California's Emission's Requirements: The end of US automakers?
What if California wins its suit against the EPA?I just finished reading Fuel efficiency trumps auto woes in Calif, an interesting piece about some of the conflicts within California regarding fuel efficiency requirements. Reading the article made me wonder, what exactly would happen to automakers if California wins its tailpipe waiver?
US automakers are in horrible financial shape, and they still make the majority of their money off vehicles that probably wouldn't be allowed under California's new standards. Thus, what affect would California's standards have on the US auto industry? Would it bankrupt at least one automaker? All automakers? Are automakers exaggerating the impact?
Labels: fuel efficiency
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:24 AM
13 Comments:
I don't understand what the governator is thinking. If Americans have less vehicle choice and they have to pay more money for their vehicles, they are going to revolt against the gov and the politicians pushing this greenhouse silliness.
Plus automakers will struggle and tens of thousands will probably lose their jobs, severly hurting the economy which will mean that Americans have even less money to buy these new technologies like hybrids.
Hybrids are fine and US automakers are finally developing more efficient technologies, but if we move to fast we'll only end up hurting ourselves.
I think those are some good points, but I don't believe that your reaons justify not taking more serious action, such as California's tailpipe waiver.
For example, while I believe that US automakers might be severely hurt by California's emission's requirements, I think the US could be hurt far more seriously if we don't end our dependency on foreign oil.
In fact, for now let's forget about "greenhouse silliness" and just focus on foreign oil dependency. Ending foreign oil dependency would have a huge affect on global warming emissions, but even if you don't believe in global warming, I don't understand how anyone could not think that America is playing with fire when it comes to foreign oil dependency.
California's emissions's requirements would ultimately put a serious dent on foreign oil dependency. In the short term, I'm not sure there is a bigger issue that America can address. If we don't end foreign oil dependency, global warming might not matter.
Thus, it seems to me that the goverment needs to help automakers cover the costs of completely retooling their manufacturing process to build foreign-oil dependency freedom fighters, coupled with tough requirements, or lets call them benchmarkts, such as California's.
Moving too fast to save our collective behinds is far more important than saving jobs for people....I'm sorry.
I have no bleeding heart for companies who have willingly, with full knowledge and intention, designed and built piles of crap for the last 50 years or more.
Their extinction is LONG LONG overdue.
Noz-
I'm not sure that I totally agree with you, but I definitely share your angst. However, let's say US automakers do go bankrupt.
Whom should pick up the pieces?
Most European automakers haven't been very green for their history - only as green and efficient as they've had to be. For the most part, most Asian automakers are the same, except for - maybe - Honda.
Even worse, while most Asian automakers started small and efficient they've all gotten bigger and less efficient.
Also, most of the Big 3's leadership, except for some major shareholders, has changed over and over and over during the course of the last 50 years. So, can we totally blame the companies, or does more blame go to just a few extremely wealthy shareholders whom only care about their profit margins, not the environment, nor even the laborers building their profit?
Regardless, if we want to resolve this problem as quickly as possible, won't the assistance of most major automakers be required?
Last I saw, there were no walls holding people in California. If automakers want to sell into that large population, they'll have to make products that meet their requirements. Very simple.
If you're from California and want to pollute, there's always Texas ;)
Frankly, the sad truth is that more Americans probably fear a long writers strike than they do the dependence on oil and destruction of the world and society that they're leaving their kids.
Dach,
While I agree you need big automakers and big money to solve some major problems, do you really want to have these three (i.e. GM, Ford, or Chrysler) solving your problems?
It's akin to saying that let's let Dick and Bush solve our oil dependency problems.
This whole US auto industry is a joke. We've had garbage vomited down our throats for decades and NOW they have the audacity to pump out these green advertisements as if nothing happened...and with what to back it up? Vaporware...??
I do agree...the Japanese have unfortunately jumped on the bandwagon if inefficient garbage too...and the Europeans (particularly the Germans) have produced some truly ridiculous "overkill" cars with their uber crap.
The point is...people will eat anything you give them. Give them a barbecued cockroach, and they will eat it...plain and simple. The "dumbification" of people in the US (and elsewhere) has lead to the hordes of suburban idiots driving in their living rooms on 4 wheels. And now, these exact, same losers are up to their eyeballs in debt, about to lose their homes, and want to be "bailed out?" (not related topic I know...but want to make the connection via stupidity and greed).
That's why I say it would benefit all of us if the big 3 would disappear. They have been dishonest, useless, and wasteful. We don't need charlatan firms helping us and now masquerading as green, helpful, and caring.
