Widespread buyer's remorse shows American consumers don't want Biden's mandate.
Now that Elon Musk has endorsed Donald Trump, will the presidential candidate return the favor and lay off electric cars?

Well, he won't be driving a Model X any time soon, but Trump did recently concede to a crowd at an Atlanta rally that he's in favor of a small percentage of American cars being EVs.

"I have to be, you know, because Elon endorsed me very strongly," Trump added.

Carmakers Scramble to Calm Revolt Against EVs in South Korea After Battery Fires



Mercedes-Benz and BMW have reportedly disclosed the names of their electric vehicle battery suppliers in South Korea, following a recent EV explosion that triggered widespread revolt against electric vehicles.

Bloomberg reports that the South Korean units of Mercedes-Benz Group AG and BMW AG have taken a significant step towards transparency by revealing the names of their electric vehicle (EV) battery suppliers on their websites. This rare disclosure comes in the wake of an incident where an unplugged electric Mercedes-Benz sedan caught fire at an apartment complex in Incheon, South Korea, earlier this month. The explosion led to the evacuation of 200 families and sparked calls for stricter government measures on EV safety.

Typically, automakers around the world keep information about their battery suppliers confidential. However, the growing fears over EV safety in South Korea have prompted Hyundai and Kia to share the names of their battery makers in recent days. The German carmakers, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, have now followed suit as the government plans to hold a joint meeting with automakers to discuss short-term measures to prevent further EV fires.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2024/08/17/carmakers-scramble-to-calm-revolt-against-evs-in-south-korea-after-battery-fires/

Quote from: Oliver the Second on August 17, 2024, 04:24:53 PMCarmakers Scramble to Calm Revolt Against EVs in South Korea After Battery Fires



Mercedes-Benz and BMW have reportedly disclosed the names of their electric vehicle battery suppliers in South Korea, following a recent EV explosion that triggered widespread revolt against electric vehicles.

Bloomberg reports that the South Korean units of Mercedes-Benz Group AG and BMW AG have taken a significant step towards transparency by revealing the names of their electric vehicle (EV) battery suppliers on their websites. This rare disclosure comes in the wake of an incident where an unplugged electric Mercedes-Benz sedan caught fire at an apartment complex in Incheon, South Korea, earlier this month. The explosion led to the evacuation of 200 families and sparked calls for stricter government measures on EV safety.

Typically, automakers around the world keep information about their battery suppliers confidential. However, the growing fears over EV safety in South Korea have prompted Hyundai and Kia to share the names of their battery makers in recent days. The German carmakers, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, have now followed suit as the government plans to hold a joint meeting with automakers to discuss short-term measures to prevent further EV fires.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2024/08/17/carmakers-scramble-to-calm-revolt-against-evs-in-south-korea-after-battery-fires/

Prog governments like Justine's will help big auto cover that shit up.

Ford is canceling plans to manufacture a large, three-row electric SUV.

Ford will reduce future capital expenditure plans on pure EVs from 40% to 30%.

Ford's EV division is on pace to lose as much as $5.5 billion this year, according to a Thursday report by Bloomberg.

Instead of reducing emissions, sustainable investing models could actually increase them and do little to combat the risk of climate change, according to a study from the Yale School of Management.

https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/divesting-from-energy-firms-counterproductive-could-increase-emissions-yale-professor/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFbBn9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXumxjDknK2G-Bs_aN3KtXz6p41wUTZT9vRz2mt90hNAgJ2ILGSW31lnAg_aem_QW6MCZ9-TviIWFfKXDxLNw
Divesting from energy firms counterproductive, could increase emissions: Yale professor
Study finds that when high-polluting firms have easy access to public investor money, emissions go down

A finance professor at the Yale School of Management specializing in so-called "behavioral economics" and corporate finance says the movement for investors to pull out from high-emitting companies in sectors like energy and agriculture could be counterproductive.

Instead of reducing emissions, this strategy could increase them, and do little to combat the risk of climate change, Kelly Shue said on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.

"Let me be clear that I am very concerned about climate change, and I broadly very much support the ESG and sustainable investing movement," she said. "What I'm concerned about is the way that it has been implemented by many, but not all, funds to date.

In a study co-authored with Samuel Hartzmark of the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, Shue outlined through data how the "sustainable investing" model rewards companies that by their nature can't make a meaningful difference in reducing emissions while punishing the companies that could.

The researchers looked at about 3,000 publicly traded companies over the past two decades to examine how their emissions have reacted as their access to financing has either improved or gotten more difficult.

Within each year, the 20 percent of firms with the greatest emissions per unit of revenue were categorized as "brown," while the 20 percent of firms with the lowest emissions per unit of revenue were categorized as "green."

"The brown firms tend to come from the energy, manufacturing, transportation and agriculture sectors, [and] the green firms tend to come from services sectors such as insurance, financial services, health care, etcetera," Shue said.

Sustainable investing strategies would encourage investors to support the "green" firms and divest from the "brown" ones.

But "a 100 percent reduction in the emissions by a green firm is far less economically meaningful than is a similarly sized brown firm reducing its emissions by a mere 1 percent,"  noted ARC Energy Research Institute executive director Jackie Forrest.

"Staying invested in a brown firm and asking them to reduce their emissions by 1 percent has a bigger impact to the climate than divesting into the green firms."

It takes large investments to deliver significant emissions reductions, Shue said.

"Historically, when we look at the data, when high-polluting firms are doing well and getting easy access to public investor money, they're actually naturally reducing their emissions. They have the financing to buy this expensive green equipment up front that pays off in the future," she said.

"Meanwhile, if they're distressed or having difficulty raising money from public investors, they actually increase their emissions, because by cutting back on abatement efforts, that's actually how they get cash right now."

In the short term, if investors pull their money from these high-polluting firms, they're going to become quite distressed and may end up polluting more in their fight to survive, Shue said.

Singapore has a net zero plan for 2050. The government here wants to use hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in our domestic and industrial sectors.

However, the government here is honest about it. They said electricity prices will rise. Hopefully, not dramatically like they have back in Canada.

Quote from: Shen Li on September 20, 2024, 11:51:03 PMSingapore has a nert zero plan for 2050. The government here wants to use hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in our domestic and industrial sectors.

However, the government here is honest about it. They said electricity prices will rise. Hopefully, not dramatically they have back in Canada.

Hydrogen is a feasible fuel, but you still need petrochemicals for lubricants and plastics. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Quote from: Reggie Essent on September 21, 2024, 12:32:48 AMHydrogen is a feasible fuel, but you still need petrochemicals for lubricants and plastics. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

BULLSEYE!!

Quote from: Oliver the Second on August 20, 2024, 10:37:35 AM

That was the most annoying bitch I've ever heard. Talk about talking over everyone and loving the own sound of your voice.
If anyone married that mouth-hog...they're either an absolute women's bloused wimp or on the verge of slitting their own wrists.
Talk about high-maintenance in a mouth... I'm seriously gob-smacked. I was getting pissed off just watching the blokes trying to get a word in sideways!

Yep the grid can't handle the capacity needed...
I need a stiff drink.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on August 27, 2024, 10:50:58 AM

I have friends in Normal. They didnt say shit about this fire and I doubt they even knew it happened.

Eight House Democrats join Republicans in voting to strike down California's electric vehicle mandate.

In a 222-190 vote, the House approved the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act with 214 Republicans and eight Democrats voting in favor. A group several Republican lawmakers led by Rep. John Joyce, R-Pa., first introduced the bill, which has been endorsed by the energy industry, in March, arguing EV mandates would hurt the economy and violate consumer choice.

"The simple fact is that electric vehicles cannot meet the demands of my constituents," Joyce told Fox News Digital in an interview earlier this week. "Coupling the mountains with the harsh winters and the intense heat of summers makes driving an electric vehicle both unreliable and ultimately unrealistic for many of my constituents."