From EV Mandate to Gas-Guzzler Renaissance: The Fastest Way to Fall Behind China

Why $1000 for CAFE Rollback Is Pure Fantasy

Introduction

The Trump administration just slashed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to a glacial 0.5% annual improvement, effectively freezing the US fleet average at roughly 34 mpg through 2031. The official line, delivered with CEOs grinning in the background, is that this will slash new-vehicle prices by $1,000 or more and spare American families from “Biden’s EV mandate.” Sure, and monkeys might fly out of my tailpipe. Too bad the whole premise collapses faster than a cheap lawn chair once you look at the actual numbers and history.

Myth #1: Cars Will Suddenly Cost Less

Legacy US automakers have spent the last decade begging for exactly this kind of relief. They got a similar rollback in 2020, and new-vehicle transaction prices still rocketed from $38,000 in 2020 to over $48,000 today. When regulators stop forcing efficiency, manufacturers happily pocket the savings. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation claims the Biden rules added $3,000 per vehicle in compliance costs. Sure, and monkeys might fly out of my tailpipe. Ford’s average transaction price on an F-150 just hit $65,000 last quarter, up 30% since the last rollback. Clearly, those “savings” are going straight into shareholder dividends, not your wallet.

Myth #2: You’ll Pay Less at the Pump

The Hidden $9,500 Price Tag of Relaxing Fuel Economy Standards  

Let’s run the math on the “gas guzzler renaissance” the administration is celebrating.

Scenario (2031 light-duty fleet average)	Annual fuel cost per vehicle (15,000 miles)	Extra lifetime cost vs. Biden standard (150,000 miles)
Biden rule (~50 mpg)	$1,350	Baseline
Trump rollback (~34 mpg)	$1,985	+$9,525 per vehicle

That $9,500 hole in your pocket dwarfs the $1,000 “savings” the White House keeps touting. Trucks and SUVs, which already make up 82% of US sales, will stay thirsty, and dealers’ lots will remain packed with 18-mpg behemoths. Enjoy those pump prices, patriots.

Meanwhile, China Is Eating Everyone’s Lunch

While Detroit celebrates the return of the V8, China is quietly becoming the world’s auto superpower. Chinese brands now hold over 60% of the global EV market. They are flooding Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and even Mexico with $12,000 to $25,000 electrics that are profitable, decently built, and improving every model year. By clinging to the internal combustion engine like it’s a life raft, legacy US automakers are actually tying a cast-iron anchor around their own necks. Come 2035, when Europe and many emerging markets effectively ban new gasoline car sales, the same companies that cheered this rollback will be desperately trying to sell yesterday’s technology into tomorrow’s showrooms. They'll be the Blockbuster in a Netflix world.

The Yo-Yo Effect Nobody Talks About

Rapid policy whiplash is the real silent killer here. Automakers plan powertrains seven to ten years out. The Obama administration tightened CAFE, Trump I loosened it, Biden cranked it back up, and Trump II just slammed the brakes on efficiency again. This regulatory rollercoaster forces companies to hedge every bet: build EV platforms, keep ICE lines warm, stockpile credits, and pray the next election doesn’t torch the roadmap. Toyota and Hyundai, operating under steady, strict rules in their home markets, can commit billions to product roadmaps with confidence. Detroit, meanwhile, is stuck in perpetual panic mode, burning cash on parallel development paths. Long-term planning? It’s more like long-term paralysis.

Bonus Round: Export Markets Don’t Care About MAGA

Europe hits 57 mpg equivalent in 2030 with €95/g penalties for every excess gram of CO₂. China demands 73 mpg equivalent and showers domestic EV makers with subsidies. Japan is marching toward 60 mpg. US brands that want to sell abroad must engineer completely different vehicle lines: inefficient cash cows for the home market and hyper-efficient models for everyone else. That duplication is expensive, and guess who pays? Exactly, the same American buyer who was promised lower prices.

Conclusion

Pump Pain, Profit Gain, and Policy Ping-Pong 

The CAFE rollback is sold as pro-consumer populism, but it’s really a multibillion-dollar gift to Detroit’s profit margins and the oil industry, wrapped in patriotic bunting. Vehicle prices won’t drop in any meaningful way, fuel bills will balloon, and our automakers will keep lurching from one presidential policy spasm to the next while China laps the field. If we want affordable, efficient, domestically built cars anytime soon, we need steady, ambitious standards that reward innovation rather than status quo inertia. Only then can we steer toward a future free from fossil fuels, rather than chaining ourselves to the pump for another lost decade.

500 Hover Dams of Energy

The political slogan from Herbert Hoover’s 1928 presidential campaign was, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” It painted a vision of self-sufficiency and economic stability while promising widespread prosperity and security for American households. One hundred years later, a 2028 campaign slogan might be, "Solar panels on every roof and an electric vehicle in every garage." This slogan also embodies the abundance; the abundance of solar energy that shines down daily. Families can harness solar power to fuel both their homes and vehicles, achieving financial and environmental benefits. Solar has the collective potential to vastly outscale even monumental projects such as the Hoover Dam.

Solar Panels: Prosperity Through Energy Independence

Installing solar panels on your roof is a powerful step toward financial insulation and sustainability. Electricity bills have been climbing steadily, driven by increasing demand and volatile energy markets. Solar panels allow homeowners to generate their own electricity, reducing reliance on utility companies and shielding wallets from unpredictable rate hikes. By capturing sunlight, a free and abundant resource, households can make hay while the sun shines, producing energy during peak daylight hours. Excess power can be stored in batteries or fed back into the grid for credits, further enhancing savings. Since we started with Hoover’s campaign slogan, let’s look at the Hoover Dam. That dam produces an impressive 4.2 TWh of energy annually. As impressive as that is, globally, solar already produces more than 500 times more energy. And multiple Hoover Dams worth are being added every year. Over time, the initial investment in solar panels pays off, creating a sense of prosperity akin to the promise of a chicken in every pot, where basic needs are met through self-reliance.

