Text | Digital Force Field, Author | She Zongming
In the past two years, stepping on fuel vehicles has become a new trend, and the multiple-choice question of "buy a fuel vehicle or buy a new energy vehicle" is linked to the pros and cons of the contempt chain.
Driven by the popular narrative of the "new/old" dichotomy, the rush to give fuel vehicles a suspended death sentence has become the new "political correctness" in the public opinion field.
Two days ago, some people in the circle of friends were referring to the condolence letter written by a certain TMT media to the fuel truck – "I, 137 years old, will be unemployed and laid off"
The latest addition to the "bad guys club" is Internet celebrity economist Ren Zeping.
On May 15, Ren Zeping posted on Weibo, "It is recommended to introduce a five-year ban on the sale of fuel vehicles. South of Hebei, vigorously develop new energy, dual carbon, and expand domestic demand."
Hearing this, traditional car companies may seem to have been acerated by Li Chengru, like needles and feels like thorns in the back and throats.
He also asserted in "Ten New Trends in China’s New Energy": "The Nokia moment is coming" for traditional fuel vehicles.
In March this year, Nvidia CEO Huang Renxun, who proposed "the iPhone moment of AI", should say: Someone imitates my face…
In the context of Musk’s threat that "soon, we will look at fuel vehicles in the same way as steam engines", Ren Zeping’s many forward-looking judgments on the new energy industry are not outrageous.
But is it really reasonable to rush to call for a ban on the sale of fuel vehicles?
As a staunch advocate of new energy, Ren Zeping, who "does not invest in new energy now, it is like not buying a house 20 years ago", suggested that the sale of fuel vehicles should be banned within five years, which is quite normal.
If you feel abnormal, you can review his post that Buffett reduced his holdings of BYD "not guaranteed in the evening".
Of course, he will not be unaware that the possibility of a ban on the sale of fuel vehicles at the national level within five years is minimal – after all, cars are bulk consumer goods. If the sale of fuel vehicles is banned too soon, the chain reaction will inevitably extend to the upstream and downstream industries of automobiles, and the unemployment of automobile industry practitioners.
Besides, can the pain points of insufficient energy infrastructure such as charging piles and gas stations for new energy vehicles be solved within 5 years?
Ren Zeping’s suggestion is more about discourse strategy. Radical claims are often the most intuitive way to make a clear stance, and wall-riding conciliationism is "a taboo for taking sides."
On the Internet, some netizens focused on the words "south of Hebei" that Ren Zeping said: Can’t new energy be developed north of Hebei?
This may be the deviation of attention: the battery performance of new energy vehicles usually decays at low temperatures, and the car experience determines that people in high-latitude regions are more inclined to fuel vehicles.
In other words, it’s not that areas north of Hebei can’t develop new energy, it’s that people in those places "can’t use" new energy vehicles.
The focus of Ren Zeping’s remarks still lies in the proposed time point for the ban on sales.
At first glance, the proposal to ban the sale of fuel vehicles can be regarded as "going with the times", and Ren Zeping’s elimination of fuel vehicles is just a reserved program for the bosses of "Wei Xiaoli".
Before that, the boss of a new energy vehicle company took up the fuel car, and his skills were no less than that of Xiaoguo’s "blurted" actor.
In December 2021, NIO CEO Li Bin said: "I don’t understand at all why anyone still buys a gas car now? How nostalgic it is to buy a gas car! Except for smelling a little gasoline, I can’t think of anything good."
In January 2022, He Xiaopeng, CEO of Xiaopeng: "Most people who have driven smart electric vehicles will not be used to driving fuel vehicles again. The experience of the two is completely different."
At the end of May 2022, Huawei Smart Car CEO Yu Chengdong: The era of pure fuel vehicles will quickly pass, and buying fuel vehicles in this era is just like buying feature phones in the era of smartphones!
The trade-off in sales, and the atmosphere of "new forces competing for show, traditional car companies being beaten up" strengthened their confidence.
In March this year, the price reduction of Dongfeng cars was also interpreted as "not even leaving a drop of soup, don’t blame the human urine pot".
In the case of new energy vehicles occupying the "double carbon" highland, traditional car companies are very passive – they can only shout "follow" at the card table, but cannot come to the card table as their home court.
Speaking of which, the proposal to ban the sale of fuel vehicles was not pioneered by Ren Zeping.
