4 ms·

1. "Sergio Marchionne had a funny thing to say about the $32,500 battery-powered Fiat 500e that his company markets in California as “eco-chic.” “I hope you don

1. "Sergio Marchionne had a funny thing to say about the $32,500 battery-powered Fiat 500e that his company markets in California as “eco-chic.” “I hope you don’t buy it,” he told his audience at a think tank in Washington in May 2014. He said he loses $14,000 on every 500e he sells and only produces the cars because state rules require it. Marchionne, who took over the bailed-out Chrysler in 2009 to form Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, warned that if all he could sell were electric vehicles, he would be right back looking for another government rescue." In order to meet the fuel economy standards, car companies have been building cars that nobody actually buys to bring up their averages. Unfortunately, this means that the cost of all their other cars must also go up. 2. Thanks to the slew of environmental mandates, Californians are now paying $1.11 more for gas on average than the national average. Also, "Over the past three years, electric rates in California rose by 2.18 cents per kilowatt-hour—about four times the rate nationally—as more solar and wind power has come online. Meanwhile, nuclear plants, which generate cheaper electricity, have been decommissioned, and hydropower has flagged because of the drought."[0] So, the environmentalists and leadership in CA oppose fossil fuels, oppose nuclear, and actively work with their vast legal resources to sue hydroelectric dams out of existence to preserve the habitats of bait fish.[1] For the time being, they are ok with solar and wind power, but what happens when they realize that it takes actual mining and lots of high-torque, powerful diesel trucks to extract the stuff from Mother Earth?[2] Not to mention the processing/manufacturing. 3. Fossil fuels have been a boon to human life and have raised our standard of living and life expectantly immensely, and should not be dismissed so lightly. You can burn a bunch of stuff for energy (peanuts, wood, animal dung, whale oil) but there's a reason that fossil fuels have had such longevity in their usage---they have high potential energy, good portability, are ubiquitous, and they're cheap! The positive effects far outweigh the adverse effects, especially when you can start using things like catalytic converters to make their emissions less harmful. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/sky-high-california-gas-prices-have-a-green-additive-1437174504 http://www.wsj.com/articles/sky-high-california-gas-prices-h... [1] http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2015-2-march-april/green-life/3-dam-detonation-videos-prove-going-green-blowing http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2015-2-march-april/green-li... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rar...

OrwellianChild 11y ago
So, I think you are trying to make an argument that opposes these more stringent emissions requirements (correct me if I'm wrong), but I could just as easily read these the other way... 1. Chrysler's fleet is so inefficient that they have to make one-off cars to bring up their average, losing money on each one. This regulation is single-handedly forcing them to improve their fleet or suffer massive hemorrhaging from the electric car mandates. Seems like it's working... 2. Gas costs more in California, making people buy more efficient cars, drive less, and seek mass-transit options, reducing traffic and encouraging increased density. Maybe they'll buy a Fiat 500e? 3. Fossil fuels have helped us get where we are, and now energy is so ubiquitous that we have the luxury of looking for more efficient/less-emissive options... Looks like things are shaping up pretty well to me!
- SovietDissident 11y ago
  "The electric car is one of the ways carmakers expect to lower their average fuel consumption and get to the 55 mpg average. The problem is, people aren't buying, whether all-electric or plug-in hybrid. General Motors is struggling to sell 10,000 Chevy Volts this year, and Nissan has sold just over 8,000 Leafs. For context, about 13 million cars are expected to be sold in the U.S. in 2011... The bad news is that the technology is currently at a point where they have to make trade-offs," Giffi says. "So they want that same vehicle — they want it to look and feel the same. They also want it to perform the same." Nobody is expecting those capabilities anytime soon."[0] Nobody likes them, and for good reason. Teslas are cool new-ish technology and the best of the lot, and yet the range is still too low, the charge time is too high, the infrastructure will take quite a while to develop, and they're too expensive. They are the playthings of the Silicon Valley rich, but not practical for the everyday person, whose main purpose for driving a car is cheap and reliable transportation. Teslas and other electric cars are uncompetitive because they are too expensive for what you get, and the only way they become "competitive" is by artificially driving up the price of gasoline-powered cars and fossil fuels. They get a subsidy because they are ostensibly "saving the environment". As I pointed out earlier, the mining of the materials to make these cars (especially batteries) is an extremely dirty and energy-intensive process, mostly done in China by diesel-powered machines. Also, the cars are plugged into an electric grid which is run mostly on ancient fossil fuel plants[1] (as is most of CA's infrastructure), as hydro and nuclear have become basically verboten or phased out of existence. If being carbon neutral is the goal, driving your 20-year-old Accord into the ground would result in a fraction of the energy expenditure and emissions of having a brand-new car built.[2] Or, actually, a horse and buggy would be the most carbon-neutral solution. Californians may marginally start taking less fuel intensive options in terms of transportation, but most people want to live in suburbs where they have a some room to breathe in their backyard, the schools are better, and a car is necessary---higher prices will effectively force them to spend more on fuel (at the expense of other things). The people in Marin County driving their Teslas and Priuses don't really care, but the lower-middle and middle-class gets clobbered by high energy costs (and has been leaving the state in droves, for that reason and others). And it isn't necessarily because transportation is more expensive; energy costs affect the cost of heating and cooling your home, the price of farming and delivering your produce, the cost of your clothing and smartphone, etc.! These sorts of regulations have led to the mass exodus of companies and jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry (which used to be the way many middle-class Californians made a living) to other states and other countries. Let's not forget that the least wealthy people are usually the least mobile as well. Fossil fuels allow us to have an incredible standard of living. What if food, fuel, clothing, and transportation costs doubled or tripled overnight? This would certainly make the average person's standard of living a lot worse. And this is exactly what these foolish policies have accomplished and will continue to accomplish. [0]http://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142464818/can-electric-cars-help-automakers-reach-55-mpg\ http://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142464818/can-electric-cars-he... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Cali... [2]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap-energy-efficiency http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap...