EVs: Prosperity Through Fuel Cost Stability

An EV in the garage, particularly one with a Solar Charging feature, complements rooftop solar panels to maximize financial benefits. Gasoline prices are notoriously volatile, subject to global market swings and geopolitical events. EVs eliminate this uncertainty by running on electricity. Electricity prices are generally regulated by a utility board, and these increases must be justified and approved. This makes electricity prices far more stable than prices at the pump. Additionally, electricity can be sourced directly from your own solar panels. Solar Charging EV features direct surplus solar to the EV battery rather than the grid. This allows owners to seamlessly charge their vehicles using energy generated at home. This reduces or even eliminates fuel costs, mirroring the economic security Hoover’s slogan envisioned with a car in every garage. By charging during the day when solar production peaks, EV owners make hay while the sun shines, ensuring efficient use of renewable energy and further insulating themselves from price fluctuations at the pump.

A Modern Vision of Prosperity

The combination of solar panels and an EV redefines prosperity in the 21st century. Hoover’s slogan promised a baseline of economic comfort through access to food and transportation. Today, solar panels and EVs deliver a similar promise but with a forward-looking twist: sustainable prosperity. By generating your own electricity and powering your home and vehicle with it, you create a closed loop of energy independence. Scaled across communities, this leverages solar’s massive output, already dwarfing the Hoover Dam’s contribution, while adding significant capacity annually. This not only saves money but also reduces environmental impact, aligning with modern values of sustainability. Home batteries ensure that every ray of sunlight is maximized for both home and travel.

Conclusion

Having solar panels on your roof and an EV in your garage is a contemporary echo of Hoover’s “chicken in every pot and car in every garage” vision. It represents prosperity through energy and financial independence, shielding households from rising electricity and fuel costs. Families can harness solar power to fuel their homes and vehicles. With global solar production already exceeding 500 Hoover Dams' worth of annual energy production and growing rapidly, this modern setup fulfills a modern spirit of Hoover’s promise, adapting it to a world where sustainability and cost stability are paramount, offering a prosperous future powered by the sun.

From Denial to Duty: How Men Can Lead in Climate Protection

Real Masculine Strength: Protecting People and the Planet

Introduction

In the manosphere is a network of online communities focused on traditional masculinity. Figures such as Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, and Jordan Peterson are prominent and often portray masculinity as being dominating, lacking empathy, or even being cruel. These same figures will dismiss environmentalism as weak or feminine. However, true masculine strength lies in using your power to protect people in need and the environment. This dominance narrative, pushed through podcasts and other channels, can align with pro-fossil fuel agendas by framing environmental activism as unmasculine and not something that "real" men should participate in. This article explores how authentic masculinity involves safeguarding others and the planet, countering toxic narratives, and addressing the fossil fuel industry’s influence on climate denial.

Redefining Masculine Strength

True masculine strength is about protection and care, not domination. Courage, resilience, and responsibility, these are traits of masculinity. Mascility is in acts of defending vulnerable communities or ensuring a sustainable future. In contrast to toxic masculinity, which emphasizes domination and ignores environmental issues, genuine strength focuses on caring for and protecting both people and the planet. This contrasts with manosphere rhetoric that mocks environmentalism, as seen in Andrew Tate’s boasts about his carbon footprint or Joe Rogan’s podcast discussions downplaying climate science. Protecting the environment requires foresight and leadership, qualities central to a redefined masculinity.

Environmentalism as a Masculine Duty

Research highlights an all-too-common perception that environmentalism is feminine, deterring men from eco-friendly actions. A 2017 Scientific American study found that both men and women associate reusable bags with femininity, and many men avoid green behaviors when their masculinity feels threatened, such as choosing non-eco products after receiving a pink gift card. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as petro-masculinity (Daggett 2018).

Yet, the concept of ecological masculinities as outlined in Martin Hultman and Paul M. Pulé’s 2019 book Ecological Masculinities redefines strength as caring for the global and local commons. This approach challenges stereotypes, encouraging men to see environmental protection as a powerful, masculine act of safeguarding future generations.

The Manosphere’s Role in Climate Denial

The manosphere often promotes climate denial. Figures like Andrew Tate, who bragged about his massive carbon footprint in a 2023 exchange with Greta Thunberg, and Jordan Peterson, who labeled climate science a conspiracy in a 2024 Guardian article, frame environmentalism as weak. The Joe Rogan Experience has been cited in a 2025 Sentient Media report for spreading climate misinformation, such as dismissing the environmental impact of meat production. These messages, targeting young male audiences, align with pro-fossil fuel narratives by undermining climate action.

The 2025 podcast series Carbon Bros, produced by Amy Westervelt and Daniel Penny, explores this trend. Episode 1, The Testosterone Pipeline, details how manosphere influencers spread climate denial, shaping young men’s views and influencing political outcomes, like the 2024 US election. The fossil fuel industry has been aware since the 1990s that certain men are susceptible to climate disinformation than the general population. And they have funded denial campaigns through groups like the American Petroleum Institute, as noted in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Deception Dossiers. While direct funding of manosphere podcasts lacks clear evidence, this history suggests at least an indirect influence.

Impact and Call to Action

The manosphere’s rejection of environmentalism as unmasculine harms both society and the environment, delaying climate action and exacerbating impacts on marginalized groups, as highlighted in a 2019 Reuters article. True masculine strength counters this by embracing stewardship for the planet. Men have a duty to lead by adopting sustainable practices, challenging denialist narratives, and supporting policies that protect vulnerable communities. This shift reframes environmentalism as a powerful act of leadership, aligning with the protective essence of masculinity.

Conclusion

True masculine strength lies in protecting people and the environment, not in dominance or denial. The manosphere’s climate skepticism, amplified by figures like Tate, Rogan, and Peterson, often serves fossil fuel interests by discouraging action. However, embracing ecological masculinities offers a path forward, where men use their strength to safeguard the planet. As Amy Westervelt and Daniel Penny’s work shows, countering these narratives is crucial for climate progress. By redefining masculinity as protective, men can become leaders in the fight for a future free from fossil fuels, benefiting all.

Cashing Out: How the Oil Industry Maximizes Profits by Ignoring Its Future (and Ours)

Key Points

• An episode of the "Thinking the Unthinkable" podcast hosted by Nik Gowing featured Mark Campanale from the Carbon Tracker Initiative.  
• The shift from fossil fuels to renewables, electric vehicle (EV) growth, and the oil and gas sector contraction.
• Research suggests EV sales are rising rapidly, with China at over 50% and the UK at 34% of car sales recently, driven by lower costs (around $15,000 USD in China, below $20,000 USD in Europe).
• Oil demand will likely decrease by about 5 million barrels per day by 2030, with major companies like Shell, Chevron, and BP having under 10 years of reserves left.
• The evidence leans toward renewables becoming cheaper, led by China's advancements, the markets clearly see it withh oil companies valued at 4 to 6 times earnings compared to tech firms at 30 to 50x earnings.

Introduction

Mark Campanale, founder of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, discusses the global energy transition with Nik Gowing on the Thinking the Unthinkable podcast. The discussion explores the rapid rise of electric vehicles (EVs), the decline of the oil and gas sector, and the growing competitiveness of renewables. It provides insights into current trends and future projections, offering valuable information for investors, policymakers, and the public.

Key Statistics

The following table summarizes the key numerical data from the podcast:

Category	Details
EV Sales in China	>50% of car sales in recent months
EV Sales in the UK	34% of all car sales last month
Oil Reserves Life	Shell, Chevron, BP: under 10 years
Future Oil Demand Loss	~5 million barrels per day by 2030
EV Impact on Oil Demand	20 million EVs ~ 1 million barrels/day
EV Price in China	around $15,000
EV Price in Europe	below $20,000 (target)
Market Valuation	Oil: 4-6x earnings; Tech: 30-50x future earnings

Detailed Analysis

The podcast highlights the rapid adoption of EVs, with China seeing over 50% of car sales in 2025, up from just a few percent a few years ago. In the UK, EVs accounted for 34% of car sales last month, with projections suggesting this could pass 50% in 3-4 years. This growth is driven by falling prices, with EVs in China available for around $15,000 USD and efforts in Europe to bring prices below $20,000 USD. Campanale notes EVs are simpler and more efficient, potentially accelerating their adoption, especially given that 70% of UK cars are now sold via leases, which could lead to a rapid switch.

The discussion also addresses the decline of the oil and gas sector, with major companies like Shell, Chevron, and BP having less than 10 years of reserves left and not investing significantly in new exploration. This reflects a strategic shift, with the sector focusing on extracting value from existing assets rather than growth. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts a significant reduction in oil demand by 2030, projecting a loss of around 5 million barrels per day, partly due to EVs, with every 20 million EVs on the road reducing demand by about 1 million barrels per day.

Renewable energy costs are dropping, driven by China's advancements in solar and EV technologies, making renewables increasingly competitive. This cost advantage is accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy, as renewables become more attractive to consumers and investors. Market valuations reflect this shift, with oil companies valued at 4-5-6 times next year's earnings, compared to tech firms like Nvidia, valued at 30-40-50 times future earnings, indicating investor confidence in technology and renewables.

The podcast also touches on broader implications, such as the potential decommissioning of oil rigs and coal-fired power stations, and the optimism for a clean energy transition, supported by data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Carbon Tracker. It suggests a new energy system where energy can be made at the point of use, eliminating complex oil logistics.

Conclusion

They paint a detailed picture of our energy transition, emphasizing the rapid adoption of EVs, the challenges facing the oil and gas industry, and the growing competitiveness of renewables. The oil sector is maximizing today's profits by forgoing exploration. Ceding the future (intentionally or not) to renewables. It's important for investors, policymakers, and the general public to understand these shifts and the need for strategic foresight and adaptation. The insights provided by Mark Campanale, supported by specific statistics and projections, offer a robust foundation for navigating the complexities of a changing energy landscape.

Supporting Information

The transcript is available on the podcast website, alongside contact details for further engagement: Podcast Transcript. You can check out more of their stuff via www.thinkunthink.org.

IEA's Flawed Premise - Electrified Transportation is Here, Like It Or Not

The future of oil demand; only one of these is realistic

The End of Oil's Growth: Peak Oil is Behind Us

The conventional wisdom regarding future oil demand, as offered by the International Energy Agency (IEA), is structurally flawed and fundamentally misaligned with market realities. While the IEA’s high-end projections (which shows demand sustained at 113 million barrels per day through 2050) may serve certain political or economic interests, they fail to account for the exponential rate of technological adoption. We here at carswithcords assert that peak global oil demand is already in the rearview mirror, and the accelerating adoption of EVs, including heavy-duty transport, guarantees a trajectory of irreversible decline far steeper than official forecasts suggest.

Institutional Inertia and Flawed Assumptions

The IEA's continued reliance on scenarios that imply sustained or rising oil demand is not a reflection of objective market analysis but rather a symptom of institutional inertia. Large forecasting bodies often face pressures, both internal and external, to avoid radical disruption in their outlooks. Specifically, the IEA is funded by 32 member countries, many of which export oil, which do not want to see projections of oil demand decline.

There are compelling reasons to believe the IEA methodologies are seriously flawed:

• Linear Modeling: High-end models often rely on linear extrapolations of historical growth rather than accounting for S-curve adoption, which characterizes every major technological transition from the internet to smartphones. Globally, EVs have passed the tipping point and are currently exhibiting this rapid, non-linear growth.
• Understated Policy Impact: The Stated Policies Scenario assumes governments will only fulfill their minimum obligations, ignoring the tendency for climate policy and regulation to accelerate once clean technology reaches (or surpasses) price parity.
• Opaque Economic Ties: The IEA forecasting body has a clear history of underestimating renewables growth while overstating fossil fuel resilience. This latest report appears to be no different from previous reports that were far from accurate pronostications.

By failing to model the full impact of the deflationary cost of clean technology, the IEA risks providing a misleading sense of security regarding future oil demand and prices. Essentially, the member nations are paying for reports that tell them what they want to hear, rather than an accurate projection.

The Evidence Confirming That Peak Oil Has Already Occurred 

We are not merely approaching peak oil; there's compelling evidence that suggests the moment of peak demand has already passed; even if minor fluctuations occur year-to-year, the trend is downward. This peak is not due to a shortage of supply, but a structural erosion of demand in the world's most developed markets. As the saying goes, "We didn't leave the Stone Age because we ran out of rocks." Similarly, we must transition away from oil while there are still supplies, or the transition will be devastating.

Key evidence supporting the claim of demand erosion includes:

Evidence Point	Impact on Oil Demand	Implication
China's Peak Fuel Use	China, the world's largest oil importer, has seen internal projections indicating its gasoline and diesel demand will peak this decade, driven by massive (internally supplied) EV adoption.	The largest engine of global oil demand growth is stalling.
OECD Demand Collapse	Oil consumption across advanced economies (OECD nations, including the US and Europe) has been either stagnant or in decline for years, a trend that is accelerating.	The transition is complete in early adopters and is moving to the early majority consumer base.
EV Displacement Rate	According to the IEA's own data, EVs displaced over 1.3 mb/d of oil demand in 2024. This number is not speculation; it is a measurable loss that will be higher in 2025.	Every new EV sale directly removes years of future oil demand.
Electrification of Heavy Transport	As electric semi-trucks begin to deploy, they target the massive diesel consumption of the commercial freight sector, ensuring the demand erosion extends beyond passenger cars.	The second-largest transport segment is now structurally exposed. Fleet managers want to move to vehicles with lower running costs.

The S-Curve of Light-Duty Vehicle Disruption

The passenger car market has decisively entered the exponential growth phase of the Sigmoid-curve, a hockey stick pattern where slow initial uptake gives way to a rapid surge in adoption. EVs are now entering the early majority mainstream, driven by technological improvements, falling battery costs, decades of infrastructure development, and (in most of the world) supportive government policies. This accelerated adoption rate confirms the market has reached a tipping point, backed by accelerated production and battery advancements. This shift is already having a material impact on fuel consumption. In 2024, the IEA itself estimated that the global EV fleet was already displacing over 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d).

This displacement is set to increase dramatically. In the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), which only accounts for announced government targets, electric cars alone are expected to displace over 5 mb/d of oil demand globally by 2030. If adoption accelerates further due to price parity and more robust charging infrastructure, that displacement figure could rise even higher. Critically, every barrel of oil displaced by an EV represents a permanent, structural loss of demand for the oil market. This erosion of the largest single source of oil consumption (light-duty transport typically accounts for around a quarter of global oil demand) cannot be easily offset by demand in other sectors.

Electrifying Heavy Transport: The Next Frontier

While passenger cars dominate the current conversation, the next major wave of oil demand destruction is coming from heavy transport, specifically semi trucks. Commercial trucking has long been considered one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonize due to the high energy requirements for long-haul routes and heavy loads. However, rapid advancements in battery technology, supported by major investment in electric truck platforms from manufacturers, are making heavy-duty electrification a commercial reality.

The IEA anticipates that electric trucks and buses could displace nearly 1 mb/d of oil demand by 2030 in the STEPS scenario. If infrastructure investments in cross-continent electric charging corridors are made, this displacement will become far more pronounced. Further battery advancement, such as solid-state cells, will continue to challenge oil’s supremacy in hard-to-abate areas. This dual pressure, from passenger cars and heavy vehicles, compresses the timeline for oil demand erosion.

Scenario Comparison and Residual Demand

To understand the long-term consequences of accelerated electrification, it helps to compare the primary long-term oil demand of the three scenarios published by the IEA. Our market-driven accelerated electrification view pushes the market trajectory toward the low-demand end of the spectrum.

IEA Scenario Name	Primary Policy Assumption	Projected Global Oil Demand 2050 (Approx.)	Peak Year
Current Policies Scenario (CPS)	Only currently enacted policies.	113 million barrels per day	No peak before 2050
Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS)	All government targets and pledges.	Declining after peak	~2030
Net Zero Emissions (NZE)	A pathway to limit warming to 1.5°C.	24 million barrels per day	Already peaked

The name of the final scenario is misleading; even if all transportation were electrified, some oil demand would remain. The primary residual demand will come from petrochemical feedstocks, which are oil-based products used for plastics and other industrial purposes. This feedstock remains the most resilient source of demand; however, its growth is insufficient to offset the decline in transportation fuels. The total size of the petrochemical market cannot absorb the vast volumes of gasoline and diesel being eliminated by electric mobility.

In a scenario defined by technological acceleration, global oil demand is guaranteed to fall dramatically, validating the premise of a rapid transition. The future lies far closer to the IEA's low-end Net Zero Emissions projection with demand reduced to approximately 24 mb/d by 2050, rather than the inflated figures of their other models. To proceed with investment or policy based on the assumption of rising demand is to ignore the clear market signal of an industry already in structural, irreversible decline.

Closing the Cobalt Loop: What Every EV Driver Should Know

The Elephant in the Room: Cobalt

We've covered the plethora of battery benefits many times here on CarWithCords. So let's talk about the elephant in the room, Cobalt.

This shimmering, silvery-blue metal powers many lithium-ion batteries, which keep our EVs humming, our phones buzzing, and our grid-scale storage systems standing strong. Cobalt is not used in all lithium-ion battery types, but the highest energy variants depend on it. Cobalt is necessary for our transition away from fossil fuels because it stabilizes cathodes, prevents overheating, and delivers the high energy density needed for long-range electric cars and reliable storage for renewable energy. Without cobalt, many battery chemistries would underperform. Yet cobalt carries serious baggage: concentrated supply chains, ethical nightmare history, and a mining footprint we'd all rather reduce.

What Cobalt Actually Does

About 75% of refined cobalt now goes straight into batteries, mostly Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt (NMC) and Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) cathodes. The rest feeds superalloys for jet engines, catalysts for oil refineries, magnets, and even vitamin B12 (yes, really). Over the last decade, battery demand has exploded: global consumption topped 200,000 metric tons in 2024, and demand is climbing.

Where the Stuff Comes From

One country dominates like a video-game final boss: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) produced roughly three-quarters of the world's mined cobalt in 2024. Indonesia follows with 10-15% from nickel laterite projects, then Russia, Australia, Canada, and a handful of others round out the remainder. Almost none is mined in the US.

