Big Auto’s Self-Inflicted Crisis

How Decades of Lies and Gaslighting on EVs Are Leading to Their Downfall

The European automotive industry, once hailed as a leader in innovation and technology, now finds itself in a self-inflicted crisis. For decades, Big Auto has deliberately resisted the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), not through open opposition but via a sinister and subliminal campaign of lies, half-truths, and gaslighting. This has not only slowed the necessary shift toward electrification but has also tied a collective noose around the industry’s neck. As China races ahead, thanks to over two decades of preparation for the EV revolution, European automakers now find themselves struggling to keep up with a market they worked so hard to undermine.

Decades of Delay: How Big Auto Fought Electrification

At the heart of Big Auto’s strategy has been an insidious campaign of delay tactics and misinformation. Rather than investing in EV technology early on, the industry clung to its internal combustion engine (ICE) business, which had been a cash cow for over a century. Through intense lobbying efforts, automakers sought to water down emissions regulations and stall policies that would have accelerated the shift to EVs. These efforts were so effective that, for decades, consumers and policymakers alike were convinced that electrification was far off in the future or, worse, unnecessary altogether.

One of the key elements of this strategy was the promotion of myths and fears about EVs—chief among them the idea that electric vehicles were impractical due to limited range and a lack of charging infrastructure. This narrative, pushed by automakers for years, was designed to keep consumers tied to gasoline-powered cars, stalling the growth of EV adoption at a time when the world desperately needs it.

Range Anxiety: The New Nokia vs. iPhone Moment

Perhaps the most pervasive and damaging myth perpetuated by automakers is range anxiety; the fear that EVs won’t have enough battery life to cover the average person’s daily needs. This narrative has been peddled relentlessly by the industry, even as EV technology has advanced significantly. The truth is, for the vast majority of drivers, modern EVs provide more than enough range to handle daily commutes and errands.

The fear surrounding range anxiety is akin to the skepticism that met the iPhone when it was first launched. People laughed at the idea of a phone that would need to be charged daily, especially when Nokia’s durable, long-lasting battery phones dominated the market. Fast forward a few years, and smartphones (despite needing daily charging) became the cornerstone of modern life, with Nokia almost completely disappearing from the landscape.

In much the same way, the habits of EV ownership differ from those of traditional cars, but they are hardly a burden. With an EV, you plug in your car at home, and every morning you leave with a full “tank” of electricity, unlike a gasoline car that you must periodically refill at a station. Once consumers learn these new habits, they realize that range anxiety is more myth than reality. (So much of a myth that only non-EV owners ever talk about range anxiety!) The daily act of charging at home eliminates the need for frequent stops at gas stations, making EVs more convenient than their ICE counterparts.

But just as with the iPhone, those who laugh now at EVs will likely find themselves on the wrong side of history. The smartphone market revolutionized communication, leaving behind companies like Nokia that were slow to adapt. The same will be true of the automotive industry. Automakers that fail to embrace EVs fully and cling to internal combustion engines are destined to follow the path of Nokia, becoming irrelevant in a world that is rapidly moving toward electrification.

Channel Stuffing: Inflating ICE Sales to Hide the Truth

In their desperation to cling to the old model, Big Auto resorted to yet another deceitful tactic: channel stuffing. This practice involves flooding the market with unsold ICE vehicles to artificially inflate sales numbers. By overloading dealerships with these unsold cars, automakers can claim higher sales, misleading the public and shareholders into thinking demand for combustion engine cars remains strong.

This strategy has a twofold effect. First, it allows automakers to suggest that EV sales are comparatively weak by pointing to inflated ICE sales numbers. Second, by convincing the public that demand for EVs is slow, they justify their own foot-dragging on electrification. In reality, this tactic has backfired in spectacular fashion.

As the EV market continues to grow exponentially, automakers have found themselves sitting on mountains of unsold ICE cars. For instance, Germany's 69% plunge in EV sales in August 2023 highlights just how effectively automakers have sabotaged their own future. By stuffing the channels with ICE vehicles and cutting incentives for EVs, they’ve convinced the public not to buy electric vehicles, even as regulations around emissions tighten and fines loom.

Companies like Volkswagen and Renault are now facing billions in potential fines for missing their emissions targets, and the workforce is bracing for layoffs as production stalls. The crisis is entirely of their own making. Volkswagen, for example, is considering closing factories in Germany for the first time in its history. Facing immense pressure from cheaper Asian EVs and an internal cost-cutting drive targeting 10 billion euros in savings, VW has declared some of its vehicle and component plants obsolete. This marks a dramatic turning point for Europe’s largest automaker, whose mismanagement and slow electrification efforts have contributed to its decline.