OrwellianChild 11y ago

So, I think you are trying to make an argument that opposes these more stringent emissions requirements (correct me if I'm wrong), but I could just as easily read these the other way... 1. Chrysler's fleet is so inefficient that they have to make one-off cars to bring up their average, losing money on each one. This regulation is single-handedly forcing them to improve their fleet or suffer massive hemorrhaging from the electric car mandates. Seems like it's working... 2. Gas costs more in California, making people buy more efficient cars, drive less, and seek mass-transit options, reducing traffic and encouraging increased density. Maybe they'll buy a Fiat 500e? 3. Fossil fuels have helped us get where we are, and now energy is so ubiquitous that we have the luxury of looking for more efficient/less-emissive options... Looks like things are shaping up pretty well to me!

SovietDissident 11y ago
"The electric car is one of the ways carmakers expect to lower their average fuel consumption and get to the 55 mpg average. The problem is, people aren't buying, whether all-electric or plug-in hybrid. General Motors is struggling to sell 10,000 Chevy Volts this year, and Nissan has sold just over 8,000 Leafs. For context, about 13 million cars are expected to be sold in the U.S. in 2011... The bad news is that the technology is currently at a point where they have to make trade-offs," Giffi says. "So they want that same vehicle — they want it to look and feel the same. They also want it to perform the same." Nobody is expecting those capabilities anytime soon."[0] Nobody likes them, and for good reason. Teslas are cool new-ish technology and the best of the lot, and yet the range is still too low, the charge time is too high, the infrastructure will take quite a while to develop, and they're too expensive. They are the playthings of the Silicon Valley rich, but not practical for the everyday person, whose main purpose for driving a car is cheap and reliable transportation. Teslas and other electric cars are uncompetitive because they are too expensive for what you get, and the only way they become "competitive" is by artificially driving up the price of gasoline-powered cars and fossil fuels. They get a subsidy because they are ostensibly "saving the environment". As I pointed out earlier, the mining of the materials to make these cars (especially batteries) is an extremely dirty and energy-intensive process, mostly done in China by diesel-powered machines. Also, the cars are plugged into an electric grid which is run mostly on ancient fossil fuel plants[1] (as is most of CA's infrastructure), as hydro and nuclear have become basically verboten or phased out of existence. If being carbon neutral is the goal, driving your 20-year-old Accord into the ground would result in a fraction of the energy expenditure and emissions of having a brand-new car built.[2] Or, actually, a horse and buggy would be the most carbon-neutral solution. Californians may marginally start taking less fuel intensive options in terms of transportation, but most people want to live in suburbs where they have a some room to breathe in their backyard, the schools are better, and a car is necessary---higher prices will effectively force them to spend more on fuel (at the expense of other things). The people in Marin County driving their Teslas and Priuses don't really care, but the lower-middle and middle-class gets clobbered by high energy costs (and has been leaving the state in droves, for that reason and others). And it isn't necessarily because transportation is more expensive; energy costs affect the cost of heating and cooling your home, the price of farming and delivering your produce, the cost of your clothing and smartphone, etc.! These sorts of regulations have led to the mass exodus of companies and jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry (which used to be the way many middle-class Californians made a living) to other states and other countries. Let's not forget that the least wealthy people are usually the least mobile as well. Fossil fuels allow us to have an incredible standard of living. What if food, fuel, clothing, and transportation costs doubled or tripled overnight? This would certainly make the average person's standard of living a lot worse. And this is exactly what these foolish policies have accomplished and will continue to accomplish. [0]http://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142464818/can-electric-cars-help-automakers-reach-55-mpg\ http://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142464818/can-electric-cars-he... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Cali... [2]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap-energy-efficiency http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap...