Editor’s Note: This “To the Point” blog is a follow-up to “The ‘Greening Up’ Numb-Skullery’ by Mike Lessiter, posted on October 21, 2025. The original blog is included below this update.
A few weeks ago, I tackled EV policy, the United Nations' “green shipping plan” and the fight over rare earth minerals and, more broadly, the poor policy decisions that fire up flywheels without any idea of where the train is headed.
The last two editions of the Wall Street Journal brought this timely topic to the top of the list.
The point of the blog was less about power sources and more about the government’s attempt to pick a replacement technology with what one might call “light-bulb-off” decision-making. First, the government miscalculated the market’s “true” demand and the depth of the greenie’s commitment once they had to use their own wallet.
Second was the absence of the evaluation of the challenges in manufacturing and supply, which distracted every corner of America while redirecting otherwise time, materials and energy to what will be recognized as the “scrap heap” of 2025.
The notion of holistic, cradle-to-grave type thinking apparently was stuck in park.
No one revels in seeing a cash-kindled EV fire burn, but ponder the horrendous waste that has already happened and will occur for years.
We’ll all be paying for that now… But as stated 3 weeks ago, there are lessons to be taught from foolishness.
Scrapping Plans Underway at Ford
In her October 7, 2025 WSJ article, “Ford Considers Scrapping Electric Version of F-150 Truck,” Sharon Terlep reported that production of the money-losing F-150 EV pickup – once hyped as significant of its earlier “Model T” — may be shut down for good.
Low demand for electric trucks at hefty price tags and 1-ton batteries — as well as a $13 billion loss for Ford – is expected to bring the U.S.’ first major EV casualty. In October, the first month since the end of the EV tax credit, Ford’s U.S. EV sales in the U.S. fell 24% year over year.
And guess what? The failing EV Ford F-Series — at risk of shutdown — is actually the top-selling large EV this year — ahead of #2 by 41%.
Jenkins: ‘Dissect the Dishonesty’
A WSJ op-ed from Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., appeared the following day on “Ford’s Electric Pickup is an EV Casualty.” While it was President Trump and the GOP Congress who removed the fines that ended the incentives, Jenkins adds that the Democrats will be in charge again. “Maybe the useful thing now,” he writes, “is to dissect the collective dishonesty of the climate crowd.
Jenkins says, tongue-in-cheek, that the government’s policy may have started with a directive to find a way to “produce electric vehicles that are worse for the climate than if no EVs were produced.”
Two types of people supported and authorized the policy, he writes. First was the “Obama figures, who wanted EVs to wave in front of greens but also to preserve the profit model of the Big Three.”
The other camp, he says, was the army of climate groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Princeton-related Repeat Group and others — and the New York Times. “All proved willing to say whatever words were necessary to convey falsely that U.S. EV policy made sense,” Jenkins writes.
He makes the point that if policy incentives were “genuinely aimed at replacing gasoline-driven miles to produce a net reduction in greenhouse emissions,” the output would not have been the “big showpieces like the Ford F-150 Lightning, the Hummer EV or the new and fabulously absurd $400,000 Cadillac Celestiq.”
“Maybe the useful thing now is to dissect the collective dishonesty of the climate crowd.”–Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
He adds that “Building these cars’ batteries and keeping them charged is guaranteed to produce more emissions than they can displace in their lifetimes … These cars are net insults to the climate and lose billions — the very definition of policy perversity.”
Other Automakers in Trouble, Too
WSJ also reported the plans by Stellantis and GM to discontinue electric truck production, as well as tanking Tesla Cybertruck sales and how EV truck-maker Rivian is slashing jobs to conserve cash.
GM has lost billions on electric trucks after rolling out a string of them in recent years. It sold just 1,800 of its 3 electric pickup models in October. The automaker set aside $1.6 billion in the third quarter to account for losses, with more to be added to the pile.
Last month, GM said it was idling the Detroit factory that makes its EV Silverado truck, and also stopped making its EV cargo van.
Meanwhile, Honda booked the equivalent of $1.49 billion in one-time electric vehicle-related expenses for losses and impairment on EVs sold in the U.S. and wrote down EV development assets. This comes after the May announcement that it would cut its EV investment by $20 billion in the coming years.
We’ll Leave the Light on For You
No one revels in seeing a cash-kindled EV fire burn, but ponder the horrendous waste that has already happened and will occur for years.
- Workers – At Ford alone, an estimated 730 workers were laid off by the F-150 Lightning stoppage. Terlep estimates the number of workers already put on the unemployment lines is in the thousands.
- Suppliers – Our industry competes with the automakers for raw materials, components and supplies, and the waste to date is beyond comprehension. The fact that so much of these materials couldn’t be sourced domestically only added to the burning embers of the trade war because of a belief that America can only win if its automakers do, too.
- Automakers – Coming to the auto companies last since they aren’t smart enough to consider how misled government regulations and propped-up incentives could be corrected by another administration. Ford alone tooled itself up with a capacity to build 150,000 Lightnings a year.
A few more observations:
- When is the last time that a lack of a plan, or even a “concept of a plan,” has worked out — after the fact — when the government is calling the shots?
- Just because the potential exists for advanced technology doesn’t justify subsidies or propped-up sales support. And a rush to choose one technology over another – and the wrong one at that – will delay real progress for years.
- Emotional, bandwagon-jumping fanfare brought false hope and, in some cases, fear. The U.S. public was sold a bill of goods, and the bill will be paid in one form or another.
Regulations, subsidies and incentives … This is what happens when the government gets into the business of business.