Country	Approximate Share (2024–2025)	Notes
DRC	75%	Mostly copper by-product, a mix of industrial and artisanal mines
Indonesia	10-15%	Rapidly rising HPAL projects
Russia	3-4%	Primary Miner: Norilsk Nickel
Australia	1-2%	Miner: Glencore's Murrin Murrin
Canada	2%	Miners: Glencore and Vale operations

The Ethical Nightmare
(and the Groups Trying to Fix It)

Let's not sugar-coat it. A huge chunk of DRC cobalt still comes from artisanal mines where children as young as seven dig with hand tools, earning a pittance while breathing toxic dust and risking their lives. Industrial mines have improved traceability, and some are certified "responsible," but forced evictions, water pollution, and corruption remain rampant. Australian and Canadian cobalt is far cleaner, yet the sheer volume from the DRC means almost every battery has at least a trace of Congolese material unless the manufacturer explicitly sources otherwise.

Thankfully, several multi-stakeholder initiatives are pushing for real change. The Cobalt Institute represents producers and users worldwide, funding projects for safer mining and better data transparency. The Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) runs the Cobalt Refiner Supply Chain Due Diligence Standard and audits refiners from mine to battery cell. The Fair Cobalt Alliance pools companies like Glencore, Tesla, and NGOs to formalize artisanal sites, build schools, and pay living wages. The Global Battery Alliance (with over 100 members, including automakers, miners, and recyclers) created the "Cobalt Action Partnership" to scale responsible practices across the entire value chain. Progress is slow and uneven, but these groups have helped certify sites, reduce child labor, and give miners actual bargaining power. The uncomfortable truth is that without them, things would be far worse.

Recycling: Finally Getting Serious

Cobalt has enjoyed one of the highest recycling rates of any metal because superalloy scraps were easy money. Battery recycling, however, is newer and trickier. Globally, recycled cobalt supplies ~5% of total demand currently in 2025, but most of that still comes from old jet-engine parts, not (yet) dead EV packs. End-of-life battery recycling is ramping quickly. Note that EV retirement will generally lag EV production volumes by 12 to 15 years, so the recycled content in new batteries is still modest.

In the US, things look much brighter. Thanks to the IRA tax credits that treat North American recycled minerals the same as if they were freshly mined here. Recycled cobalt now makes up roughly 15-20% of the cobalt in US-made battery cells in late 2025. Some suppliers already hit 50-100% recycled cobalt in certain cathode runs for Panasonic and others. The European Union's Battery Regulation mandates a material recovery target of 90% for cobalt (as well as copper, lead, and nickel) from recycled batteries, to be achieved by December 31, 2027.

The Recycling Heroes Actually Doing the Work

The company Redwood Materials (founded by JB Straubel from Tesla) dominates the modern battery recycling scene. Redwood processes enough materials to provide batteries for 250,000-300,000 EV packs per year. They recover greater than 95% of the nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper, and ship battery-grade material straight back to cell manufacturers, often with higher purity grades than virgin materials. They currently handle ~90% of US lithium-ion recycling volume. Li-Cycle, Ascend Elements, Cirba Solutions, and Retriev Technologies handle the remainder. Redwood is the 800-pound gorilla turning scrap into black mass at scale.

Why This Matters More Than Virtue Signaling

Every metric ton of recycled cobalt means one less metric ton dug by hand in the DRC. It slashes energy use by ~46%, water use by ~40%, and avoids the human-rights horrors entirely. Plus, in the US, it counts as domestic supply under IRA rules, which is why Ford, GM, Toyota, and Panasonic have signed massive offtake deals faster than you can say "closed-loop." This is one part of the IRA that survived shredding by the BBBA.

The recycling numbers will only improve from here. By 2030, recycled content is expected to reach 30-40% in the US as more packs reach end-of-life and additional recycling plants come online. Battery chemistries are also advancing toward lower- or zero-cobalt compositions, with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP), sodium-ion, and Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate (LMFP) among the notable types. However, cobalt will remain important for high-performance cells for a long time.

Bottom line: cobalt remains the problematic poster child of the battery world, but industry alliances and recycling are turning a dirty linear supply chain into something that increasingly resembles a circle. This is something crude oil could never do. The US leads the recycling charge, proving batteries can be built more responsibly. The path forward is to keep pushing recycled content, support the initiatives cleaning up mining, and toward a future free from fossil fuels without leaving a trail of exploited kids and ruined landscapes in the wake.

Lead’s Lethal Legacy: Lithium’s Lifesaving Leap - Ending the Global Lead Poisoning Cycle

Zapping the Lead Legacy: Why Lithium-Ion Batteries Deserve the Driver's Seat

The good ol' 12-Volt car starter batteries rank among the most recycled items on the planet. On their recycling journey, billions of lead-acid batteries end up in countries like Nigeria, where environmental controls are almost nonexistent. Lead is a potent neurotoxin. Informal smelters break open batteries, melt the lead in backyard furnaces, and release dust that poisons workers, children, and entire villages. The same recycled lead then flows back into new batteries sold worldwide. This hidden cycle keeps costs low for battery makers and devastation high for communities that never chose to bear our waste.

Picture this: a world where your car battery does not turn recycling yards into toxic sludge pits. Sounds like a decent upgrade, right? Lead-acid batteries have powered vehicles since the 1800s. With 1.6 billion vehicles on the road worldwide in 2025 and billions more lead-acid units in forklifts and golf carts, the sheer volume is staggering. It is time to swap these heavy, poisonous packs for lithium-ion batteries that perform better and do not poison people.

The Toxic Titans Still Ruling the Road

Roughly 3 billion lead-acid batteries are manufactured every year. Nearly every internal-combustion vehicle uses a lead-acid starter battery. Major battery producers include Clarios (supplying one in three cars globally), Exide Technologies, East Penn Manufacturing, GS Yuasa, and EnerSys. Together, they keep a $56 billion industry humming.

The problem is not the battery when it sits neatly under your hood. The problem is when it reaches the end of life. Informal recycling in places like Nigeria, India, and Bangladesh routinely contaminates entire communities. In Ogijo, Nigeria, soil lead levels hit 186 times the safe limit, and 70% of tested residents (many of them children) have blood-lead levels above the WHO lead poisoning threshold. The New York Times and The Examination documented how recycled lead from these operations flows back into new batteries sold around the world. The circle is vicious, profitable, and lethal.

