 Well, now for the main event of the evening. Again, the resolution reads, between now and 2035, electric vehicles in the consumer market will disappoint environmentalists by remaining a product bought mainly by the well-healed minority. Speaking for the affirmative, Mark Mills. Mark, please come to the stage. Speaking for the negative, yeah, good, yes indeed. Speaking for the negative, Rosario Fortuno. Rosario, please come to the stage. Mark, you have 20 minutes to speak for the resolution and take the podium. Take it away, Mark. Thank you, Gene. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm delighted to be here with a fellow Canadian, Rosario. We can hear good. This is better? All right. So if we could imagine a time machine that could bring to New York City a 19th century American, the odds are that the one thing that would seem the most amazing about our time for that 19th century citizen would be the proliferation of the personal automobile. Big buildings, big cities, roads, night time illumination would all be imaginable, but different looking, greater in scale. But the one thing that is radically different about modern life and daily life is the convenience and freedoms that come from a car. And obviously, it's probably in your head that that hapless 19th century citizen would probably be puzzled by people staring at glowing rectangles in their hands. In fact, the personal computer and the personal car are co-equal in their transformative impacts. Historian Leo Marx put it well when he wrote, and I quote, to speak of the impact of the automobile upon society makes a little more sense than to speak of the impact of the bone structure on the human body. Close quote. The centrality of the car and social and economic structure of our society is evidenced by how citizens have voted with their pocketbook. A car is a single most expensive product that 98% of consumers ever purchase. Over 90% of American households own or have access to a car. Average household spending on personal mobility is the second biggest expense after a mortgage or rent. And there's nothing whatsoever to the trope that the rising generations will abandon automobiles. A recent MIT analysis found millennials exhibit no difference in preference for vehicle ownership and in fact drive more miles per year than boomers did. And as for Gen Zs, the share of cars bought by that cohort has increased fivefold in the past five years. Finally, to finish the framing of why cars matter, let's consider what used to be called telecommuting, you know, zooming, remote working, especially following the epic urban exodus caused by the destructive lockdowns of 2020. Surveys show that those lockdowns accelerated an already underway trend of a huge swath of Americans moving to suburbs or rural areas. It's a trend that invariably leads to greater need for cars and distances driven. Now come politicians and activists in a dozen states and the EPA via a creative exercise of regulatory authority with plans to ban the right to purchase a car with an internal combustion engine, the kind of car that 98% of Americans still own and the kind of car that 98% of average income Americans still buy. The goal of the bans is not, we're told, to deny any citizens the ability to own or afford a useful car. Instead, as everyone knows, it is in the service of the goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by mandating the use of the so-called zero emissions electric vehicles. EVs for all. The process of transitioning to EVs for everyone, everywhere, we're also told will be painless because EVs are inevitably taking over the entire automobile market because they are, it's said, simpler, better and easier to use and cleaner. And now the Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act promises a gusher of money to induce that transition. Let's stipulate the obvious. One does not need subsidies and mandates to convince people and businesses to buy products that are inherently radically better or cheaper. But assuming that that legislation isn't reversed by a future Congress, that Inflation Creation Act will deploy two to three trillion dollars to subsidize an energy transition, half of which will be for EVs and related infrastructure. You can buy a lot of abesience with that kind of money. And with so much money combined with political mandates and PR momentum, we should not be surprised to find no automaker daring to avoid genuflecting to the grand vision of an all EV future. But money can't buy a change in the laws of physics and underlying engineering realities. The ostensible inevitability, the enthusiasm, the subsidies and the mandates for EVs are all anchored in three claims that EVs will radically reduce global CO2 emissions, that EVs are cheaper and easier to fuel because, well, you just plug them in. And that EVs will soon be cheaper to buy than conventional cars because they're inherently simpler. All three of these claims are flat wrong. Start with a core claim that they're simpler. Yes, conventional cars have complex thermo-mechanical systems. Engines and automatic transmissions are made from hundreds of components. Although they're made with a very simple fuel system, a tank with a liquid and a one moving part pump. EVs inversely have a simple motor made from a few parts. However, the EV fuel tank is a complex electrochemical system made from hundreds, sometimes thousands of parts, thousands of welds, includes a cooling system, structural systems, sensors, safety systems and a boatload of power electronics. EVs aren't simpler, they're just differently complex. The illusion of EV simplicity has relevance to the strike underway by the United Auto Workers Union. EVs do not entail less labor to build, but instead shift where the labor takes place. The data show that overall, there are about 80 people employed per 1,000 conventional cars produced each year. Tesla, the world's biggest EV maker for now, employs about 90 people per 1,000 cars produced per year. That seems strange, well consider just the labor to make the two different drivetrains. Again, take Tesla and especially its trend-setting Nevada Gigafactory, where public data show that there are about eight people employed per 1,000 EV drivetrains. That's electric motor plus battery. The combined employment at a conventional engine and transmission factory is just four people per 1,000 drivetrains. That's the inverse of the EV labor and EV simpler argument. And as more of the labor story, the realities that have implications for emissions and costs. For that we look upstream to the primary metals and materials that are sent to the factories to fabricate the vehicles. Steel and iron make up about 85% of the weight of a conventional car. That upstream supply chain requires less than one person per 1,000 vehicles produced. Meanwhile, most of the weight of an EV is found in more exotic, so-called energy minerals from copper and aluminum to obviously lithium and also nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earths like neodymium. That upstream supply chain for EVs employs roughly 30 people for every 1,000 EVs. Of course, all that labor is elsewhere since the mines and refineries are not in America, although some of them are in my homeland in Canada. But before turning to the cost and emissions implications of the upstream realities, we need to address the claim that EVs are simpler to fuel. It's obvious that the imagined all EV future requires on-road fast charging. First, the total labor to deliver the same energy to EV fueling stations is actually greater than it is for the gasoline infrastructure, something that will necessarily, ultimately, impact costs. But setting that aside, the lie of the simpler to fuel is in the nature of electrical engineering to fast charge batteries. The so-called superchargers offer, instead of overnight fueling, 80% charge in about 30 to 40 minutes. This is only fast if it's not compared to the three to four minutes it takes to fill up a gasoline tank. Long refueling times will translate into long lines at EV fueling stations and the need for five to 10 times more charging ports than fuel pumps. That won't be convenient, it won't be simple, and it won't be cheap. Each supercharger costs two to three times more than a gasoline pump. And because superchargers necessarily operate at 100 times the power level of an overnight home charger, that translates into staggering requirements for grid infrastructure upgrades. Today, roadside fuel stations have the electric demand of a 7-11, but each EV fueling station will have the electric demand of a steel mill, and highways will need thousands of them. And the enthusiasts that are either unaware of or profoundly naive about the time and cost challenges, all that, extend their naive data to the materials demands themselves, the quantities of copper needed for all the wires and the transformers that will be required to replace cheap steel pipes and tanks. And the metal demands for the electric infrastructure will necessarily be piled on top of an unprecedented increase in demand for metals and minerals to fabricate EVs in the first place. While copper is the long pole in the tent, it's only one of the mineral challenges. The realities of costs and emissions for EVs is dominated by a simple fact. A typical EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds, and it replaces the fuel and the tank that holds the fuel that together weigh under 100 pounds. That half ton battery is made from a wide range of minerals including, again, copper, nickel, aluminum, graphite, cobalt, manganese, of course, lithium. And to get the materials to fabricate that half ton battery requires digging up and processing some 250 tons of the earth for each battery. Those numbers, it's important to understand, are roughly the same no matter what the specific battery chemical formulation. And yes, that EV tonnage should be compared to the combined tonnage of metals and the weight of the oil to fuel a conventional car over its lifetime. Even if you compare those numbers over a 10-year lifespan of both kinds of cars, the EV still entails a 10-fold greater extraction in handling of materials from the earth and far, far more acreage of land disturbed and unfortunately often polluted. The astronomical quantity of materials needed for EVs has led proponents to claim that there are, after all, enough minerals on the planet that interest nothing to worry about. In any way, they say we can recycle to reduce the monumental materials requirements. But recycling will be irrelevant for a long time since manufacturers claim correctly EV batteries will last a decade. That means there won't be anything significant available to begin recycling until the early 2030s long after the world has had to face up to the biggest expansion of global mining and history. As for