaking not rational about purchases, or money in general.)
I’ve worked in clean energy software and hardware since 2014. I’m currently looking for a new position, and recently some research firms came out of the woodwork offering to pay me a high consulting rate just to better understand the market. I wasn’t even looking for this, they just came to me. All they said was “interest in this area is increasing.”
P.S., if you’re looking for someone with deep domain knowledge and senior-level engineering skills for your clean energy project, I’m available. https://matthewgerring.com
BYD was already selling a ton of cars when the oil prices were "low", of course there's some very creative accounting business moves you would expect from a Chinese company like BYD ( companies from other places have their own peculiarities too ).
Gas prices have been "sky high" for a week and people who are under financial stress just decided to ditch their cars and buy a brand new BYD? Are we children now? listening bedtime stories?
The concept of electric vehicle is technically superior to support the context and lifestyle a large majority of people have. It will "win" over time. There is no need to this bullshit simplistic feel-good articles.
Btw, the the market movements of people trying to get rid of their gas-guzzling SUVs when prices are high and trade them for a smaller and more economical car ( what they should have been doing in the first place.. ) already happened in the past many times, there is no news here. But these movements don't happen in a time span of a week or a couple weeks.
Sorry for the rant, but between AI's "Absolutely, you're entirely right!" and these bullshit articles.. I don't know.
To be clear: EV's will "win" and BYD has been selling a ton of cars because they are cheap and not terrible right out of the gate, also people don't have much disposable income.
Have you actually seen the news and the situation? Gas prices will continue to rise and will stay high for at least 3-5 years, given the damaged infrastructure and how long it will take to rebuild. And that's if nothing else happens, so the situation could get a lot worse
This means 2 things: 1) it might be a better alternative to drive electric (depends on the numbers), and 2) if enough people start preferring EVs, prices for EVs might spike in the next 1-2 years. So buying now could be a good move depending on how things turn out
Drones with 100-150kg just not capable of inflicting hard to recover damage. What they are good is striking repeatedly. But judging by numbers Iran is not capable any longer of sustained stacks with hundreds of drones per day.
Have you seen what's happened to wholesale power market prices? Have you seen that BYD's care sales in 2026 are down y/y?
Trusting anecdotal hype from BYD salesmen and a renewables blog isn't sensible.
Gas could be free, and I'd still have no regrets. Because an EV is simply the better vehicle. And I think after over a decade of mass-produced EVs that maybe it's time to get away from "saves on gas" or "good for the environment", and maybe start marketing as "full every time you pull out of the garage", or something. Kind of like Mazda's old commercials for their Wankel engine cars: "piston engine goes 'boing', but the Mazda goes 'hmmmmm'".
The situation is something that makes people pause for a second.
Like everyone knows that EVs are the future, but when gas is fine, status quo fine, that future can be a fuzzy thing in the distance and it's really easy to shut off your brain, live in the present, and not really do any thinking and just go through the motions.
A sudden oil shock puts the issue of EVs on the front burner and gives people reason to think about things for a moment.
Or, America's "No War" candidate is starting wars in the middle east with no plan. It's co-belligerant is targeting oil production facilities, and the defender is responding by taking out refinery capacity in the area. Markets are predicting higher fuel costs for years.
That seems a reasonable time for a bump in EV sales interest.
electrek.co is a renewables (biased) blog.
Of headlines? Always. Of the content of the article? Not without you providing counterevidence.
Speaking of the content:
* BYD has seen an uptick in demand for EVs
* "At one [BYD] dealership in Manila, the capital of the Philippines, demand is so high that it booked a month’s worth of orders in just the past two weeks"
* another dealership nearby had to hire more salespeople
* small uptick from Edmunds for people researching EVs in relevant period[1]
1: https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electrified-vehicle-researc...
I think you're missing something. This war is an inflection point. Consumer behavior is likely to change after it.
So yes, this is just a transient thing...but I think the effects will be permanent.
There is no world in which (so called sensible) environmental policy could have done as much for the environment as going to war to jack up fossil fuel prices. Yes including direct environmental disaster of burning oil wells etc.
The cost of this to the USA has been absolutely massive and will get very much higher. Agonizingly so. The moral dimension is absolutely sickening.
There is nothing else that would have worked in the USA to cut consumption and force alternative energy adoption. This also "works" globally. All other environmental policy failures are dwarfed in comparison with the effect of pushing the price up massively and there is literally no other way to successfully do that. Eg any tax would be repealed by the opposition after they took the next election in a landslide. Think through how any alternative could possibly work, especially given that the corruption disease shows no signs of being treated, let alone effectively so.
The reality of it is heartbreaking. War, destruction and death is how we actually get off fossil fuel addiction as a planet. I wish that wasn't true. I still do not support war or defend it. It's wrong.
Not if. When. You never 'win' in the UK, not in the long term
That figure is highly misleading. Yes, 48% of new vehicle sales in Thailand are now EVs, but their share of total vehicles on the road is much smaller: I can't find recent figures, but it'll be far less than 10%. (Share of new sales was under 20% until late last year.)
The Philippines is even further behind, with share of new sales under 10%.
Of course total fleet composition will eventually converge on new sales, but given that the lifespans of cars are measured in decades, it takes longer than you'd think.
Ember Energy: ASEAN emerges as a new leader in global EV adoption - https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/asean-emerges-as-a-n... - December 16th, 2025
You can see how this looks over a longer term using Norway's data as they transitioned to ~100% EV sales: https://robbieandrew.github.io/EV/
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/one-third-of-cars-o...
And Norway is a "best case" as a wealthy country where people turn over their cars pretty quickly. The Philippines is at the opposite end of the spectrum.