LA Auto Show and green automakers? Shut up
Proof that BMW is a green automaker?I've now read a number of articles that discuss how green the LA Auto Show is, and how committed automakers are to green technology. Please. What show were these journalists attending?
The Honda Insight hybrid, the Ford Fusion hybrid, the Mini E, the Toyota Camry Natural Gas hybrid and some fuel cell cars demonstrate how much more committed the auto industry is to green technology? Wow! You have to be drinking some pretty good kool-aide to buy that green message.
Certainly, the Honda Insight is a legitimate effort. But, 25,000 Fusion hybrids per year? Whatever. A few hundred two-seat electric Mini E's? That'll make a difference. A Toyota Camry Natural Gas Hybrid? There are no plans to sell it. Fuel cell cars? Awesome! There's a monkey ready to fly out of my ass with plans for the hydrogen highway.
Automakers aren't green and they won't be green any time soon. Already, US automakers testified before Congress that 35 mpg fleet fuel economy by 2020 was already pushing the limits of possibility. That won't come close to ending foreign oil dependency, nor will it reduce CO2 emissions nearly enough.
Outside of some minor, niche automakers, there is no such thing as a green automaker. Not even close.
Labels: Ford fusion hybrid, fuel cells, honda insight hybrid, Hybrid Vehicles, Mini E
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:10 AM
6 Comments:
Automakers aren't green and they won't be green any time soon. By 2020, US automakers testified before Congress that 35 mpg fleet fuel economy by 2020 was already pushing the limits of possibility. That won't come close to ending foreign oil dependency, nor will it reduce CO2 emissions nearly enough.
So basically what they are saying is they are incapable of technically solving the problems....so let's continue wasting and polluting.
Not exactly. What they are saying is that they can't make a profit only selling these vehicles. For instance, if GM were going to survive making only vehicles like the Volt, it would probably have to sell them for at least $50,000, possibly even more, for the first generation or two - maybe more - to make enough money to cover vehicles costs, R&D into next gen batteries for the Volt, salaries, health care, pension funds, etc.
How many would buy such a car? Most simply can't, and most wouldn't, especially if gas were cheap. Extending the life of used cars would be far more cost-effective, but also more detrimental to the environment.
So, we say so what, right? Then yearly auto sales tank. The Big 3 and every other major automaker, every supplier, etc. go out of business, and the world probably heads into a worldwide depression.
Nonsense....the world will not fall into a depression simply due to Ford, Chrysler and GM...that's absurd.
There are so many other things people can do if only this ludicrous automotive industry formula isn't used all the time.
There is so much work to be done for the environment that we'd need 10 times as many people working in those fields that current is available in the entire automotive sector.
So putting people to work isn't the problem, continued greed is.
There's a reason why these firms don't want to change. It's because they have made so much money in the last two to three decades that they are high drugs called money.
Let's be clear about what I said. I didn't say US automakers. I said EVERY major automaker, that includes Toyota and Honda.
More expensive autos would lead to less total US auto sales.
Even Toyota and Honda have reported declines in profits because they are very dependent upon the US market for profitability. Because there has been a huge decrease in year on year auto sales this year - a difference of millions of vehicles - all automakers that sell in the US are suffering. Toyota and Honda have cash for now, but if these sales declines not only continue, but exacerbate, even Japanese automakers would need financial help - more financial help than they already receive from their government.
If you force automakers to sell only hybrids, EVs and subcompacts with every type of fuel efficient technology available, automobile costs will go up. That's a fact.
Like or not, gas-guzzler profits help subsidize the lack of profit from small cars and hybrids. Take away that profitability and automakers have to raise prices.
If people won't pay extra for those cars, then auto sales decline even more. Already, even mighty Toyota has stated that this year's sales numbers are not sustainable.
If you significantly raised CAFE today, yearly car sales, I'll bet, would easily drop below 10 million units.
You can't replace that with new jobs if no one is going to buy the cars. Those jobs are gone. That part of the economy is gone.
That's why I've suggested a gas tax. Overtime this makes consumers more responsible and it helps subsidize the increase costs of greater fuel economy.
This isn't some easy task, it's going to take commitment by government, industry and consumer to achieve much better fuel economy quickly, otherwise, you are talking about economic catastrophe.
You might think the bankruptcy of the US auto industry might not cause much economic harm, but there are many wise economists out there whom think a depression is still possible without the loss of the US auto industry. To suggest that the US economy would suffer little with an automaker collapse is a terribly huge assumption in my opinion, and one that I don't think most economists would agree.
Most economists might see a prepacked bankruptcy as a possibility, which could help reduce capacity a little, but if US production dropped below 10 million vehicles per year for a significant period of time the world economy would be significantly affected for some time.
Dahc,
If you take into consideration the operating costs of a inefficient products, the fuel needed to run them, the extra cost of fuel we need to import, the lost lifes in wars, etc....the extra money automakers need to spend is irrelevant and a drop in the bucket.
We need to think in broader terms for things to change in a positive way. As it stands, everyone believes we live in a bubble...where what we do as individuals has no impact on others but only ourselves.
This is the wrong way to think. Letting the crap flush out of the system is the only way we will heal and recover from what I consider an economic cancer.
There are many many other things automakers can do to make money instead of making gas guzzlers. We all need to slow down and reduce our expectations so as to move forward. Destroying the planet and making gas guzzlers in order to subsidize hybrids is lunacy.
I don't really disagree with those comments, Noz. I'd say that's exactly why I'm proposing a gas tax because consumers have to be a more integral part of this equation.
My point about guzzlers subsidizing hybrids, however, is not a justification of guzzlers. Just pointing out that if automakers were completely dependent up hybrids for their business, car costs would go up.
I think this should happen, but it should be phased in as gas prices are also phased, letting markets, rather than just tax incentives to drive these trends towards fuel economy.
I also think your bubble comments are very relevant. That's why I'm inclined to accept a an automaker bailout, if it can be constructed well. And, considering that Dems didn't just give the money to Detroit, I have some hope that an intelligent bailout can be developed, even if that includes some kind of prepackage bankruptcy for one or more automakers.
Post a Comment
<< Home