Lithium-Ion: Non-Toxic and Ready to Drop In

Lithium batteries are ready now and outperform lead-acid. Lead-acid operates roughly -15°C to 50°C (suffers in extremes). Lithium batteries reliably work from -20°C to 60°C. Lithium-Ion delivers 3000-6000 full cycles vs lead-acid’s 200-500, so you replace it far less often and enjoy 10 to 15 years of rock-solid service. Drop-in 12V Lithium batteries are plug-and-play ready today.

Lithium-ion batteries contain no lead and no free-flowing sulfuric acid. Modern Li-ion packs are sealed, non-toxic units that pose minimal risk even if cracked open. Recycling them is far cleaner and already reaches 95% material recovery in regulated facilities. And some types of lithium batteries (like lithium iron phosphate) are cobalt-free. (More coming here about Cobalt tomorrow.)

For direct lead-acid replacement, the standout chemistry is lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4, often branded LFP). It offers flat voltage curves that mimics lead-acid, extreme safety (no thermal runaway), and 10 times the lifespan of lead-acid. Weight drops by about 70%, charge time collapses from 10 hours to under 2, and usable capacity jumps because you can safely discharge LFP to 100% instead of the 50% limit typical for lead-acid.

Here is the tale of the tape:

Feature	Lead-Acid	LiFePO4
Contains lead	Yes	No
Toxicity risk	Extreme	Negligible
Weight for 100 Ah	28-32 kg	10-12 kg
Full cycles (100% DOD)	200-500	3000-6000
Charge time (0-100%)	8-16 hours	1-3 hours
Usable capacity	~50%	~98%
Full Accounting Cost per cycle (2025)	$0.14-$0.20	$0.04-$0.06
Recycling pollution	Severe	Low

Major Automakers and Their 12V Starter Battery Choices (in 2025)

Automaker	Current 12V Starter Battery Strategy
Tesla	Fully adopted Li-ion 12V batteries since 2021 across all models; matches main pack life.
Ford	Sticks to AGM lead-acid for 12V starters; aftermarket Li-ion available but not OEM-integrated
GM/Chevrolet	Uses Li-ion 12V in select hybrids/EVs like Corvette E-Ray; lead-acid common elsewhere with no broad shift announced
Toyota	Relies on AGM lead-acid 12V; no OEM Li-ion starter option
Volkswagen	Transitioned to Li-ion 12V in EVs since 2022; gasoline and diesel cars still use lead-acid starter batteries
Hyundai	Integrates Li-ion 12V into EVs and hybrids (e.g., Ioniq, Sonata Hybrid) since 2017; saves weight
Stellantis	No confirmed Li-ion 12V use; exclusively lead-acid starters.
Honda	No confirmed Li-ion 12V use; exclusively lead-acid starters.
Nissan	Uses lead-acid 12V in all vehicles (even the all-electric Leaf).
BMW	Offers Li-ion 12V as option in M models (e.g., M3/M4) since 2014; requires specialized hardware.

Golf Carts Lead The Transition

The golf cart industry is rapidly adopting lithium-ion batteries primarily because the technology directly solves operational deficiencies of lead-acid. Lithium batteries weigh less, dramatically improving cart speed, acceleration, and component wear. Furthermore, lithium requires virtually zero maintenance: this eliminates the need for water checks and corrosion cleaning, and lithium charges four times faster. For commercial fleet operators on golf courses, this translates to drastically reduced labor costs, less downtime, and a lower total cost of ownership over the battery's 5 to 10 year lifespan, making the premium price easily justifiable. In 2015, nearly all golf carts were lead-acid; as of last year, most golf carts made are lithium-powered, and, as our chart shows, the trend will continue. 

The automotive industry's transition to lithium starter batteries is slow due to established supply chains and cost. Lead-acid is cheap, reliable enough, and suited for the high-power, short-burst needs of starting an engine. To automakers, the upfront expense of lithium is hard to justify, even if it works better for consumers and the planet in the long run. However, lithium's superior cycle life, lighter weight, and integration with electric vehicle systems will eventually force the switch. As manufacturing costs drop and vehicle electrification increases demand for high-efficiency components, the total cost of ownership will shift, making lithium the new standard (see chart below).

Time to Retire the Lead Weight

The technology is ready, the price gap is closing (12V 100Ah LFP drop-in batteries now sell for $250-$350 versus $150 for premium AGM lead-acid). The additional cost is more than made up for by the extended life, and the moral case is overwhelming. Every year we delay, another few hundred thousand tons of lead get smeared across villages that never asked for it.

Switching car starter batteries, golf-cart packs, and other lead-acid batteries to LiFePO4 lithium-ion would slash mining demand for new lead, gut the toxic recycling trade, and deliver better performance at lower lifetime cost. Automakers have zero excuses left.

Let us finally build a future free from preventable lead poisoning. The batteries are waiting. All we have to do is plug them in.

Chill Out: Simple Habit to Keep Tires Primed for Winter Drives

As autumn paints the northern hemisphere in fiery hues and the first frosts whisper of winter's approach, savvy drivers turn their attention to a subtle but significant detail of tire pressure. Cooler air contracts, and with it, the air inside your tires follows suit, leading to a predictable drop in pressure. This seasonal shift isn't just a minor inconvenience. It can quietly erode your vehicle's efficiency, hike up fuel costs, and even trim the range on electric vehicles. Yet, with a bit of mindful maintenance, you can counteract these effects, stretch your dollars further, and ease the load on our shared environment by curbing unnecessary emissions.

The physics at play here is straightforward, rooted in the ideal gas law that governs how gases behave under changing conditions. As temperatures fall, the air molecules inside your tires slow down and huddle closer together, reducing the overall pressure. Tires typically lose about 1 PSI for every 10 degrees Fahrenheit drop in ambient temperature. Imagine starting the season with tires at the recommended 35 PSI on a balmy 70°F day. A plunge to 30°F, common in early winter, could shave off 4 PSI across all four tires. That's enough to trigger the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) light on your dashboard, your vehicle's polite nudge to check pressures.