the underlying resources to supply the suite of energy minerals, of course there are enough of all those on planet earth and even in America. That also is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the data show that overall the mines that are operating and planned can't supply even a small fraction of the 400% to 7,000% increase in demand for minerals that will be needed within a decade to meet the ban the engine goals. What's relevant is that the IEA, the International Energy Agency, has told us that we'll need hundreds of new mega mines and it takes 10 to 16 years to find, plan, and open a new mine. You can, as they say, do the math on that. The need to supply astonishing quantities of battery minerals is also where we find the core problem with the claims for big EV emissions and cost savings. Since over 70% of the cost of an EV battery comes from purchasing the basic materials needed, that means the future price of EVs is dominated by the future cost of those basic materials and is dependent on guesses about the future of foreign mining in mineral industries, not the labor and automation prowess at a domestic assembly plant. And over the past half dozen years, the often cited long run rapid decline in battery costs has not only slowed dramatically, but since 2021 average battery costs have risen 20%. And so far that's with EVs still well under 10% of total vehicle production. We are still in early days of minerals demands. And it's with the acquisition of those key minerals we find flaw with the core claims for emissions savings. The energy used and thus emissions from producing a pound of copper or nickel and aluminum, for example, is two to three times greater than for steel. The numbers are far higher for the other minerals. Researchers at the Argon labs, for example, have pointed out that the relevant data to evaluate emissions for battery materials are meager to non-existent, I'm quoting them, and that forces researchers to resort to, again, quote, calculations based on approximations, end quote. That means every emissions claim is a rough estimate or an outright guess based on averages or approximations, assumptions, aspirations. There are huge variables and uncertainties in the emissions from energy intensive mining and the processing of minerals used to make EV batteries. And the simple fact is that no one knows how much CO2 emissions will decline as materials production rises to build more EVs. And all of the key variables, in fact, point to higher, not lower emissions in the future. The energy used to obtain a pound of metal depends on the size and nature and location of the mine. For copper, that number can vary at least two-fold, for nickel by at least three-fold. Getting accurate information is complicated by the fact that 80 to 90% of all the relevant minerals are mined and refined outside of the US and the EU. And will be for a long time, regardless of subsidies. And since China refines 50% to 90% of all the world's suite of these energy minerals for EVs, it's relevant that its grid is two-thirds coal-fired and will be for a long time. There's a dishonesty at the center of all the facile claims about big emissions reductions from EVs. In fact, nearly all studies making emissions claims are worse than guesses. There are estimates that are frequently cherry-pick low numbers for what's really happening upstream. A meta-study of 50 different technical studies on emissions from EVs found that the estimates varied by over 300%. And worse, that analysis exposed the fact that most emissions analyses, most claims were based on assuming the use of a small 30 kilowatt-hour battery. That's one-third of the size of the battery that's used in nearly all the EVs that are purchased by most consumers outside of China. You triple the size of the battery and you triple the upstream emissions and you triple the demand and thus price pressure for the minerals. Upstream minerals missions not only offset the savings from not burning gasoline, but as the demand for battery minerals explodes, the net emissions savings will shrink and they could even vanish. Reasonable, in fact, even likely scenarios will lead to EVs causing a net increase in global emissions. And geologists have long pointed out and documented that ore grades have been and will continue declining. For the non-cognition tie, that means for each new ton of mineral, there's a steady and unavoidable increase in the quantity of rock dug up and processed. A decrease of just 0.4% in copper ore grade will require seven times more energy to access the copper. Unlike cars with internal combustion engines, it's impossible to measure an EV's CO2 emissions. And unlike cars whose emissions are the same wherever or whenever the car is made or used, EV emissions vary wildly depending on how it's made and where it's made and where it's used. While self-evidently, there are no emissions while driving an EV, emissions occur elsewhere, the upstream emissions before the first mile is driven and also when the vehicle is parked to refuel it. Those latter emissions from the grid are also far more complex than simplistic forecasts assume. Real world emissions from charging dependent precisely where and exactly when it's done, the refuel emissions can vary from near zero on a sunny day in some states, in other states and other times to the same or more than would have happened from just burning gasoline in the first place. None of this means that lithium batteries don't deserve a pivotal place in history. Its invention was consequential for many reasons, nearly all of which have very little to do with EVs. Nor do the inconvenient complexities of mining and grids mean there won't be lots more EVs in the future. Today's fleet of nearly 20 million EVs globally, notably half of which are in coal burning China, that fleet will doubtless balloon up tens of millions, more probably hundreds of millions of EVs on global roads in the coming decade or two. But even such dramatic growth would mean EVs will account for barely 15% of all consumer vehicles to that future date and a far tinier share of industrial and commercial vehicles. The future of EVs in ecosystems of transportation, by way of analogy, almost certainly will end up echoing in market share terms and for similar operational reasons, the role of helicopters in aviation. Helicopters offer very different and in many applications far more useful and even essential features compared to conventional fixed wing aircraft. That's why there's a very significant $60 billion a year global market for helicopters. But that's only 15% of the overall global aircraft market. Helicopters like EVs are very useful for a very large number of applications, but one would no more expect all aviation to use helicopters than for all drivers to use EVs. The realities of the physics and engineering in geology means that activists pushing for an all EV future by 2035 will be disappointed. They'll be disappointed not just by high costs and poultry emissions reductions, but more importantly, but by what will eventually emerge in terms of consumer and voter unhappiness and behavioral, if not political resistance to the high costs and the inconveniences imposed on the single most expensive and critical product used by the overwhelming majority of citizens. Thank you. Rosario, Rosario Fortuno for the negative, taking away Rosario. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm excited and honored to be here to challenge a far-reaching resolution, which with major consequences for a time. Between now and 2035, electric vehicles in the consumer market will disappoint environmentalists by remaining a product bought mainly by the well-heeled minority. Counter to this, EVs are actually projected to be the majority of new car sales by 2030. That's five years before 2035. This comes from a multitude of independent market sources, including Bloomberg New Energy Finance and S&P Global Mobility. And historically, the adoption rate of transformative technologies is massively underestimated. My objective in this Oxford-style debate, as has been mentioned, is to change more minds than my opponent, Mark Mills. My criteria for success is to show that EVs are accessible and appealing to a diverse group of consumers. If you believe by the end of my talk, by the end of this debate, that EVs will be commonly bought by more than just the wealthy, you must vote against the resolution. My opponent just conceded that the resolution, he just conceded the resolution when he said that hundreds of millions of EVs will be sold in the next 10 years. The resolution is not that internal combustion engine or ICE vehicles will continue to be driven in 2035. I agree. They will be. But so will EVs. And EVs will be driven by a non-trivial portion of the middle class. In fact, it seems that my opponent, as recently as this past July, agrees with that, in his paper titled, Electric Vehicles for Everyone, The Impossible Dream. He stated, and he stated basically this in his opening speech, EVs are a practical and appealing new category for many drivers. And the world will see tens of millions more EVs on the roads, even without government mandates. Today, I'll be focusing on the following universal factors driving electric vehicle adoption. One, convenience and performance. Two, safety. Three, environmental and cultural incentives. And four, affordability and availability. I'll take this on from a free market perspective, discussing why people want EVs and how they will get them. I'm gonna focus primarily on Tesla for three reasons. They dominate the US EV market worth more EVs sold than all other automakers combined in 2023. Legacy automakers are absolutely lagging in profitability and technology. And Tesla is setting the standard for competitors in the industry. So anyone who wants a slice of the pie will have to copy them. The first major factor is convenience and performance. I'm gonna start with a little personal story. While preparing for this debate, my Tesla drove me autonomously, 400 miles from Calgary to Saskatoon in the dead of winter in minus 30. Before I left, my car was automatically preheated and fully charged in my garage. My car knew I was going because the trip was in my phone's calendar and the car rooted me automatically through superchargers on the route. Full self-driving enabled me to multitask, giving me the invaluable gift of productive time. On the way, I crafted my debate arguments and reviewed Mark's paper while my car handled all aspects of driving safely. This is completely unachievable in ICE vehicles and will be for the foreseeable future. Why? Because autonomous driving is a winner-take-all technology and Tesla is winning by a huge margin. And Tesla only makes EVs. This story helps debunk some of the myths that are prevalent about EVs that my opponent had