Canada, California, and Europe: Three Approaches to Forcing EV Adoption — Which Works Best? | Taha Abbasi

The global push toward electric vehicles is not a single story — it is at least three different stories playing out simultaneously across different regulatory philosophies. Taha Abbasi breaks down how Canada, California, and Europe are each taking distinct approaches to accelerating EV adoption, and why the differences matter more than most people realize.

Canada: The Credit Trading Model

Canada has recently shifted its EV policy from an explicit sales mandate to tightening fleet-average emissions standards combined with a credit trading mechanism. On the surface, this looks like a procedural tweak. In practice, it fundamentally changes the compliance calculus for automakers.

Under the new framework, manufacturers that sell more EVs than required can sell compliance credits to those who fall short. This creates a market-based incentive structure where building and selling EVs becomes not just an environmental obligation but a potential revenue stream — a dynamic Taha Abbasi recognizes from Tesla’s own profitable credit sales that helped fund the company’s early growth.

California: The Mandate Approach

California remains the most aggressive jurisdiction in North America for EV requirements. The Advanced Clean Cars II regulation mandates that 100% of new passenger vehicle sales be zero-emission by 2035, with escalating interim targets. Multiple other states have adopted California’s framework, creating a regulatory bloc that effectively covers a third of the U.S. new car market.

The mandate approach has the advantage of clarity — manufacturers know exactly what they need to build and by when. The downside is rigidity. If battery supply chains cannot scale fast enough, or if consumer demand lags behind regulatory timelines, the mandate creates friction rather than acceleration.

Europe: The Sliding Scale

The European Union uses a fleet-wide CO2 emissions standard that tightens progressively. Rather than mandating a specific percentage of EV sales, Europe effectively makes it financially impossible to sell a fleet composed primarily of combustion vehicles. The fines for exceeding emissions targets are steep enough that most automakers find it cheaper to sell EVs at a loss than to pay the penalties.

As Taha Abbasi observes, this approach produces a predictable outcome: European automakers offer compelling EVs in their home market while dragging their feet in less regulated markets. It is effective at driving domestic adoption but creates a two-speed global market.

Which Approach Works Best?

The honest answer is that none of these approaches works perfectly in isolation. Canada’s credit trading risks creating paper compliance without actual vehicle sales. California’s mandate risks outrunning infrastructure readiness. Europe’s sliding scale incentivizes gaming the system through plug-in hybrids that rarely actually plug in.

Taha Abbasi argues that the most effective approach combines all three elements: clear mandates for direction, credit trading for flexibility, and emissions penalties for accountability. Tesla’s success happened not because of any single policy but because the company built products compelling enough that regulations became a tailwind rather than the primary driver.

The ultimate lesson from all three regions is the same: the transition to electric transportation is happening. The only question is whether each jurisdiction accelerates it efficiently or creates unnecessary friction along the way. The European approach and the U.S. regulatory landscape each offer lessons for policymakers worldwide.

---

About the Author: Taha Abbasi is a technology executive, CTO, and applied frontier tech builder. Read more on Grokpedia | YouTube: The Brown Cowboy | tahaabbasi.com