Volkswagen’s situation is part of a broader “wake-up call” for the German economy. With VW’s shares having lost nearly a third of their value in the last five years, it’s evident that the company’s delay in embracing EVs has left it vulnerable to competitors—especially Chinese EV makers like BYD, which are rapidly gaining market share. The company’s plans to shutter factories signal not just a crisis within Volkswagen, but within the wider European automotive industry. For Germany, Europe’s industrial powerhouse, the potential factory closures at its largest employer reflect years of economic stagnation and a failure to adapt to structural changes in the auto market.

Volkswagen’s works council has promised “fierce resistance” to the executive board’s plans, with the IG Metall union accusing management of making “many wrong decisions” over the years, including failing to invest adequately in hybrids or develop affordable battery-electric cars fast enough. The repercussions are rippling across Germany, sending shockwaves through its political and economic landscape as the country grapples with the fallout from a once-dominant industry struggling to keep up with the times.

False Claims About EV Pollution: Twisting the Facts

Another insidious narrative promoted by the automotive industry has been the claim that EVs pollute more than ICE vehicles. This misinformation has been fed to consumers for years, focusing on the carbon footprint of battery production and conveniently ignoring the lifetime emissions savings that come with driving an EV.

While it’s true that battery production is energy-intensive, studies have shown that EVs emit far fewer emissions over their lifetime than traditional gasoline or diesel vehicles. The argument that EVs are worse for the environment relies on cherry-picking data, such as focusing solely on the carbon cost of battery manufacturing while ignoring the far greater emissions from fossil fuel combustion over the life of an ICE vehicle.

The Myth of Battery Waste

Another myth is that EV batteries will create a significant waste problem because they are nearly impossible to dispose of without damaging the environment. The reality, however, is very different. A whole new industry is emerging to recycle lithium batteries, which are estimated to be 99% recyclable. So much so that by 2040, it is expected that we will have extracted enough lithium from the earth to then rely on recycling existing batteries, much like we currently do with lead-acid batteries. This creates a sustainable loop for battery materials, reducing the need for new mining and further lowering the environmental impact.

In contrast, when fossil fuels are burned, the damage is permanent. The harmful emissions, including CO2 and pollutants that contribute to cancer and other health problems, are released into the atmosphere and cannot be reclaimed. Unlike batteries that can be reused and recycled, once fossil fuels are burned, they’re gone forever, and new, ever more expensive sources must be found to continue supplying oil. The environmental damage caused by fossil fuels extends far beyond their use, making the comparison between battery disposal and fossil fuel combustion deeply flawed.

The Real Emissions Picture

The European Federation for Transport and Environment found that EVs emit three times fewer CO2 emissions over their lifetime than ICE vehicles, even when accounting for battery production and the energy grid. As the world shifts to more renewable energy, the emissions tied to EV charging will only decrease, further enhancing their environmental benefits.

Automakers’ attempts to twist the facts about EV pollution are nothing more than a deliberate campaign to sow confusion and delay the inevitable transition to a cleaner, more sustainable transportation model.

The Incentive Myth: Fossil Fuel Subsidies vs. EV Support

A frequent argument made by those who oppose the EV revolution is that electric vehicles only sell because of government incentives. Critics claim that without subsidies, the EV market would collapse, conveniently ignoring the trillions in subsidies that have kept the fossil fuel industry alive for over a century.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), global subsidies for fossil fuels totaled an astonishing $5.9 trillion in 2020 alone. These subsidies, in the form of tax breaks, direct payments, and infrastructure support, have distorted the energy market for decades, keeping gasoline and diesel prices artificially low. Without these subsidies, fossil fuels would be far more expensive, and the transition to EVs would have occurred much sooner.

In contrast, EV incentives are a tiny fraction of the support given to fossil fuels. The typical EV subsidy in the U.S., for instance, is about $7,500 per vehicle, while in Europe, incentives vary but are similarly modest when viewed against the backdrop of fossil fuel subsidies. If critics want to argue that EV incentives are market distortions, then they must also recognize the much larger distortion caused by fossil fuel subsidies.

The Hydrogen and eFuels Myth: Another Distraction to Stall the EV Transition

One of the more recent tactics automakers have used to stall the EV revolution is the promotion of hydrogen and eFuels as the future of clean transportation. By hyping up these technologies, they have managed to divert attention and, more importantly, EU funds away from EV development, slowing down the much-needed electrification of the automotive sector. While hydrogen and eFuels may sound tentatively promising in theory, in practice, these technologies are plagued by inefficiencies, high costs, and logistical challenges that make them far less viable than electric vehicles.

Hydrogen vehicles like the Toyota Mirai were once touted as the next big thing, an alternative to battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) that would offer long-range and quick refueling times. However, the reality is that hydrogen cars have failed to gain any significant traction. The infrastructure needed to support hydrogen refueling stations is expensive and complex, and hydrogen production itself remains (fossil fuel)energy-intensive and costly. Moreover, the Toyota Mirai, once seen as the poster child for hydrogen cars, has become a cautionary tale—now being essentially given away due to poor sales and a lack of consumer interest.

In a similar vein, eFuels (synthetic fuels that can be used in traditional internal combustion engines) have been promoted as a way to extend the life of gasoline and diesel vehicles under the guise of sustainability. However, eFuels are far less efficient than electricity, requiring much more energy to produce and distribute. The idea that eFuels can replace gasoline without disrupting the status quo is little more than a last-ditch effort to keep ICE vehicles on the road, at the expense of real, scalable solutions like EVs.

Diverting Resources from Real Solutions

The promotion of hydrogen and eFuels is a deliberate attempt to divert resources away from EVs, further delaying the transition to electrification. Instead of fully committing to the development of EV infrastructure and technologies, the EU has been persuaded to invest in these alternative fuels, prolonging the dominance of fossil fuel-dependent vehicles. This strategy benefits automakers in the short term, as it allows them to continue producing and selling ICE vehicles under the illusion of sustainability, but it harms consumers and the planet in the long run; and the manufacturers themselves, giving them a false sense of security..

EU funds that should have been directed toward expanding charging infrastructure and subsidizing the development of more affordable EVs have instead been wasted on these hairbrained technologies with no future. The overwhelming evidence shows that EVs are the only viable path forward for personal and commercial transportation, yet the industry continues to push these failed alternatives to slow the momentum of electric vehicles.

The False Promise of Hydrogen and eFuels

While hydrogen and eFuels are presented as part of a "multi-faceted" approach to reducing emissions, they are in fact distractions from the clear and present need for electrification. Hydrogen might find niche applications in industry; like ore processing, but for passenger vehicles, it has proven to be unworkable. The Toyota Mirai, once a flagship hydrogen vehicle, is now an example of the failure of this technology to meet the demands of the market. Consumers are simply not interested, and the infrastructure needed to make hydrogen vehicles feasible is nowhere near what’s required for mass adoption.

Similarly, eFuels, while touted as "clean," are highly inefficient. The process of producing eFuels requires vast amounts of renewable energy, which could be used far more effectively to charge EVs directly; and burning eFuels is not much different than burning gasoline as far as the climate goes. In essence, eFuels are a way for the fossil fuel industry to extend its lifespan, convincing consumers that they can continue driving gasoline cars without guilt, while doing little to actually reduce emissions.

A Waste of Time and Money

The EU’s investment in hydrogen and eFuels is a misallocation of resources at a time when every euro should be directed toward scaling up EV production and charging infrastructure. By continuing to fund these dead-end technologies, the EU is not only slowing the EV transition but also wasting valuable time in the fight against climate change.

Meanwhile, automakers that have put their faith in these technologies, instead of fully committing to EVs, are setting themselves up for failure. The future is electric (that future is NOW), and the sooner the industry accepts this, the better. For too long, hydrogen and eFuels have been held up as alternatives to EVs, but the market and the technology have spoken; these alternatives are no match for the efficiency and scalability of battery-electric vehicles.

Romanticizing Engine Noise: The Last Gasp of a Dying Era

In a desperate attempt to cling to the allure of internal combustion engines, many automakers have resorted to romanticizing the sound of engine noise as a selling point. For decades, the roar of an engine has been marketed as a symbol of power, speed, and performance; something enthusiasts and consumers alike were encouraged to value. Some automakers went so far as to design vehicles where engine noise was amplified, even when it served no functional purpose, simply to play into this nostalgia.

Take Jaguar, for example. Just 18 months ago, the company released an advertisement that didn’t showcase the car’s design, speed, or features. Instead, the entire ad was centered on the sound of the engine, using the auditory experience of driving an internal combustion vehicle to evoke emotion and brand loyalty. This strategy may have worked in the short term, but it was emblematic of an industry clinging to the past instead of embracing the future.

Now, Jaguar has shifted gears entirely. After years of playing up the appeal of engine noise, the company has halted all manufacturing to prepare for a 12-month hiatus before returning as a purely EV manufacturer. This transition underscores just how fleeting and misguided the industry’s focus on engine sound has been. As the world moves toward quieter, cleaner, and more efficient electric vehicles, the once-iconic roar of combustion engines has become little more than a relic of a bygone era, not unlike horse dung!

From Roaring Engines to Silent Efficiency

The shift from loud, roaring engines to the near-silent hum of EVs represents more than just a technological change—it’s a cultural shift. Automakers are realizing that consumers value innovation, efficiency, and sustainability more than the sound of an engine revving. The romance of engine noise, once a key selling point, is quickly losing its allure as EVs prove superior in nearly every aspect of performance—from acceleration to environmental impact.

Jaguar’s decision to stop production and reboot as a fully electric manufacturer highlights the reality that even brands once steeped in the culture of engine noise are recognizing that the future is electric. As with so many other tactics used to delay the EV transition, the appeal of engine noise is fading, and consumers are embracing the quiet, powerful efficiency of electric vehicles.

Why Is Big Auto Trying to Kill EVs? The Hidden Economics of Service Revenue

Beyond the obvious reasons—such as clinging to legacy technologies, avoiding costly investments in new infrastructure, and maintaining relationships with fossil fuel interests—there’s another powerful, yet less-discussed, motivation for why Big Auto is resisting the EV revolution: the long and lucrative service revenue tail attached to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

In the world of ICE vehicles, automakers don’t just make money from the sale of cars—they also generate substantial revenue from ongoing maintenance and consumables. From oil changes, brake pads to timing belt replacements, engine repairs, and exhaust system upkeep, traditional vehicles require regular servicing. This creates a steady stream of income for manufacturers, dealers, and service centers over the lifespan of the vehicle. In many cases, this service revenue can be more profitable than the original sale of the vehicle itself.

However, with electric vehicles, this revenue stream is severely truncated. EVs are far less complex than ICE vehicles, with far fewer moving parts and less need for maintenance. There are no oil changes, fewer components that require regular servicing, and a drastic reduction in consumable parts like spark plugs, timing belts, or exhaust systems. The result is a much lower cost of ownership for consumers, but also a significant loss of revenue for automakers and their dealer networks.

The Truncated Tail of EVs

For automakers, the prospect of losing this service revenue is a major threat. The service tail of an ICE vehicle—meaning the ongoing revenue generated after the initial sale—can stretch out for years, with each service visit contributing to the company’s bottom line. In contrast, EVs require much less frequent servicing, and the services they do require are often simpler and less expensive. As a result, automakers stand to lose a significant portion of their post-sale income if EVs dominate the market.

This is one of the key reasons why Big Auto has been so slow to fully embrace electrification. It’s not just about protecting legacy technologies or avoiding the upfront costs of developing EVs—it’s also about preserving the ongoing revenue stream from service and consumables. Automakers are keenly aware that the shift to EVs will upend their entire business model, especially in terms of how they generate long-term profits.

Redoubling on Hybrids, Hydrogen, and eFuels: Another Flawed Attempt to Preserve the Service Tail

As automakers face the inevitable decline of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, they have doubled down on promoting hybrids, hydrogen, and eFuels as alternatives to fully electric vehicles. On the surface, this seems like an effort to offer consumers multiple pathways toward sustainability, but in reality, it’s yet another attempt to preserve or even increase the long and lucrative service revenue tail that ICE vehicles provide.

Hybrids—which combine a traditional gasoline engine with a small battery—still require regular servicing for the combustion engine, which means that the revenue stream from oil changes, engine repairs, and other consumables remains intact. While automakers market hybrids as a “compromise” solution for reducing emissions (which they do not), they are also preserving the same service-heavy model that has been so profitable for decades.

Hydrogen and eFuels present even more complex systems, which often require specialized parts and servicing. Hydrogen vehicles, for instance, rely on fuel cells and high-pressure systems that need regular maintenance and expensive parts. Similarly, vehicles powered by eFuels still use combustion engines, meaning they come with the same suite of ongoing maintenance needs—engine repairs, emissions systems, and consumable parts—that traditional ICE vehicles have.