Many countries and regions in Europe, America and other regions have set a timetable for banning the sale of fuel vehicles: as early as 2017, the French government announced that the sale of fuel vehicles would be completely suspended by 2040; in December 2022, the Norwegian government proposed to stop the sale of gasoline or diesel vehicles nationwide by 2025; on February 14 this year, the European Parliament passed a proposal to stop the sale of fuel cars and small trucks in 2023; on April 28, the California Air Resources Board voted to pass the "Advanced Clean Fleet Rules", proposing to ban the sale of diesel large trucks by 2036.
Driven by the consensus on carbon emission reduction and the pressure of foreign energy dependence, these countries and regions have put a ban on the sale of fuel vehicles on the agenda.
Many traditional car companies also responded positively to this: Volkswagen said it would stop production of fuel vehicles by 2030 at the latest; Audi announced that it would stop production of fuel vehicles in regions other than the Chinese market in 2033 and fully enter the electrification era in 2032; Honda plans to stop selling new fuel vehicles in 2040, and Mercedes-Benz’s corporate strategy shifts from electric first to fully electric goal, and fully electric by 2030; Nissan plans to electrify 50% of its models on sale in 2023 and stop selling fuel models after 2025. Including General Motors, Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, etc., they have also clearly banned the sale of fuel vehicles.
In fact, after the European Parliament proposed to stop the sale of fuel vehicles, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Ford and other automakers have publicly expressed their support.
In terms of supporting the new energy industry, China, as the largest market for new energy vehicles, is naturally also full of motivation: whether it is the need for dual carbon practice, or the rise of new car-making forces represented by BYD and Wei Xiaoli, which has given Chinese auto brands a name in the global automobile market structure of Germany and Japan "two worlds", it has anchored one point – to support the development of the new energy industry.
At present, China has not yet clarified the timetable for the withdrawal of fuel vehicles, but in May 2019, an organization released the "Study on the Exit Schedule of Traditional Fuel Vehicles in China" report predicting that the time point for China to ban the sale of fuel vehicles is roughly:
1. Guide the withdrawal of official vehicles from the fuel market in 2025, mainly replacing them with pure electric and hybrid models. 2. From 2025 to 2030, start a mandatory withdrawal mechanism in medium and large cities and functional characteristic areas. 3. Expand the eastern developed regions in 2035, and guide the nationwide withdrawal around 2040. 4. Stop sales in 2050.
The "National VI" standard surpassed the "Euro VI" to rank among the most stringent exhaust emission standards in the world, and Hainan was the first domestic province to clearly ban the sale of fuel vehicles in 2030, which also sent many signals.
Judging from the response of domestic automakers, BYD has taken the lead, and many automakers such as BAIC, Changan, and Haima have also formulated plans to stop selling fuel vehicles in 2025.
It seems that Ren Zeping just wants to speed up the progress of stopping the sale of fuel vehicles.
But even so, it is not a good idea to suggest using industrial policy to "force back" fuel vehicles.
Fuel vehicles can be knocked down, but they should not be banned.
This is not to stand in the perspective of the horse and carriage to block the car, but to call for the visible hand to give way to the spontaneous adjustment of the market as much as possible from the perspective of market competition – those who can survive the fittest do not have to be one size fits all.
In reality, many people will use the issue of carbon emissions to justify the choice of side when "fuel vehicle PK new energy vehicle".
It is good to use carbon reduction to consciously attract consumption choices, but some popular fallacies need to be clarified, such as "new energy vehicles are all zero carbon emissions".
Some people have compared the total efficiency of the two energy consumption routes of fuel vehicles and new energy vehicles: looking at the MPG value of the vehicle emission measurement unit, the average MPG value of fuel vehicles is about 23, the good ones are 30, and the bad ones are 15-17. New energy vehicles are generally around 30, and their carbon emissions mainly come from power generation.
Compared with fuel vehicles, the main advantage of new energy vehicles is not so much carbon emissions, but rather the diversity of available energy.
Needless to say, carbon emissions are a negative externality that fuel vehicles need to actively face and address.
However, when the carbon emission quota/CCER carbon indicator trading rules are relatively perfect, it is obviously a better choice to give fuel vehicles the process improvement space to reduce carbon emissions throughout the life cycle than to directly stop.
It is important to let the carbon emission cost of fuel vehicles be borne by fuel vehicle companies, which is not impossible to achieve through market mechanisms.