When pressure dips, the tire's sidewall flexes more than it should, increasing rolling resistance, that's drag that your engine or motor must overcome. This extra effort translates directly to higher fuel consumption. Maintaining proper inflation can boost fuel economy by up to 3%. Even a modest underinflation of 1 PSI across all tires can cost you 0.2% in efficiency. Over a year of typical US driving, say 12,000 miles at 25 miles per gallon and $3.50 per gallon, that adds up to real money, potentially $50 or more flushed away in wasted fuel.

Electric vehicle owners face an amplified version of this challenge. EVs rely on battery power for every millimeter of propulsion, so any drag hits the range hard. Underinflated tires can sap 5% or more from your range, depending on the severity. What's more, many EVs run at higher recommended pressures, often 42 to 45 PSI, to minimize resistance and maximize efficiency. A cold snap that drops tire pressures could not only shorten your available range but also extend recharge times, as the vehicle works harder each mile it advances, so you roll into the charging station with a lower charge. EVs have many great advantages; ignoring tire pressure undermines them.

To illustrate the temperature's grip on tire pressure, consider this simple table based on the standard 1 PSI per 10°F rule of thumb. It assumes starting pressures at 70°F; adjust for your baseline as needed.

PSI Loss per Tire	Approximate EV Range Loss (%)
1	0.3
2	0.6
3	0.9
4	1.2
5	1.5
10	3.0

Actual impacts vary by vehicle, speed, and conditions. The efficiency hit compounds quickly.

So, how do you stay ahead? Start with routine checks. Most vehicles have a TPMS that alerts you when pressures fall 25% below recommended levels, but don't wait for the warning. Grab a gauge, available for under $10, and (this time of year) inspect monthly, or before long trips. Pump up at a local station; many offer free air. For EVs, consult your owner's manual for cold-weather specifics, as some models adjust pressures automatically via onboard systems. And remember, overinflation is no friend either; it leads to uneven wear and harsher rides. Aim for the placard value on your driver's door jamb.

Beyond the wallet, there's a broader payoff. Proper tire care reduces fuel consumption lost to underinflation, meaning fewer tons of carbon dioxide are released annually. It's a small habit with outsized benefits, fostering efficiency that benefits roads, air, and the planet we all navigate.

In wrapping up, as winter tightens its hold, treat your tires like the unsung heroes they are. A quick pressure check can preserve your fuel budget, extend your driving adventures, and contribute to a lighter environmental footprint. Embrace the ritual this season, and you'll roll into the new year smoother, smarter, and a touch more sustainable. Your future self, and the air we share, will thank you.

We're All In A Jar

Jar of Flies by Alice In Chains Cover Art

Have you ever wondered where the title for Alice In Chains’ 1994 EP Jar of Flies came from? Jerry Cantrell was once asked by RAW Magazine, and he told this story:  

“Jar Of Flies title comes from an experiment I did in junior high. You got two jars, each with a food paste in the bottom and two flies, a male and a female. The two flies get together and in a few days there’s a whole bunch of them. One jar is the control; you don’t do anything and they get to this point where they reach their peak population, and they kill themselves out ‘cause they start shitting in their food. But in the other one, you clean it out every day so they just keep multiplying. The theory behind the experiment is that there is nobody to clean our jar so we should stop shitting on ourselves. That’s where I got the phrase from. I thought the idea was kinda funny.” – Jerry Cantrell x RAW Magazine

If you were a fly and had to be in one of the jars, which one Would? you choose? The clean one, obviously, but I have news for you, we are in a jar, albeit is bigger one, and we're not all making the choice to keep it clean. The flies in the dirty jar in young Jerry's experiment paid the ultimate price. Let's be smarter than them. Jerry's experiment is the perfect analogy for our energy choices. Burning fossil fuels is like those flies crapping where they eat; that tailpipe in front of you at the intersection, that's fly waste; the coal plant smoke stack, that's a lot of fly waste. Let’s dive into this comparison!

Fossil Fuel Feces

Every time we burn fossil fuels, we’re tossing carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for the vast majority of our emissions, heating up the planet faster than a mosh pit in August. This leads to rising temperatures, wilder storms, and melting permafrost. In 2024, global temperatures even zipped past the 1.5°C mark, making scientists sweat more than a drummer at a summer festival.

It’s not just the climate taking a hit. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from fossil fuel pollution is like a bad encore for health problems, causing asthma, heart disease... a Sea Of Sorrow. This is a major health threat. Studies estimate that the total annual health costs from fossil fuel pollution and climate change in the US now exceed $1 trillion a year, with air pollution alone linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths annually. Plus, oil spills and coal mining mess up our water and land, leaving communities, especially marginalized ones, stuck with the cleanup bill. Like the flies, if we keep poisoning ourselves Again and again, we'll soon be the Man in the Box, Down in a Hole.

Problem	What’s the Damage?
Climate Change	Over 75% of greenhouse gases, warming planet past 1.5°C (UN, 2022)
Health Issues	350,000 premature US deaths yearly, $886.5B in costs (EESI, 2021)
Pollution	Oil spills, coal mining harm water and land (EEA, 2023)
Equity	Hits communities of color hardest (EESI, 2021)

Renewables: Cleaning Up Our Act

Now, let’s flip the script to the second jar, where someone’s playing janitor and keeping things fresh. That’s renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal. These sources are the ultimate roadies, working with nature’s endless supply of sun and wind without adding to the atmospheric mess. The US EPA says that, in 2025, compared to fossil fuel energy, the greenhouse gases that renewables produce are a Nothin' Song, giving our air a break and cutting down on those pesky health issues. The United Nations projects by 2030, renewables could save the world $4.2 trillion a year by dodging pollution and climate costs. That’s enough to fund a global music festival for the ages!