Flawed Logic: Service at the Cost of Progress

Automakers are well aware that EVs drastically reduce the need for ongoing servicing—with fewer moving parts, no oil changes, and far less wear and tear on critical components. By doubling down on hybrids, hydrogen, and eFuels, they are trying to slow down the EV transition and keep their service revenue streams alive for as long as possible. The traditional dealership model relies heavily on service departments, which often generate more profit than the initial sale of the vehicle.

This is a short-sighted strategy. While hybrids, hydrogen, and eFuels may extend the life of combustion engines in the short term, they do little to address the urgent need for full electrification to combat climate change. Worse, by diverting attention and investment from fully electric vehicles, automakers are slowing progress toward a truly sustainable future.

Consumers are beginning to see through this approach. Hybrid owners are learning that they still need to pay for regular engine maintenance, while hydrogen and eFuels are less efficient, expensive to produce, and offer no real benefits over EVs. Meanwhile, EVs—by design—have lower costs of ownership and minimal maintenance needs. As EVs become more dominant, the service-heavy business model that automakers rely on will be disrupted.

This economic reality explains why automakers have lobbied fiercely against aggressive EV targets, delayed electrification plans, and continued to promote misinformation about EVs. The service revenue tail is highly profitable for automakers, but it comes at a significant cost to drivers—both financially and environmentally. For the industry, the rise of EVs doesn’t just represent a technological shift; it’s a threat to the core pillar of their business model

The Battery Cost Myth: Another Attempt to Stall EV Adoption

One of the most persistent myths propagated by automakers to combat the rise of electric vehicles has been the idea that EV batteries are short-lived and prohibitively expensive to replace. For years, Big Auto suggested that the battery packs in electric cars would degrade quickly, requiring costly replacements after just a few years of driving. The goal was clear: to create fear around the long-term costs of owning an EV, making it seem that traditional combustion engine cars were the safer financial bet.

The story was simple but effective—an EV might be cheaper to maintain in the short term, but the battery replacement costs would supposedly negate those savings. Automakers cited astronomical replacement costs for EV batteries, suggesting that drivers would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars every few years just to keep their cars running.

Debunking the Battery Myth: Reality vs. Fearmongering

However, this narrative has been thoroughly debunked. Recent studies and real-world data have shown that EV batteries are far more durable than automakers once claimed. In fact, many EVs on the road today are proving that batteries can last for hundreds of thousands of kilometers with minimal degradation. Some of the most popular electric vehicles, like the Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, have been driven for over 300,000 kilometers with their original batteries still performing well.

What’s more, the cost of replacing or repairing batteries has not turned out to be the financial burden that automakers predicted. A cottage industry is emerging, focused on repairing or replacing EV batteries at a fraction of the speculated costs. Specialized companies can refurbish battery packs, replace individual cells, or offer lower-cost alternatives to full replacements. This has further reduced the long-term costs of EV ownership, making it even more attractive to consumers.

A Last-Ditch Effort to Protect the Service Model

The push to highlight the supposed high cost of EV batteries was one of Big Auto’s last-ditch efforts to protect the service revenue model that ICE vehicles rely on. By suggesting that EVs would eventually become as costly to maintain as traditional cars, automakers hoped to keep consumers in their ICE vehicles longer, playing on fears of unexpected expenses.

But as more data comes in and as battery technology improves, the battery cost myth is quickly falling apart. The reality is that EVs are cheaper to maintain over their lifetime, and battery replacements are rare—if they’re needed at all. For the few cases where batteries do need repair or replacement, consumers now have affordable options thanks to the rise of specialized battery service providers.

A Crisis of Their Own Making

Big Auto’s decades-long campaign of lies, gaslighting, and delay tactics has led directly to the crisis they now face. By actively working to slow the transition to electrification, automakers have set themselves up for failure. They convinced the public that EVs weren’t ready, misled governments into watering down regulations, and delayed crucial investments in infrastructure and technology.

Now, as China (after 20 years of strategic preparation) dominates the global EV market, European automakers find themselves on the back foot. Despite their best efforts to slow down the EV revolution, the exponential growth of electric vehicles is unstoppable. And while automakers may have bought themselves some time through lobbying, gaslighting, and misinformation, that time is running out.

In the end, Big Auto is facing a self-inflicted crisis, and the consequences of their actions are clear. They’ve undermined their own future, damaged their credibility, and now risk becoming irrelevant in a market they once controlled. The truth is simple: the future belongs to those who embrace change, and those who cling to the past will be left behind.