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."

Trudeau has no plans to end their all ev sales ten years from now. It is really about not wanting Canadians driving.

QuoteIn the past six years, the federal government alone has spent or committed to spend over $50 billion on electric vehicle (EV) production and sales. Provincial governments (mostly Ontario and Quebec) have committed another $20 billion-plus.

That's not just for ultra-expensive EV battery plants, but also subsidies to EV buyers, plus money for EV infrastructure, such as charging stations and home chargers.

The feds give everyone buying an EV $5,000, even for high-priced, exotic models. British Columbia tops that up with $4,000 more. Quebec adds $8,000.

Canadians spend just over $80 billion a year to buy just under two million cars and trucks. With all those billions of taxpayers' dollars sloshing around the EV market, you might guess that 10% or 20% of vehicles on our country's roads are EVs.

Wrong.

Of the 25.7 million vehicles currently registered in Canada, just under 330,000 are fully electric. That's about 1.3%.

Nearly 6% of new cars being sold are currently EVs (although that market has stagnated). However, of the entire Canadian fleet – new and used – just over 1% are battery-electric. There just aren't that many EVs in Canada, certainly not enough to justify the waste of all those taxpayers' billions being lavished on the industry by "green" politicians such as Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Quebec Premier Francois Legault.

The Liberal government's forced transition to EVs just isn't working. Sales of EVs would have to nearly triple next year to meet the Trudeau government's regulation dictating that 20% of vehicle sales must – must – be EVs by 2026. They would have to increase 10-fold to hit the mandate of 60% by 2030 and rise 15-fold to hit 2035's 100% mandate.

Over the next decade, EV technology will improve. Batteries will propel vehicles farther on a charge. Charging times will be reduced and maybe even costs will come down. But not by enough or fast enough to meet the environmental fantasizing of Trudeau and his hardline Environmental Minister Steven Guilbeault.

Canada is a big country with lots of winters, so even with improvements in EV technology, it's hard to imagine electrics will replace good, old, reliable gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles anytime soon.

Even the Liberal government isn't entirely convinced of the wisdom of its own EV mandate. There is a carve-out in the regulations that allow police cruisers, ambulances, rescue vehicles and fire trucks to retain ICEs (internal combustion engines). If EV technology is not reliable enough for first responders, why should the rest of us be forced to adopt it?

Still, the Trudeau Liberals remain eco-fanatics.

At a House of Commons Trade committee hearing this week, federal Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne reaffirmed the Liberals' commitment to 100% EV sales within 11 years.

"When you've been doing the same thing for a hundred years," Champagne said, "and you change the technology in the way that we're doing, you have short-term adjustment."

Or, just maybe, you have utter chaos and market destruction.

Most major manufacturers have pulled back sharply on EV production since the beginning of the year because the market for electrics just isn't there. Last week, BMW CEO Oliver Zipse, said that if the EU maintains its EV mandate (which matches Canada's), it will lead to "massive shrinkage of the (automobile) market."

But maybe that is just what the Liberals want – far fewer people owning far fewer cars.

The Trudeau government's own internal research shows their EV mandate will likely price a quarter or more of Canadians out of the car and truck market entirely.

There are two ways to get to 100%. Either you continue to sell current levels of new vehicles and subsidize EVs like hell. Or you sell far fewer cars, but they're all electric.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-billions-spent-on-evs-with-little-to-show-for-it