mentioned. The first one is that range is a downfall of EVs. With battery technology advancements, the median EV range in the US actually increased from 73 miles in 2011 to over 250 miles this year. And the Tesla Model 3 offers 333 mile range at only $47,240 before any incentives. Myth number two is that EVs aren't good in the winter. Well, Tesla's thermal management is a game changer, maintaining optimal battery temperature and preheating the cabin before you drive. Advanced heat pumps preserve range in ultra-cold temperatures and features like regenerative braking, a low center of gravity and dual-motor traction control give it the best snow and ice performance for any car. And to top it off, EVs won't fail to start in cold temperatures like internal combustion engine cars. Myth number three is that EV charging stations are scarce or unreliable. Well, there are actually over 50,000 Tesla superchargers globally today. Superchargers connect every part of North America and they add 200 miles of range in about 20 minutes. There are multiple chargers at every station and superchargers actually have better uptime than gas pumps. So now that we've busted some myths about EVs, let's turn to the lifestyle benefits that are making EVs better than ICE cars to own. The first one, which my opponent glossed over is at home charging. So a simple dryer outlet or dedicated EV charger for around $500 and your EV will be charged and ready to go daily. You'll never have to go to a gas station again. The average American commutes around 30 miles per day. So with a single charge that'll last you more than a week. But it doesn't matter because your car will be fully charged whenever you need it. Let's talk about energy independence. Liberty-minded individuals like myself may value this. By combining a Tesla with rooftop solar and a home backup battery, you free yourself completely from government utilities and the volatile oil and gas industries. Let's talk about some unmatched features of electric vehicles. So my Tesla has a mind-bending acceleration of 0 to 60 in under 3.1 seconds in my Model 3. It has dog mode, which keeps my pets comfortable during errands. It has smart summon where the car locates and drives to me autonomously in parking lots, which is especially useful in bad weather and century mode with multiple cameras protecting my car from theft at all times. My Tesla had none of these features when I bought it, but it now has all of them thanks to over-the-air updates, which make the car better the longer you own it. But the game changer is FSD. The future of travel is high volume, low-cost, autonomous ride sharing. Think Uber without drivers. This is not a luxury. It's a transformative industry-changing technology. Tesla is far ahead in autonomous driving technology and they only make EVs, so only EVs will have it. In summary, EVs, especially Teslas, are the superior choice, not just an alternative to ICE vehicles because they offer unprecedented benefits over ICE cars, including convenience, performance, and lifestyle, which is redefining the expectations of what a vehicle can and should do. Let's talk about safety. Safety is a key factor that's influencing consumer vehicle choices. Tesla's safety record is unparalleled. Teslas have the best crash test scores of any vehicles on the road, according to the IHS. The Model Y is the safest vehicle that money can buy. Beyond crash tests, Tesla offers a comprehensive suite of crash-preventing safety features, which are standard in every Tesla. Features like advanced automatic emergency braking, an autopilot with industry-leading lane keeping and adaptive cruise control. Let's talk about statistics here. From Tesla's own fleet data, Tesla's are 4.3 times safer than the average American driver when autopilot is enabled. This translates to an accident frequency for the average American driver in their own car of an accident every 120,000 miles. But with Tesla's autopilot, you have an accident only every 500,000 miles. But that's just autopilot. Full self-driving or FSD costs $200 per month or $12,000 for lifetime access. FSD drives you to your destination without manual intervention. Your car does the driving from door to door. The driver must remain attentive for now, but the regulations will change. And this is only available in Teslas. The impact on safety is massive. Autonomous cars never get tired, they never get distracted, they never get impaired. McKinsey Research states that autonomous vehicles will reduce vehicle fatalities by up to 90%. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there were nearly 43,000 fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in 2021. The implication here is that thousands of lives will be saved annually. In summary, Tesla's goal is not just to mitigate but to prevent accidents entirely, setting new safety benchmarks for the industry. This challenges the notion that EVs are only appealing to the affluent. They're appealing to everyone who values safety. Let's talk about environmental concerns. Despite being a controversial topic, the desire to have a more environmentally friendly vehicle is one of the many market drivers for the adoption of EVs, so I'll address it. There are myths surrounding the environmental costs of battery production in EVs, but it is a fact that EVs are a lower emission option than ICE vehicles over their lifetime. And importantly, the emissions from EVs are not blowing in your face from the car in front of you. There are many studies supporting lower emissions in EVs. A carbon brief analysis and 2022 study by Ford, Ford and the University of Michigan showed that EVs have lower lifetime emissions in ICE vehicles, even in coal intensive countries. But what about battery production and renewable energy? Tesla's gigafactories are massively reducing emissions for manufacturing through renewable energy. As the energy grid evolves, the environmental case for EVs only strengthens. A reliable and ethical supply of raw materials is also a concern that Tesla is already addressing. Lithium, nickel, iron and cobalt are all essential for EV batteries. But Tesla's master plan, part three, which is available online outlines Tesla's plan to build factories to extract lithium and other critical minerals directly from desert sand. These factories will be online well before 2030. And there are more than enough rare earth metals in the US to meet all the demand for EVs. In summary, the environmental incentives are legitimate market driver and supported by data and technological advancements. As cleaner energy becomes more prevalent in the environmental advantages of EVs will only grow. Let's talk about affordability and availability. As it turns out, EVs are already affordable and they're scaling rapidly. The key reason for this is Elon Musk and major Chinese EV manufacturers. Economies of scale lead to technology maturation, which leads to cost reduction. Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports a 91% reduction in the average cost of EV batteries from 2010 to 2023. The cost per kilowatt hour has fallen from $1160 in 2010 to only $100 per kilowatt hour in 2023. In the near future, Tesla's 4680 cell and battery pack are projected to reduce costs by an additional 53% over the next five years. By 2027, we'll have a 500 mile range EV for an inflation adjusted $25,000. In fact, Tesla has a new Gigafactory plant in Mexico where they're going to produce this $25,000 EV as early as 2025. In summary, market forces and technological advancements are making EVs increasingly affordable. But what about affordability today? Well, actually the selling price of a Tesla is already below the median price of a car in the US in 2023, which is $48,008 according to Kelly Blue Book. Here's a real world example. We'll compare the Tesla Model Y with the second best selling car in the US today, the Toyota RAV4. The RAV4 has a lower base price but long-term costs favor the Model Y. A similarly specced Model Y is actually $3,500 cheaper before any tax credit. The Model Y is $43,990. A RAV4 with similar trim, leather interior heated seats, all-wheel drive is $47,500. Now let's talk about fuel versus electricity costs. There are savings of thousands per year with the Model Y today due to lower electricity costs. Comparing the least expensive gas state to the most expensive electricity state, which is kind of unfair, it costs $19 to get 300 miles of range in Hawaii and a Model Y, which is the most expensive electricity state. But it costs $25 to get that same 300 miles of range in South Carolina and a RAV4, which is the least expensive gas state. When comparing averages, EVs blow it out of the water. It's $9 to travel 300 miles in the Model Y versus $2750 to travel 300 miles in the RAV4. That translates to $8,300 in savings over 10 years. Let's talk about maintenance costs. Tesla's require less maintenance. That's a fact. No oil changes, long-lasting brakes due to regenerative braking and fewer moving parts in electric motors. And Tesla's retain their resale value longer because battery packs are designed to last over 500,000 miles. As a personal anecdote, I owned and operated an all Tesla ride-sharing company, which I founded in 2015, and we had vehicles in the fleet with over 400,000 kilometers that were still on the original battery pack. That's over 300,000 miles. The 10-year total cost of a Model Y comes out to $32,568 if you sell it at the end of its life versus the RAV4 at $38,684. So the Model Y lifecycle cost is over $6,000 lower than RAV4, and the time value of money is also considered in these calculations, which makes it even worse for the RAV4. In summary, the Model Y is a better financial decision both initially and over the long-term when considering total lifecycle costs and the time value of money. What about availability today? Tesla's are actually the easiest car to buy. You can order online with Apple Pay and have the car delivered directly to you. There's no dealership markups or haggling, and here's the kicker. Remember how the RAV4 is the number two selling car in the U.S.? Model Y is actually the number one selling car, not EV, the best selling car, period, both in America and globally in 2023. The technology adoption curve doesn't lie. Initial adoption is slow, but accelerates as technology matures. New technologies are reaching 80% market share faster and faster, and EVs are no exception. Tesla delivers 1.3 million EVs in 2022, and they're on track for 2 million this year. With new factories and scaling existing ones that'll lead to 5 million Teslas per year by 2025 and 20 million per year globally by 2030. This easily meets the projected U.S. demand of 8.5 million EVs, assuming 50% of new car sales are electric. Tesla also has the highest profit margin of any automaker in the industry, and it's worth noting that Tesla