From a practical perspective, there is a "fuel vehicle" option in addition to new energy vehicles, which is also good for consumers.
"Traditional car companies win in technology accumulation, and new forces are strong in user experience" is the usual judgment of many people when comparing fuel vehicles with electric vehicles.
Today, the integration and innovation of car companies in technology and experience, software and hardware has been breaking down some stereotypes.
But it should also be noted that in terms of cost performance, performance stability, driving experience, and supporting facilities, both do have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Some people like the cool interiors and smart cars of new energy vehicles, while others like the driving texture and pouring process of fuel vehicles.
Some people are troubled by the short battery life of new energy vehicles, the difficulty of finding charging piles, and the long replenishment time. Some people feel that fuel vehicles do not understand young people.
In this situation, it is obviously better to give consumers more choices than none.
From the perspective of competition, allowing fuel vehicles to compete with new energy vehicles also has more advantages than disadvantages for new energy vehicle companies.
Some people say, "In fact, fuel vehicles have been raising electric vehicles" – the value-added tax, additional tax on education fees, purchase tax, license tax, road maintenance fee, vehicle and ship tax borne by fuel vehicles are equivalent to subsidies and preferential "buy orders" for new energy vehicles.
If we say that the new energy vehicle support policies based on the promotion of the dual-carbon strategy, energy structure adjustment, infrastructure building and other factors, including green card unlimited travel, no lottery number, no purchase tax, no road maintenance fee, etc., push the competition between fuel vehicles and new energy vehicles to the situation of "asymmetric game", then after the subsidy retreat, new energy vehicle companies must rely on quality, price, experience and other factors to win the same competition with fuel vehicles.
Once there is no policy blessing and you have to rely on your strength to speak, the new car-making forces are bound to be more active and committed in solving issues such as battery life and power replacement.
From the perspective of the replacement cycle, the momentum of new energy vehicles is ferocious, but sales are still many grades behind that of fuel vehicles.
In the case of fair competition, fuel vehicles will not say no. In the short term, new energy vehicles can only partially replace and coexist with fuel vehicles.
To put it bluntly, let the market return to the market. Whether the historical mission of fuel vehicles comes to an end or not, it should be the market that has the final say, not the "standard answer" given by planning instructions.
Even if traditional car companies themselves intend to ban the sale of fuel vehicles, even if the "replacement of old and new" is a major trend, imposing a ban on sales is not a priority.
Ren Zeping himself also said that 2023 is a turning point, and the new energy industry chain will shift from policy-driven to market-driven.
Since it is market-driven, the market structure of the automotive industry should not only accommodate new energy vehicles.
Speaking of which, it is inevitable that some people will make a case for European countries to stop selling fuel vehicles.
Among them, it is necessary to distinguish whether it is "want to ban" under the guidance of administrative will, or "want to ban – research – evaluation – voting – ban" with procedural legitimacy and public opinion.
Interestingly, at the end of March, before the European Union passed an executive order to stop the sale of fuel vehicles by 2035, there was an "episode" – under German requirements, cars with internal combustion engines using carbon neutrality synthetic fuels are expected to continue to be sold after 2035, but the fuel used can no longer be gasoline.
Before that, the German government formed an alliance with the Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and other countries, and said "I am against".
The reason is very simple: people also want to "maintain employment" and "solid advantages".
This shows two points: 1. In some countries, banning fuel vehicles is not something that can be banned if you want to. From the proposal to the final approval, there are many procedural hurdles.
2. The actual trend of public opinion and various interest games often influence the direction of policy, so there will be a situation where "the motion takes 10 steps forward and then retreats 5 steps".
Whether or not to ban the sale of fuel vehicles is ultimately a complex issue that combines carbon reduction, energy security, economic development, and worker employment. It is not a "new energy is the future" that can be reduced.
You can draw a conclusion from the disadvantages of fuel vehicles: it’s time to let fuel vehicles quit. I can also draw a conclusion from the disadvantages of fusing to stop the sale of fuel vehicles: you can’t ban fuel vehicles.
Under the controversy, common sense still needs to be reaffirmed: the life of fuel vehicles cannot be revolutionized, but it depends on market competition, not industrial policy.
Industry observer Wang Xinxi said it very well:
iPhone replace Nokia, not by discontinuing Nokia, but by product and technical advantages.