The transition to renewables can be stabilized by a Tripod of solar, wind, and storage. Renewables aren’t just good for the planet; they’re a jam session for the economy too. They create three times more jobs than fossil fuels, with better pay. Additionally, they reduce our dependence on far-off fuel sources, enhancing energy security like an all-access backstage pass to reliability. Cleaning the jar lets the flies (aka us) keep rocking without choking on our own waste. Sure, renewables can be intermittent, hitting a sour note on a cloudy day, but with energy storage singing buttery smooth backup vocals just like Jerry, renewables are ready to headline the show. The Rooster is crowing with Sunshine on a new day of renewables, and there are No Excuses left for delaying our transition.

Benefit	Why It’s Awesome
Clean Air	~No greenhouse gases, saves $4.2T yearly by 2030 (UN, 2022)
Jobs	Three times more jobs than fossil fuels, better pay (EnergySage, 2023)
Security	Less reliance on imports, more resilience (EPA, 2025)
Sustainability	Uses endless resources like sun and wind (REN21, 2024)

Challenges: Tuning Up the Transition

Let’s not pretend switching to renewables is as easy as swapping guitar strings. There’s the upfront cost of solar panels, wind turbines, and the batteries to buffer their occasional sour notes. Building the infrastructure, such as transmission lines and storage systems, is like setting up for a stadium show; it takes time and cash, it's a Grind, but that's what you've gotta do to put on a good show. People are not generally long-term thinkers; we can't see what the cost will be if we don't put fossil fuels down. The Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out that (in 2025) these hurdles are shrinking as tech improves and costs drop. So fossils, we don't need ya. It’s a small price to pay to keep our jar clean and our planet rocking.

Conclusion: Let’s Keep the Jar Sparkling

Jerry Cantrell’s Jar of Flies story isn’t just a cool anecdote; in a Nutshell, it’s a Wake Up call for how we treat our planet and ourselves. We're all in this jar called Earth. The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here, and those prehistoric party animals have been turned into fossil fuels* that we’re burning like a bad barbecue! It’s time to ditch the Devil’s dino juice because the era of fossil fuels is Over Now, so let's give our energy system a Facelift. It's time to say, I Stay Away from high-polluting energy. Renewables are our chance to Get Born Again and shut down the smokestacks, so we can watch smog in our skies clear up as Black Gives Way to Blue!

History’s Coolest Déjà Vu: How We Killed Ice Twice

A Century of Chilly Disruptions

Every great technological shift has a moment when the old guard looks utterly ridiculous in hindsight. Few shifts, however, come with the poetic justice we are living through right now. A hundred years ago, Americans cancelled literal ice. Today, we are cancelling Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). The parallels are so tight they could make a penguin blush.

The Ice Age That Wasn’t Eternal

In 1900, the average US household depended on a burly man with iron tongs. Harvested ice from northern lakes was sawn into blocks, packed in sawdust, and delivered by horse wagon. By 1914, the industry peaked at 28 million tons annually. Companies like Knickerbocker Ice in New York boasted they would supply forever. Then General Electric and Frigidaire introduced electric refrigerators. Sales of fridges went from basically zero in 1920 to over 50% adoption in US homes by 1935. Ice delivery employment collapsed from 100,000 workers to almost none in fifteen years. Natural ice simply melted away as a business.

Same Disruption, Different Century

The internal combustion engine (or ICE) has been the powerhouse of personal transportation for a century. Let's look at the parallels between ice and ICE. Replace frozen lake water with Saudi crude, horse carts with tanker trucks, and the iceman’s tongs with a gasoline nozzle, and you have today’s situation. In 2024, Americans spent roughly $2,000 per year on gasoline, plus oil changes and smog checks, etc, for each car they owned. We line up at gas stations the way 1920s housewives waited for the ice wagon. Ice anxiety in 1925 meant praying the iceman came before the milk spoiled. ICE anxiety in 2025 means finding a working pump during a hurricane.

Why Resistance Feels Familiar

Ice barons in the 1920s ran full-page ads claiming electric refrigerators would explode or poison food with “artificial cold.” Sound familiar? Swap “artificial cold” for “battery fires” or “cobalt mines,” and you have 2025 EV FUD campaigns verbatim. Both times, the entrenched industry underestimated how much people hate inconvenience. Once middle-class families realized they could wake up to cold milk without scheduling a burly stranger, the game ended. Once drivers realize they can “refuel” while brushing their teeth and never visit a gas station again, the same social logic will kick in.

The Ultimate Irony

From harvesting frozen lakes to harvesting sunlight, humanity has come full circle, only quieter and without the exhaust.

Modern refrigerators now make their own ice cubes on demand, mocking the very profession they killed. We make our own ice at home, and soon we'll make our own "gas" too. Give it ten years, and the average US home with solar panels will generate more than enough electrons for its electric car, effectively making its own “gasoline.” From harvesting frozen lakes to harvesting sunlight, humanity has come full circle, only quieter and without the exhaust.

Parallel Disruption in Numbers

Metric	Ice Delivery (1920)	ICE Cars (2024)	Electric Replacement (current)
Delivery frequency	2-7 times per week	1-2 times per week	Overnight at home
Typical refill time	10 minutes	5-10 minutes	6-12 hours (unattended) or 20 min DC fast
Annual household cost	~$1000 USD (~$60 in 1920 dollars)	~$2,000 USD gasoline	~$400 USD electricity
Related US Jobs	~100,000 icemen & harvesters	~2 Million in oil industry	~900,000 in the electric utility sector
Smell in the kitchen/garage	Wet sawdust	Gasoline & exhaust	Energy freedom

Conclusion: Same Movie, Better Ending

History rarely repeats itself, but it often rhymes with a dad-joke level of precision. We once fired the iceman because electricity was cheaper, cleaner, and didn’t require scheduling. We are now firing the ICE man for the same reasons. The transition will create winners, losers, and plenty of laid-off roughnecks who will retrain faster than ice harvesters ever managed. One day, our grandchildren will laugh that we once burned ancient plankton, stood in the rain with a pump in our hand, and paid $5 a gallon just to commute, the same way we chuckle at sepia photos of men with ice tongs. Convenience and cost saving will drive the transition faster than any environmental message ever could. The destination is not some utopian fantasy. It is simply a future free from fossil fuels, and, let’s be honest, a future free from that lingering gasoline smell on Tuesday mornings. Chilling progress, indeed.