We need more firms like Honda (and Toyota once they realize building crap like the Tundra and Sequoia is utterly retarded).
Last I saw, there were no walls holding people in California. If automakers want to sell into that large population, they'll have to make products that meet their requirements. Very simple.
If you're from California and want to pollute, there's always Texas ;)
Frankly, the sad truth is that more Americans probably fear a long writers strike than they do the dependence on oil and destruction of the world and society that they're leaving their kids.
KP...
Well put.
I honestly cannot believe the stupidity and ignorance of the general public. It's truly amazing that this country isn't disintegrating any faster than it is.......probably because the hole in the side of ship can only let in so much water over time???
I give this place another 20-30 years. I honestly think you will see a huge change to the influence, dynamics, and progress of this country. It's had its time...it was a nice experiment...it didn't work.
I think you'd see Wagoner put on an Iaccoca mask and get a government subsidy if GM got too close to the ropes. Then the whole "Buy American" crowd would subsidize more poor quality.
How about "buy your children's future" and buy a vehicle more in line with sustaining the environment. Economies come and go. An environment that supports the human animal, especially in our numbers, may not stay, just go.
Somehow the general population sees the tv media say the Dow Jones went up a point and they think all is well. They then switch back to the cartoon network or Hannity... and think all is well as they drink another DIet Coke. Maybe we need a good power outage to remind them of how fragile a society we've built.
I really want to insert some optimism here, but I largely agree that Americans need a wake up call. Actually, I think most Americans have heard the alarm, they just don't know how to react, or they've just buried their head in the sand in denial.
Quite simply, our government and our corporations have given the people little recourse, therefore, little hope, and we've been brainwashed into believing that money buys happiness.
Well, I think Britney Spears has proven that theory wrong.
Ultimately, the "American experiment" has proven one thing quite clearly, I think. When profit matters more than people, society becomes worthless.
Ironically, wasn't America supposed to be about the people?
As dumb and inconsequential as some might think it - and I hate getting political - this is exactly why I'll be voting against ALL incumbents.
That's my revolt against the status quo.
Dach...
I agree with you there. All of the incumbents are truly pathetic. Perhaps the only glimmer of hope was Ron Paul because he had many more pluses than minuses.
I will not vote for anyone on the democratic side because they all pretty much voted for the war (well Obama didn't BUT I just don't trust the guy...he's a YES man through and through).
I think starting a political thread would be great if you are so inclined to do so...I love to talk politics EVEN if it gets heated...that's OK with me.
The thing is I do believe it's all intertwined. The war, money, oil, vehicles, etc...it comes from a source of thinking and a power struggle that has more sinister roots. Outside influences, political control from external countries, motivations for war and dominance of oil.
The automotive firms are obviously part of this scheme perhaps not in the sense of FORCING the hand (as I firmly believe the oil companies do) but it's all intertwined. We've been taken for a ride of unimaginable proportions.
I commend you for trying to stay positive but the more I see the way things are, the more I understand how blatant and sinister the forces in control really are and how they influence our decisions (or lack there-of) driven by instinct and fear.
I agree that you draw more flies with sugar, but it would be nice if some sting of reality could wake automakers with some responsibility. They can't change their technologies overnight, but they can change their attitude. How about some fresh air: advertise people down-sizing for fuel economy. Advertise cars that last, so having to recycle crap is less of a factor. Or even better: advertise to shut off the tube and get some fresh air on your feet, then stop tv advertising and roll that money into R&D.
For my real fill of politics, much of this conversation could have transpired at http://agonist.org
"The thing is I do believe it's all intertwined. The war, money, oil, vehicles, etc...it comes from a source of thinking and a power struggle that has more sinister roots. Outside influences, political control from external countries, motivations for war and dominance of oil.
The automotive firms are obviously part of this scheme perhaps not in the sense of FORCING the hand (as I firmly believe the oil companies do) but it's all intertwined. We've been taken for a ride of unimaginable proportions."
I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. Not only have we been "taken" for a ride, but we're still on the ride.
kp-
A few years ago Bob Lutz stated that GM could have developed and produced a Prius-like hybrid before Toyota with just a fraction of one year's marketing budget. Everytime I think about that statement, I feel so disappointed.
I realize its not easy to change and all US automakers are bleeding amazing losses year-after-year. Still, instead of reinforcing the imagery around their gas-guzzlers, they could have been building and marketing "freedom-from-oil-fighters".
There is no doubt that GM could sell this message to their loyal fans.
US automakers could significantly help shape the perception of American auto consumers in a manner that helps fund fuel efficient technologies, and they should.
Post a Comment
<< Home