is the most American automaker in the world. Even the batteries are made in the U.S. Tesla only sells four models of cars today, two sedans and two SUVs, but the biggest market segment in the U.S. is trucks. Enter Tesla's Cybertruck, with over 2 million preorders and deliveries set to begin this year. This indicates a market willing to embrace innovation even when it challenges traditional aesthetics. If you've seen the Cybertruck, you know what I'm talking about. So let's talk about some broader industry trends. Gas prices are increasing at nearly 40% year over year. Traditional auto manufacturers are stagnating because of a lack of innovation, union unrest, and de-globalization leading to increased costs. The average selling price of ICE cars is increasing every year. The number of ICE cars sold is falling globally at a rate of more than 12.8% per year. In contrast, the number of EVs sold globally is growing by roughly 40% year over year, and the average selling price of electric vehicles is falling at around 19% per year. Already over 10% of vehicles sold globally in 2023 are fully electric. The trend is obvious. By 2035, EVs will be accessible, practical, and desirable for the majority because they already are in 2023. Futurist Roy Amaro once said, "'Most people overestimate what they can achieve in a year "'and underestimate what they can achieve in 10 years. "'The rapid growth of EVs is a testament "'to the underestimation of what can be achieved "'in a decade.'" Let's revisit the key themes that demonstrate why widespread EV adoption is not just likely, but inevitable. First, we explored how convenience, performance, and lifestyle benefits of owning an EV are unparalleled. Next, we demonstrated that Tesla's offer safety benefits that are far beyond world-beating crash tests. That is the transformative potential of full self-driving or FSD, which is already saving lives with the potential to save thousands per year. We then explored the environmental and cultural incentives fueling consumer interests in EVs. Finally, we showed how Tesla's have already become affordable to the average consumer and widely available, thanks to rapid achievements or advancements in battery technology and economies of scale. Driving the point home with the case study of Tesla's Model Y, the best-selling car in the US and the world. The future of transportation is here, driven by declining costs, widespread availability, and unmatchable performance and features. By 2035, EVs will be the go-to choice for consumers from all walks of life, driven by market forces and consumer preferences. Thank you. Five minutes of rebuttal, Mark Mills. Take it away, Mark. You wanna take the podium? Or you wanna do it from the chair? Take it away. Five minutes. Well, you are Rosario, a Tesla fan, of course. As am I. I admire Elon Musk. He's a clock or something that cannot be explained away by subsidies alone. Although I will point out that a close to half of their gross profits come from selling emissions credits to the hapless other automakers. So that's a regulatory finger on the scale by our federal government. Look, Tesla self-driving is fascinating. I haven't agreed. I think they're ahead of everybody in self-driving, but it is not true that you can't implement self-driving on internal combustion platforms. And it is true that he isn't making an internal combustion platform, but the tragedy of the commons, when it comes to technology, means that this lead on that likely evaporates far quicker than his lead on battery technology. But your observation that I can see the debate by telling our audience that there will be hundreds of millions of cars in the next couple of decades that are electric powered is not a concession. It's 15% of the automotive fleet globally. If that may be 12%. And the same will be true in the United States. The percentages are skewed by China numbers. So I would forecast something like the 15 to 20% range for the United States in early 2030s, which would constitute a minority. And most of those will be in the luxury market as they are today. Right now, Tesla has very few models. So when it comes to total car sales, the sales are skewed to luxury market. The luxury market is less than 20%. It's about 15% of the total car market. Tesla has 75% of the luxury market, which is not nothing. This is why all the luxury automakers, which is the most profitable market, are desperate to make cars to compete with him. I would say, given where the world is going in his lead, as the others face bankruptcy, because of the imprudent investments in batteries and the way they're pursuing it, that he will be the last man standing. So there will be, I think, Tesla's will be around for a long time. But as for the forecast from Bloomberg, New Energy Finance and McKinsey and that whole cabal of consultants, they are reliably wrong on most things of these matters. And particularly on this one, because they're all ignoring the minerals part. The minerals part's now sort of bubbling up in the consultancy community and the chattering classes that worry about these things and in charge for their time for the automakers. It is, just as one example, the copper is, in fact, the long pole and the tent. S&P Plats has done an analysis on this globally and domestically. The world is not going to produce enough copper by a factor of two to three in the next five to 10 years to produce the number of EVs that are imagined. Not the number of Teslas. It's possible Elon Musk will have a special deal with Chilean copper suppliers. It's hard to know what he's done. But globally, there won't be enough copper available to make all the electric motors, all the batteries and all the distribution systems. I didn't say, and you and I agree, range is not the problem. The whole thing of range anxiety is silly. EVs have plenty of range. They have the same range or better than most conventional cars. The problem is that as you proliferate the number of charges, superchargers, is that to make the infrastructure, and this is just electrical engineering 101, the electrical infrastructure to power supercharges, which are in the several hundred kilowatt range, will cost between 500 billion and one trillion dollars in the United States. No utilities are currently planning that infrastructure expansion to handle a majority of vehicles being supercharged. Even if we assume at home charging, about one third of American homes have a garage. So that's more homes than the wealthy, but certainly the wealthier homes have garages. A home charger produces a power demand on the local distribution loop, double the actual homes overall power requirements. That means that the distribution transformers have to be upgraded. There's a shortage of distribution transformers and the cost has tripled in the last five years because of copper prices. So the California utilities have looked at this closely and they're obviously worried that as more homeowners do this overnight in the wealthy neighborhoods, the distribution loops grids will not handle it. So money will have to be spent by someone. Lastly, the cost comparisons are interesting and important. EVs do have some cost advantages, but what's being skewed right now where very few consumers are paying the full cost of charging. The taxes that are levied on all road users are not levied on EV users, and no governments will be happy leaving those taxes carried only by the hapless drivers of gasoline cars. So those taxes will move over to electric charges. So the asymmetries will start to evaporate and the costs are unavoidably going to rise on minerals because there's never been, this is true, there's never been industrial policy pushing this much demand for minerals without a market response. Markets will respond, but they'll respond by raising the price of the minerals. Rosario, you get five minutes and 25 seconds for rebuttal because Mark took an extra 25 seconds. Sounds good. So I wanted to start talking about mining a little bit because that is a big part of your pitch that EVs will not proliferate as quickly as many people think because of the lack of raw materials. But one thing you're overlooking is innovation and the ability of the free market to meet demand and grab opportunities as quickly as possible. So one of the solutions to this issue, which I think is undoubtedly gonna happen in the next 10 years is actually asteroid mining. So mining asteroids could drastically increase the supply of essential metals like platinum, lithium, and others thereby reducing costs and the environmental impact. So that's something that companies like SpaceX are working on. And even then you didn't address my claim that Tesla's planning to extract large quantities of these minerals from desert sand and they're planning to open these factories before 2030. Now, there is enough supply and I don't think you can see this or you may can see this in the world. The challenge is actually getting the supply in America because a lot of the supply comes from countries like Africa for cobalt or not countries. Sorry, continents like Africa, countries like Uganda and also China. However, as we know as free market enthusiasts being able to have the opportunity to purchase products from those countries is actually raising those people, helping to raise those people out of poverty. So that is certainly a benefit of purchasing products internationally. But the truth is that there is enough of these raw materials available in the United States and we can get these things here if that's the direction that the country wants to go in and certainly in Canada as well. And the main reason for the tenure hurdle to build these plants is because of government and Elon Musk has proven quite adept at getting around some of these challenges. So wanted to address kind of the argument that UV charging won't scale. So that's actually not supported by current trends in infrastructure development and user behavior. So charging is actually becoming more convenient and faster and the necessity of a grad for charging is a misconception. Actually anyone with access to a parking spot and electrical pole nearby will be able to charge where they park their vehicle overnight with existing technology. Even street lights can be repurposed to become chargers if you don't have anything nearby and that's not very difficult. And as I mentioned, the proliferation of at home charging with rooftop solar and batteries at home are gonna mean a lot, more people are gonna be free from having to pay the government for utilities in the future I think, which is a huge plus. Trying to think of some of the other things that I'd like to address. Yeah, you mentioned in your speech that there are no concrete plans to manufacture enough batteries to proliferate EVs. But I mean, Elon Musk fanboy, give it up. Elon Musk, the world's