The ‘Greening Up’ Numb-Skullery
Published October 21, 2025
The creation of an environmental agenda P&L — that recognizes the big picture rather than obsessions on any one piece — can keep foolhardy notions grounded where they belong
Takeaways
It was 31 years ago that I wrote my first business-to-business media op-ed piece. Over the years, I’ve advised our developing columnists and bloggers to always keep a few opinion-piece ideas on hand, even if half-baked. Because sometimes you gotta throw one away and start over.
Some of you, seated to my left, might say this one deserves the circular file. But hey, it comes with the territory …
Seriously, my advice to up-and-coming bloggers? Start a “stupid stuff” file folder and fill it when you see something that affects your audience’s livelihood.
My file folder, by the way, is overflowing these days…
Foolishness is a Great Teacher
In addition to the spectator sport of column-writing, reporting on foolishness does serve a purpose if we can merely learn from it. And since numb-skullery knows no bounds, a flag thrown on one poor decision can keep another from being made elsewhere.
In the Oct. 19, Wall Street Journal, I read about the U.N.’s “green shipping plan” (“Trump Backlash Delays Green Shipping Plan,” by Ed Ballard and Costas Paris) to decarbonize the ocean shipping trade. The WSJ reports that the proposal, supported by some 60 nations and intended to take effect in 2027, would require ship-owners to use lower-carbon alternatives to conventional shipping fuel or pay a fee that ratches up over time.
Lower-carbon fuels are more expensive. Shipping-services provider Clarksons noted that the plan for higher-cost “could cost the shipping industry more than $3 trillion to switch to new forms of green power.”
Thankfully, President Donald Trump quickly sank its prospects to the bottom of the ocean. Shipping accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions, but we also don’t need a cure that’s worse than the disease.
Closer to home, we have entire industries just hanging on while food prices skyrocket. Who in their right mind is asking for another propped-up “initiative” that further erodes farmers’ and manufacturers' razor-thin margins in the name of greening things up?
Few winners in endeavors like these, but plenty of losers.
How many times will we let the train leave the station without any idea where it’s going?
Rare Earths, Even Rarer Thinking
The dearth of rare earths – as well as other metals – is also story making headlines nearly daily. Rare earths are in demand for virtually every advanced technology today, including electronics, energy and defense.
Not only are rare earths controlled by China, but less-than-stellar domestic policies caused their already short supply to be compounded. As China chokes off our ability to source rare earths, our trade officers are consumed in negotiations to protect a segment not yet ready for prime time anyway.
Let’s talk EVs for a moment. President Joe Biden convinced Americans to artificially “prop up” the sales of EVs regardless of the automakers’ ability to actually manufacture the vehicles. According to Benchmark Source, the need for EV motors significantly increased rare earth demand. In 2024, rare earth demand grew 32% from the previous year. In 2025, this demand is expected to increase 16%.
“Since numb-skullery knows no bounds, a flag thrown on one poor decision can keep another from being made elsewhere…”
We’d still have a severe rare-earth shortage, but we wouldn’t be scrapping for the minerals destined for automakers.
No, I’ve not been particularly supportive of the electric car obsession that our former president “chose” to create because it was “trendy” and without analysis, economic or otherwise.
Instead, one can argue that if and when the technology (and its infrastructure) is proven and John Q. Public believes in EVs of its own free will (and not because of a handout), those EV order books can be filled on their own.
Oh, and by the way, the Oct. 20 Wall Street Journal noted that General Motors admitted its own EV pullback would cost it $1.6 billion. Some maintain that “Old Joe” picked the wrong technology altogether for the next-generation powered vehicle.
If this were golf, nearly everyone would be shouting “Mulligan” at the same time.
An Environmental Agenda P&L
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, holistic is defined as “dealing with or treating the whole of something or someone and not just a part.” If we want to pursue things in the name of environmentalism, we need a holistic environmental P&L. That is, if carbon reductions are desired in say, autos, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to rev up the so-called “dirty power” elsewhere to create a grid that cannot be sustained. The ledger doesn’t balance.
I’ve seen it first-hand. You can attack one line item with such vigor that you can whittle it down to near nothing, but at an expense 10-fold on another line that results in little, if any, holistic impact on what was desired in the first place. Those byproducts like shock and surprise, egg on one’s face, frustrations and gnashing of teeth could have been altogether avoided.
On a lighter note, I have an analogy to make about those trains leaving the station without any plan or consideration.
Just over 20 years ago, my sisters and I pitched in and bought our dad, Frank, a season-long lawn care service after his riding mower went to its final resting place at the scrap yard.
Just a few months into it, Dad was complaining about the per-cut expense and the agronomic intellect of his “custom cutters.” So he bought his first-ever ZTR from a local equipment dealer. Not only did he purchase a contractor-grade model (a Gravely from Wisconsin’s Dan Ariens) that he’ll never put enough hours on in his suburban lot, but he also went “big” with the width of his mower deck.
“If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there…”
Limited by his two-car garage, the footprint of the mower required a green-lighting of a new-shed construction to house his new ZTR. Then, apparently to give him more time on his new ZTR during the dry Wisconsin summers, he had an irrigation system installed. The purchases that summer easily exceed $30,000 in today’s dollars.
Perhaps to protect himself from the watchful eye my late mother (and chief financial officer), we don’t believe his accounting factors in the permits, concrete-pouring, shingling, painting and upkeep of the shed, nor the steadily increasing implement purchases, the water bills or the mobile-service to keep his trusty ZTR in tip-top shape.
“Yeah, it turned out to be an expensive mower purchase, I guess,” he says, smiling about his “investments.” And then almost always adds, “It was just going to be money I might someday give the kids.”
Frank has earned the right to have some fun on his property and toss some dollars around. Those with oversight of our hard-earned tax contributions, well, not so much.
You get the picture. As author Lewis Caroll voiced through the Cheshire Cat, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”
It’s time to chart the course – and known and unknown variables – before starting up the locomotives. Are we ready to take inventory and learn?