richest man has explicitly stated his life mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. Tesla has outlined plans to increase captive battery production to 200 gigawatt hours per year by 2024 and three terawatt hours per year by 2030. And this will more than meet future global demand for fully electrified vehicles. Tesla's been already growing production at a pace of roughly 50% compounded annually for the last 10 years and aims to continue this growth for the next 10 years. There's many sources for this. And if Tesla maintains this growth rate, they'll easily manufacture enough EVs to replace every ICE vehicle on the road. And I believe that Mark had mentioned that a hundred million vehicles won't replace the global fleet of ICE vehicles, but I remind you that's not the debate. Like, certainly more than 50% of vehicles sold ever to date are not gonna be electric by 2030, but more than 50% of the vehicles being sold in 2030 will be electric. So I think you just have to look at it as how many vehicles are people buying and compare that to what the resolution states. So people are gonna be buying 50% of EVs in 2030. So I think that pretty much covers everything. Thank you. We now go to the Q and A portion of the evening. And those who might have a question. Well, yes, indeed, indeed, yeah. Mark, Mark, just wait a minute. You'll have your moment. Okay. I just want to tell you that you can line up to ask your questions. And, but then both sides have the option of asking the other question at any time. And it looks as though Mark Mills would like to pose a question to Rosario. So would you pose your question, Mark? I'm posing a question by way of an assertion though. You and I both like Elon Musk, obviously. I hope you own his stock. I would say the resolution, this is not a question, the resolution is not sales. It's the electric vehicles in the consumer market. So it's a nuance, but it's a big difference. As you know, we're selling a lot of EVs, but there'll be a minor share of the market. I'll say just quickly, you and I are free marketers. We both think markets can respond and technology can respond. I think it will by the way, I agree with you. I think a lot will happen. The problem is I'm also a realist about what governments do and the ability to open minds. I don't care whether it's Elon Musk's mind or anybody's mind is impeded by the state of regulations in the United States and they're getting worse in Canada. So maybe the question is not do we, what are there enough minerals? There are enough minerals. There aren't enough mines. What makes you confident other than free market trying to respond that the West, which will be us in Europe and North America, will actually have the capacity, the political will to respond because that's what's lacking. We're not gonna be mining the materials because we're not gonna let it happen and we'll be dependent on China as we are today. So I don't see evidence for that. I'm the last optimist. I'm hoping it'll happen, but I don't see the evidence for it in the time frames we're talking about. Yeah, that's a good question. I think that what the government does actually often follows the will of the people maybe later, so they start mandating things when they're already happening, for example. So we're already on this trend and we can see that there's extraordinary demand for these technologies. So I think that the government will be incentivized to kind of get out of the way a little bit and allow people to exist and proliferate these technologies or they'll get evicted. I hope you're right. Moderator's prerogative just to pose a question to Rosario. When you mentioned, you sort of blew my mind slightly, when you said, well, there'll be innovation and then you said, well, we're gonna mine asteroids. And do you feel that the mining of asteroids is essential to the scenario that you're wedded to? You shook your head, all right. The mining of asteroids is not especially important. It's just that it's something you think we could do. Yeah, it's certainly physically feasible and something that- Between now and 2035? Yeah, between now and 2035, especially with SpaceX's new Starship that they're building and gonna be launching like in the next year or two. But I mean, that's not central to my argument at all, like as Mark mentioned, there are enough minerals on Earth that's not the challenge. Any comment on the asteroids? Well, I'm kind of a space bug. I love SpaceX more than Tesla in terms of its reach and achievements. But the issue of asteroid mining, in fact, there's a lot of good technical literature on this, there's a 0% chance we can mine an asteroid in the next decade. We're gonna have a current mission, which is being launched probably on Falcon Heavy to do more exploration of the asteroids to look at, study them is not gonna get to the asteroids till after 2030. So we're a long way away from mining asteroids. Just one quick point on convenience of charging. The existence of wires and poles is not the issue. So telephone poles and light poles are just fine, the lights though are 100 watts. And for even a modest fast charger, you need 100 kilowatts. So what you have to do is upgrade wires and transformers to handle that power level at each one of those points. And that's where the money comes in. It's not technically impossible. It's just a half a trillion dollars to get enough charge points. Response was there? Yeah, so it actually doesn't matter if the mission is accomplished before 2035. It's the market will price in the massive reduction in mineral costs far before it happens if they see that it's coming down the pipeline. So even if the minerals aren't delivered by 2035, if we know it's about to happen, then the price of those minerals will drop. Price? Well, the IMF economists and others would probably disagree with you. I would too. I think the market will respond as it has over time. Mineral prices will go up before they go down. They tend to cycle like all commodities. There's gonna be an epic mineral price inflation before there's a new supply. It'll have to be sustained price inflation to lead to the investment in new classes of mines. IMF did a very important study on this and concluded that the mineral demands that EV mandates are putting will cause the largest inflation and basic metal prices that the world has seen in a century. Even if they're wrong, it's still gonna be significant and markets will take a while. These are very slow processes. I worked for a mining company. Opening mines is very slow. It doesn't happen in a few years. In none of the world's miners are today planning or announcing plans to invest in sufficient capacity because I think they don't believe this is all gonna happen. That's why they're not doing it. So what I'm hearing you say is go into the mining industry. Invest in mines. We have a lot of questions coming from the audience. Please ask a question, ask a question, and no need to identify yourself. Your question, sir. This question is for Mark. How would you feel if the resolution was changed to say 2045, 2055? I'm curious. Yeah, well timing matters. 2050, 2060, but the reason that 2030, 2035 is chosen is because the dozen states are gonna ban internal combustion engines by those, and two dozen countries. So what really matters is all these bans. And a lot of makers, if they stay in place, automakers are gonna believe that's gonna happen and they'll shift and it will cause enormous dislocations in markets. So, well there'll be lots of EVs eventually, you bet. There will be half of all cars at some point in the future, entirely possible, I mean, but that'll be a world where there'll be three billion cars, not 1.4 billion. And so you'll have maybe a billion internal combustion engines and a billion five EVs. And that billion internal combustion engines will use almost as much gasoline as today's billion four cars. So it's, it both happened in those time frames. So give it another 25 years and maybe it'll happen. It'll change the debate. We'll come back in 25 years. I'll be a little older then. Any comment from you Rosario about that? Yeah, I just wanted to say that this debate is about the consumer market. So that kind of precludes the business market. So like obviously there's still a huge demand for diesel trucks and things like that, which is another debate we could talk about how quickly that'll be. But 1.5 billion are consumer vehicles. 1.4 billion consumer vehicles in the world today and be 3 billion in 20 years. Go ahead, sir. This question primarily for Rosario, but also be interested in Mark's answer. All of the market incentives, political incentives for EV demands or demand for EVs, growing the number of EVs, it's based on the premise that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming, that global warming is a bad thing, that rising atmospheric CO2 is a detriment to the environment and human health and so on and so forth. Yet there are extremely good reasons to think that all of these beliefs are not factually grounded. And I'm wondering how likely you think it is that these myths will still be widely held by the general public by 2035 to continue driving all of these incentives. Yeah, I mean I think I tried to, at least I tried to do this with my opening remarks, but I think I demonstrated pretty conclusively that the reason that EVs are being adopted is not because of these environmental concerns. I think people don't make decisions about things in their day-to-day lives based on these large generalizations. People make decisions on the margin. So they make decisions for their family. They make decisions because something is cheaper or better or provides them more value than the alternative. So I would suggest that EVs are not accelerating primarily because of the climate change narrative but because they're a better alternative compared to internal combustion engine vehicles and a better choice for most people. Come in, Mark. Well, it's not a question only the case that there's a distortion in the market both by subsidies and mandates. And that helps to accelerate it. And it's a question only the case in China. It's entirely driven by federal government fiat behaviors there and subsidies there as well. So that's unavoidable, but I agree with Rosario on this and this is why I oppose the mandates, whatever the reason for the mandates, whether it's climate change or otherwise. I think there's a big market for consumers, primarily wealthy consumers, because the EVs are gonna get not much cheaper and then more expensive. But there's a huge demand for the features they offer to lots of consumers. I mean, I asked you into my study, if you look at the U.S. market, there's 300 million vehicles in the United States, almost as many vehicles, personal vehicles as cars as people. And most two to three car households buy their second or third car for all kinds of emotional reasons, family reasons, personal reasons, luxury, not save the planet necessarily, some virtue signaling. It's a big market. It's probably 30 to 40 million cars. That's a lot of cars, especially in the high end. So that's why I'm saying it'll be a high end dominated market even when the climate push fails. And it won't fail because people will capitulate on believing climate's an issue. I don't believe that. It'll fail because of peak subsidies. You just can't afford to keep traveling trillions of dollars of subsidies on a market this big. I think that'll end. Next question. Given that you're making predictions about the consumer market for vehicles by 2030, 2035, does the presence of nuclear energy on the grid, does that make an impact on your time predictions? And I have a second question. This debate is about internal combustion engines versus EVs. What do you guys think of hybrids? Oh my gosh. I think we'd better pass on that hybrid question. Maybe talk about it at the party afterwards. But I guess the nuclear question is relevant, Mark? Well, I'm a nuclear bull. There's 72 different kinds of nuclear designs in the pipeline around the world. Probably all of them will work. Probably half of them will be commercially viable in the next decade or so. But it doesn't profoundly change the equation in the sense of how many people buy EVs. It affects, obviously, the grid equation. How do we make electricity? Much better way of spending than on solar and wind. I'll say hybrids are where the world's going. We can look up at that later. Let's knock that in. That was a hybrid answer that was inadmissible, Mark. And, Rosario, do you want to address the nuclear thing that hybrids? Like I said, the cost of electricity is a huge driver for people to choose EVs over gas cars, especially with the cost of fuel rising dramatically. And as more nuclear power comes onto the scene, it should only help serve to lower costs. Just a little matter. Should help to lower costs, sorry, and accelerate the transition. And I also wanted to just touch on Mark's point quickly that the government is heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. So I had written a whole section of my debate on this, but actually it's pretty clear that the government support for the oil and gas industry has far exceeded its support for electric vehicles. So according to a 2018 study by the Manhattan Institute, the electric car tax credit costs the US Treasury about $670 million a year. In contrast, fossil fuel subsidies and tax credits the same year cost $4.7 billion annually with the oil and gas industries claiming at least three quarters of that total. Biden got the message. They raised it to $2 trillion for EVs, so we're gonna oversubsidize EVs now instead. I'd like to hear from both of you about what you think of the advancement in the evolution of battery science. It's been projected that we'll have very, very efficient batteries and they'll be less thirsty than they have been to date. And that's also because the consumer growth factor that we see in future sales is that families who drive in the 25 mile radius, 35 mile radius people stay in are most satisfied with that efficiency right now. But intercity travel with those cars today are the problem in the current market for EV. So I'd like to hear about battery science and your hope for the future and what you project for the next few years. Because some of the people in that sector are projecting big advances in the next few years. Big advances in battery science. I think the question is addressed in Mark and then Rosario, yeah Mark. Well the short range use of vehicles argues for plug-in hybrids. No. But the battery factories that are being built today and subsidized today are using yesterday's technology, not tomorrow's technologies. So this would be an argument against the subsidies and the grants because if you want market competition to work in the next generation battery technology we wouldn't be subsidizing yesterday's which is what happens when governments get involved. They do lock in. Battery science, battery chemistry will get better like all technologies. The irony is the headroom in the basic physics of how much better batteries can get, the electrochemistry versus the headroom of much better internal combustions engines can yet get is much more capacity to make internal combustion engines more efficient than there is to make batteries more efficient. They both can be made far more efficient but the limits are dictated in the basic physics of electrochemistry and combustion chemistry and there's far, far more capacities at far less money to make the internal combustion engines better but I'd love to see competition but we're not doing that. We're not only disincentivizing more efficient internal combustion engines, we're going to ban them. It will be the apple car maybe. You want to come in? Yeah, I definitely do not advocate for bans of any kind on internal combustion engines. I don't advocate for bans of any kind on internal combustion engines just to be clear. Sorry, I feel like I'm not speaking loud enough. You mentioned that, sorry, could you remind me of? Innovation in battery technology. Yes, innovation in battery technology. So it's not necessary for there to be further innovation in battery technology for EVs to continue to proliferate because the current batteries are already capable enough for most people. I would say I haven't had any issues with them but certainly in my speech I said that by 2025, Tesla's 4680 cell which they're designing with current technology but will have a 50 plus percent improvement in terms of cost per mile range so certainly those improvements are going to continue and even if they don't continue at an exponential rate and they only improve at a slow rate, it'll still lead to a rapid progression of EVs. Proliferation, sorry. Hello, this is a question for Rosario. So I don't know if you've seen that most of electricity generation in the planet is in the first place done by burning fossil fuels to begin with. So has anyone done the calculation of, so supposing you're charging your Tesla at home and you're happy because you think you're saving fossil fuels, you're not really because, maybe some of it because, but most of the energy generated by fossil fuels to begin with for electricity. Now if you combine, so here's what I'm trying to say, wouldn't it be like putting kind of a nail in the coffin of the EV industry to tell people, look, the main sources of fossil fuels, if you add the amount of fossil fuels needed to mine raw materials for the batteries, plus the amount of fossil fuels required to get electricity in the first place, you already supersede the amount of fossil fuels burned by transportation. You might just be changing, it might be looking like it's diminishing. Can I interrupt, sorry. We got your question, so yeah. That's not accurate. We got your question. I'm sorry, that's not accurate. I went over it in my speech, but there's been a ton of studies done on this and I've done the math myself and you can, I have a lot of articles about this on my website, but if you look into it, the life cycle emissions of EVs on a 100% coal grid, so life cycle meaning from building the EV to driving the EV for the entire life to retiring the EV and recycling it are still lower than the life cycle emissions for burning in a gas car, burning oil in a gas car today. This is where Rosario and I disagree because when I wrote the paper that I wrote, I looked at about 180 to 200 references citations, probably 100 of them were studies on the analysis of life cycle emissions. So this is the core argument that the governments are making. Again, my opinion has nothing to do with the viability of an EV. EVs are a terrifically great option for a lot of people, but the studies that are done and published are flawed and many of them in fact are dishonest, but they're fundamentally flawed because they make assumptions which are not correct. So we know there are ranges of emissions from mining copper, but the range is available and it's well known in technical data. The studies that do the emissions from making the battery, all of them have chosen the low end of the range, not the mid, not the median, not the high, but the low end. This is true for Nickel, this is true for Lithium. And all of the studies, including the IEA's own studies, show that all the emissions associated with accessing minerals are rising, as I said in my opening remarks, because of declining ore grades. So you need technology to solve that problem, but no one knows yet what the technologies are that will reduce the energy costs of accessing the minerals. So there's a whole body of flawed studies that are being promulgated and used by Ford, by Volkswagen, by Volvo, that contain data that when you look at their primary sources, have a finger on the scale of picking low ends of averages. You wanna come in, Roger? Yeah, I just wanna kind of comment and then pose a question to you, Mark. So all your studies that you cited in your paper as far as I could tell agreed with me that life cycle emissions are lower, but you're saying the studies are flawed, which I can certainly understand. The question would then be like, given that we're progressing towards more and more renewables and manufacturing is getting more and more efficient, would you agree that likely in the future, EVs will have lower life cycle emissions than gas vehicles? Well, the question is where the future date is, because again, the data show in the technical literature and the geological literature, that ore grades are declining. Declining ore grades mean digging more stuff. So what you have to then imagine is that those mines don't use diesel-powered trucks at some point, and they're gonna use battery-powered trucks. It's possible, but those trucks are multimillion dollars. They are not practical with batteries any time in the near future. So the whole industry is a fuel, fossil fuel consuming industry. 40% of the world's industrial energy is used in mining and refining, 40%. To make all the copper and lithium and manganese and nickel needed, we're gonna have to double the world's mining industry. So that fuel will be oil, gas, and coal. It won't be renewable because the mine sites in remote Africa, you can't run the grinders and crushers 24-7 on solar panels and batteries. It's too expensive. So if the question is, can we get there eventually? Yes. If I were guessing a number, 20, 30 years, but the decade timeframe that we have available to us to push this new mining expansion is gonna involve a massive increase in oil, gas, and coal use in global mines. And there are mines that we have no control over. We can say we don't wanna buy the copper, fine. But it's coming from mines in South America and Africa. Some of it will be in Australia and Canada. But most of the expanses are in Indonesia and in Asian countries. Next question. Look. I'd like to ask both of you to address the question of battery fires. I mean, here in New York City, where do you park a car? A lot of people park them in apartment buildings in the basements or in garages with lots of cars. Given the history of battery fires, I would not want electric cars parked underneath me. Some ships have gone down, carrying hundreds of cars recently after. Yeah, that actually wasn't caused by the batteries. So the problem of battery fires. Talking about battery fires, I can address this. So it's actually complete myth that EVs combust more than catch fire, more than gasoline cars on a per EV basis. On a per car basis, EV batteries are actually far less combustible than gas vehicles. So gas cars actually catch fire far more often than EVs do. And in reality, it's quite rare for EVs to catch fire. Rosario and I half agree, maybe 70% Venn diagram. First, the data aren't good enough yet to really know what the fire exposure rates are because I think Tesla's are pretty well made. They're really high quality control. And the key with lithium batteries is high quality control. I've had the good fortune or misfortune of running as the CEO of a lithium battery factory for almost a year and learned a lot about lithium chemistry safety. I think overall they're copperably safe. It's possible engineer lithium cars that are equally safe, I believe. I don't think that's really the issue for the long run because I think the issue will be quality control and then new fire control behaviors. Lithium batteries, lithium burns differently than gasoline. But these are manageable over time and engineers know how to deal with this. I just think the data are weak and what I worry about are poorly produced lithium batteries, which is why a lot of the fires in Manhattan with the bicycle shop, these are cheap Chinese batteries which have low quality control. And those can light on fire and the fires are hard to put out and they're devastating. So it's sort of a red herring in one sense. On the other, you gotta be careful where the battery comes from, it made it. So by Tesla, by Tesla stock, by Tesla. Next question. I'm pimping for Elon like you are. Over the last few decades, we've seen this huge migration into cities. I mean, up until COVID, I would say a lot of the benefit that we talked about was if you have a garage and if you can charge it at home, whereas it seems like on the other side, there's an infrastructure need in cities. Is that taken into account when you make a projection for 2035 or is that really irrelevant on this time scale? To the infrastructure of what? And infrastructure for charging these vehicles, do you need the city population to have these vehicles or would just getting the suburban people to get these cars, would that matter enough? City population versus urban, yeah, okay, Rosario? Well, I think there's advantages to having an EV in both locations and actually the amount of additional charging infrastructure is I think a lot lower than Mark estimates because most people are only driving 30 miles a day, so you're not fully charging your vehicle every day, you're going from 80 to 90% kind of thing every single day. So you don't actually need that significant change in infrastructure to be able to handle the excess demand and as more renewables come online, more localized energy storage, I will have that more capacity. And then also Mark had mentioned about having to have all these excess superchargers all over the place and I don't think that that's how it's gonna work, like people aren't gonna go to superchargers to charge up like they do gas stations today, they're just gonna have their vehicle charging at work or at home while they're not using it. And then just one more like vision thing, like if you look at how people commute, like having an autonomous vehicle, an electric vehicle that can drive you to work every day will I think make it a lot easier for people to live far away from where they work because they could actually work in their vehicle while they're commuting. So we're having a conflation of energy and power and this is not to digress into electrical engineering 101 but it doesn't matter how much energy you put in the battery, the power levels are the same. So the charger has a power level. The power levels required to do fast charging, even home charging are higher than the power levels that exist to serve loads on grids today. So the upgrades I'm talking about are not for fuel, not whether it's solar panels are burning natural gas, it makes no difference. So the challenges are quite clear in California, they have already decided that grid upgrades are not adequate to handle most homes having an in-home charger. As for on-road chargers, it's certainly the case it's more convenient to charge at home, plug in at night. It's not the case that if you have to drive any distance, so you just have to look at the percentage of Americans that the number of times they drive somewhere that requires refueling. That's where the refueling superchargers have to come in and again the arithmetic on that national grid did a study looking at the assumptions of behaviors, how many people will actually drive some distance and need to be refueled on the road. Those are the behaviors I'm talking about that will require a half trillion dollar in distribution upgrades to get that much power, not energy, the power systems, the size of transformers required to run the chargers. This is not a debatable point in the sense that electrical engineering hasn't changed. There is innovation there, but it's very, very slow because it's an extremely old industry. I'd like to just kind of, I have a degree in electrical engineering, so I know a little bit about it, but yeah, home charging can be done with a 120 volt outlet and if you're driving 30 miles a day, that's enough, so you can just plug your car into any outlet and it'll give you enough range overnight to do most of your daily driving, but yeah, Mark is right, the power required for the superchargers is high, but Tesla is already scaling this and like I said, they have 50,000 stations globally and they're expanding them all the time, so we don't even need utility providers to do anything because Tesla has the electrical engineering expertise. Utility providers have to put the power, the wires, the distribution substations to get the power to the superchargers. The United States has one million fueling ports for gasoline today, one million. Even if you assume you don't need half as many in the future, that's the number of superchargers at 50,000 versus 500,000 to a million, it's a huge disparity, but as you know as an electrical engineer, that supercharger is standing there, it's 150 kilowatts for a Tesla one. You put 10 of them in a fueling station and it's a megawatt. That fueling station can't handle a megawatt, it's not Elon Musk until he takes over utility and God willing, he does because they need innovation too, but they have to upgrade the distribution grids and the problem is not that they can't do it. You know, I know they can do it. They're not doing it and they're not doing it because they don't have the money and if they start doing it, it will cost a lot of money and the arithmetic there is not mysterious. It's not subject to much innovation because they're transformers. There's only a dozen companies in the world that make these distribution transformers. They use lots of copper, so they'll start demanding copper just when the electric motors are demanding copper and the batteries are demanding copper and that's the do loop that's the problem. Final question? It seems that the bottleneck of raw materials has come up multiple times throughout the night. So I'm curious, given that the median income in the US is well over the 99th percentile in the world but there's a global market on materials. My question to Mark first is if we were to consider the resolution and the consumer market for vehicles as just the United States, could you see electric vehicles dominating in that market given the purchasing power? And to Rosario, even if Tesla is worded, it's related, it's just the flip side of the same thing. In the global market, were we to consider the consumer market to mean the global market? Even if Tesla dominates in the United States, how would you see electric vehicles dominating the global market? We were only talking about the US in this particular resolution for what that's worth but then also we're out of time and so guys, if you want to address that very good question in your summations, please do so. We now go to the summary portion of the evening and the affirmative goes first and Mark, you want to take the podium? You want to do it for me, Chair? Here's the, you what? Right here, go ahead. Five minutes of summary. Well, I think if we come back to the resolution which is not about the sales rate but the number of vehicles that are electric for consumers in 2030, 2035, there'll be a lot of them and the United States will probably reflect the world and will be in the 15 to 20% range which is a huge jump from today's 1% and the rate of increase whether we get there or not will be dictated by what other countries do and whether or not we do two things whether the world produces enough minerals. I'll keep coming back to this because it is unequivocally the case. The US Geological Survey has done a study on this. There's been, the World Bank has done studies on this, the UN has done studies, dozens of studies looking at mineral demands and mineral supplies. They expect and hope the market will respond. The market is not yet responding that is responding by terms of the capital investments required in hundreds and billions and trillions of dollars of net new mines that have to be, you have to start opening them now. It takes 10 to 16 years to open a new mine globally. That's the average globally. In the United States it's infinite at the moment. There's no really significant new mining happening in this country. Could happen if the political winds change, we'll see. But even if it were to happen, there's a time problem and there's the other capital problem in terms of penetration, which is that even in the home charging university for the luxury market where people get the charge at home episodically, that alone requires a half trillion dollars of capital upgrades and distribution loops for transformers and wires and poles, which is not yet appropriated, not being spent, doesn't mean it won't be spent. But added to the trillions of dollars that are being allocated to other domains of the quote energy transition, I am more than deeply skeptical that it will all happen because it's a borderline infinite amount of money in a very short time period, calling on global markets and refining markets to respond. Lastly, I'll say in terms of the, and this is really, it truly is, the roadblock to EV aspirations is materials. Even Elon Musk will be held hostage ultimately to the materials problems. He's done very smart things in tying up supply chains with specific mines and refineries, which is way ahead of the other automakers. He makes his own electric motor, which is ahead of the other automakers, not just his own battery. He doesn't do his own mining yet. He's threatened to get into mining. I hope he does, frankly, because he might shake that industry up. But it's a long cycle industry refining his long cycle. And at the moment, 50 to 80% of all the world's energy minerals, nickel, cobalt, lithium, copper, all of them, graphite, are refined in China, not mine, they're refined there. The refineries took them 10 to 20 years to build. They're very good at it. Their technology is relatively sophisticated. Their costs are low because it's a coal-fired grid. Two-thirds coal-fired. So the question you'd have in your mind are two things in terms of the aspirations to get the world using as many EVs as the optimistic forecast put out. Is will the world produce enough metals that prices the world can afford in that timeframe the next decade? And will China never exercise pricing power? Again, China's market share in refined energy minerals is double OPEX pricing power in oil. To believe that they'll never exercise pricing power strikes me as, call me skeptical, I think they probably will at some point. They haven't yet. So all of these battery assembly plants, including Elon Musk's that are outside of China, will be subject to huge price pressures upwards, not downwards on all the inputs. And again, I'll end with this observation. Electric vehicles, expensive ones can be made profitably, but the battery is the single most expensive part of the electric vehicle. It costs more than an engine and transmission combined. And its cost is 75 to 80% determined by the spending on the bill of materials at today's prices. So even if you took with automation and take a labor out of the 20% of overhead and manufacturing, you still have materials and minerals dominating what the price of the EV will be in the future. So it's a pure guess, frankly, we don't know, but there's no evidence in all of the history of mining of the world, certainly not the last century, of an expansion of mining capacities equal to what's required to just build the number of EVs that would constitute half of or some high percentage of the cars on the road by 2030. Thank you, Mark. Five minutes of summary from you, Rosario. Okay, so I wanna clarify my position. I have no animosity towards ice vehicles or the oil and gas industry. I'm not advocating for banning traditional cars or making them less accessible, abundant and affordable energy is necessary for human flourishing. The root of my argument is in recognizing emerging technologies, not an opposing existing ones. So electric vehicles are gaining traction not because they're being forced upon consumers but because they offer superior feature sets making them increasingly desirable for a broad population. This is not about banning ice vehicles. It's about demonstrating that EVs are poised to dominate the free market because they are a better choice in many respects for many people. So reflecting on the debate, we covered technological innovation, the economic realities and consumer behaviors. And I think we've successfully dismantled the resolution that electric vehicles are not just for the elite or well-healed minority. There's evidence for a different future. And I think my opponent would agree with me that electric vehicles are virtually an inevitability, not a possibility. The data is unequivocal. The costs are plummeting and accessibility is broadening. EVs, specifically Teslas are becoming the go-to choice for a diverse range of consumers, not just the affluent. Let's talk about Tesla's compelling case. Model Y is the best-selling car in the US and globally. It outperforms ice vehicles on every metric. It has lower lifecycle costs, superior performance and unparalleled convenience and autonomous driving features that are unavailable on any other car. This isn't speculative. It's the current trajectory backed by hard data. The best business minds on earth are focused on making it happen. The catalyst for change is not government intervention or environmental altruism. This change is driven by the free market's quest for efficiency, innovation and value. And the transition stands as a tribute to competition, entrepreneurship and consumer choice. So I'll give a warning to skeptics. Ignoring the evidence is perilous. The EV revolution is not on the horizon. It's already here. The resolution is not just flawed, but it's fundamentally at odds with the zeitgeist of our era. By 2035, the majority of vehicles sold will be electric. Not gas guzzlers, they'll be sleek, efficient and offer unparalleled value to owners. This is not a pipe dream. It's an impending reality propelled by free market principles. If you find yourself still clinging to the belief that you'll always pervert an ice car for its engine sound or nostalgic value, consider the transition from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles. At the dawn of the 20th century, horse-drawn carriages were the dominant form of transportation. Many people couldn't fathom replacing the natural experience and the connection with the living being for a noisy mechanical automobile. Yet, as cars became more reliable, efficient and affordable, they quickly replaced carriages, relegating them to a novelty. This wasn't just a shift in technology. It was market-driven obsolescence. As electric vehicles continue to outperform ice cars in various metrics, from efficiency to maintenance costs, isn't it likely that the same market forces will relegate ice cars to the pages of history? Perhaps it's worth reconsidering your position. Even if you're not convinced that traditional ice cars will become obsolete, like horse-drawn carriages, that's not the standard I need to meet in this debate. The real question is simpler. If you believe that electric cars will be affordable and accessible to more than just the wealthy by the year 2035, then you must vote against the resolution. In sum, the resolution is soundly debunked. The future is electric, and it's a future that welcomes everyone, not just the wealthy. The path towards this future isn't a burden, but it's an exhilarating opportunity, an opportunity to embrace groundbreaking innovation to leverage the transformative power of technology and to forge a more sustainable world for us all. Thank you. Jane, please open the voting. Again, the resolution reads, between now and 2035, electric vehicles in the consumer market will disappoint environmentalists by remaining a product bought mainly by the well-heeled minority. I have in my hand the Soul Forum Tootsie Roll that will be thrown at the winner of this debate. Vote yes, no, or undecided on the resolution. Again, you're all invited to the after party. The additional reason, exciting reason to come to the after party is that, at that point, I will permit Mark Mills to expound on the virtues of the hybrid vehicle. I think he has something to say about it on a virtuous level. In fact, we'll also hear from Azario. You'll get a chance to talk to these two very approachable guys, not just about hybrids, but about anything else on your mind. Canadian politics? Excuse me? Canadian politics? They're both Canadians, by the way, and so they feel a special bond, and I think that they're not too happy with their home country at the moment. So you can hear about that from these guys, too, apart from the hybrid vehicle. You can also take advantage of the free Fair Punch from the Fair Liquor's Group that's a kind of a tequila and sherry drink. Delicious food served by my wife, Asako. The party is two blocks uptown at 55 Great Jones Street, which is basically Third Street. Follow me, follow a number of other people in the audience who know where it is. I'm gonna escort these two guys because I don't want them to get lost. These two Canadians do not get lost in New York. You'll be coming with your wife to the party afterwards to which you are all welcome if you haven't paid for it. Do a donation tomorrow or the next day to defray the cost of the party. Well, while the voting is proceeding, I want to announce that on Tuesday, November 14th, will be our next debate. That resolution will read artificial intelligence poses a threat to the survival of humanity that must be actively addressed by government. That resolution will be defended by Susan Schneider and it will be opposed by Jobs, Land, Grebe, both of whom have written books about the subject that will be a debate on artificial intelligence. On Sunday, December 17th, we will have a matinee, our second matinee ever, and that will be a debate on the following resolution, a little bit wordy, but very much to the point. The resolution reads, the making of national internet policy was hindered rather than helped by the July 4th federal court ruling that restricted the Biden administration's communications with social media platforms. That resolution will be defended by law professor Kate Klonic and opposed by Jay Badacharia. As many of you know, Jay Badacharia was one of the plaintiffs in that July 4th ruling. So he will appear and that will be a Sunday to 17th, 3 p.m. matinee. Tickets are on sale for that one as well. And in January, we are going to have a debate on the following resolution. I see Jane approaching me, but probably the voting is still going on. January, Monday the 29th, the resolution will read, government must play a role in fostering scientific and technological progress by funding basic research. The resolution reads again, that government must play a role in fostering scientific and technological progress by funding basic research. That resolution will be defended by Anthony Mills of the American Enterprise Institute and opposed by Terrence Kealy, author of the Economic Laws of Scientific Research. Well, I see, I think that Jane is approaching me with the results of the voting. Yes, okay, drum roll please. Yes, that's a very good drum roll, better than, okay. Now, the yes vote began by 40% and went up to 57%. And so it picked up 17.3 points. The no vote went from 17%, that's the number to beat, 17 points. The no vote went from 17 to 32, very good, but that was 14.6 points, somewhat less than the yes vote. Therefore, the Tutsi roll goes to Mark Mills. Two bucks uptown, both debaters are coming with us to the party afterwards and the free drinks. Please follow us to 55 Great Jones Street. Guys, come with us.