Showing posts with label auto industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label auto industry. Show all posts

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Unions are detached from the business...adversarial redistributionists

By  on August 26, 2020 

Alleged absenteeism stemming from the coronavirus outbreak encouraged General Motors to place salaried volunteers on assembly lines in Wentzville, MO. This has not gone over well with the UAW, which suggests GM’s decision to utilize non-union staff is in direct violation of its 2019 labor contract. The union claims white-collar workers have no business being on assembly lines and has issued a formal warning to the automaker.


continue

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Replacing the market with bureaucratic fiat and how is charging up your electric car going in power outage areas.

By  on August 18, 2020 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) made a slew of announcements on Monday regarding what types of vehicles will be allowed within the confines of its borders. These included everything from proclaiming aftermarket parts would be subject to a faster approval (or denial) process in the future, to announcing a joint initiative with 15 other states (most of whom joined CA in opposing the fuel efficiency rollback), to accelerating the implementation of electrified buses and trucks.

It also confirmed that California has finalized binding agreements with several automakers to cut vehicle emissions. BMW, Ford Motor Co., Honda Motor Co., and Volkswagen Group all entered into a voluntary agreement with the Golden State to adhere to Obama-era emission mandates last summer. While this prompted the U.S. Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation into the deal, no action was taken. CARB said those companies — and some of their friends  made a binding commitment to California this month and will commit to its new emission targets, rather than the revised quotas set by the federal government.

While the DOJ didn’t seem to think California had crossed any lines when voluntarily agreements were announced in 2019, the White House also didn’t seem to push back all that seriously. New concessions by the Trump administration’s fuel mandate, which changed to require 1.5 percent annual increases in efficiency through 2026 in its final draft, was assumed to be a sufficient compromise.

Automakers who wanted to go beyond were always welcome to do so. But you could tell the administration didn’t care for industry players making overt alliances with California.

CARB said Volvo Cars (owned by China’s Geely Holdings) has joined Ford, Honda, VW Group and BMW (which includes Rolls-Royce) in signing official agreements with the state to adhere its emission rules. They’re also required to commit themselves to “the legal authority of the California Air Resources Board.” Though this is all still technically “voluntarily”  with the language seeming to exist to avoid any additional scrutiny form the Justice Department regarding the industrial pact.

From CARB:

The framework agreements are voluntary commitments that support continued annual reductions of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions through the 2026 model year, encourage innovation to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, provide industry the certainty needed to make investments and create jobs, and save consumers money.

The auto companies party to the voluntary agreements will stay on course to make cleaner cars consistent with their individual production plans to substantially electrify their respective fleets and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The other states that have previously adopted California’s cleaner vehicle standards have notified each of the Framework automakers by letters that they will also support the Framework agreements.

Each of the automobile manufacturers that have finalized Framework agreements have made additional and individual commitments to expedite the transition to zero-emission vehicles. These agreements, designed to further advance innovation and investment, are memorialized in a separate appendix for each company, and are designated as Confidential Business Information because they relate to specific model production plans and similar matters. Generally they promote enhanced distribution of zero emission vehicles.

The issue has been overtly political since day one, with Dems saying any pushback against California amounted to bullying. Meanwhile, Republicans in support of the White House’s fuel rollback bemoaned the West Coast for intentionally trying to undermine its authority and exercise its influence over the rest of the nation. Frankly, it’s difficult to argue against either claim. Despite Obama-era emission mandates being dubbed untenable by the administration that penned it, any negations/changes have been mired in political grandstanding and a lack of cooperation.

However, both sides actually made concessions. The Environmental Protection Agency allowed the rollback to be a little tougher on emissions than originally planned, and the California Air Resources Board’s plan is actually a tad less stringent than the standards finalized by the Obama administration. You’ll never hear either side proudly admitting this.

Looking through the framework provided by California (available here), there doesn’t seem to be anything prohibiting automakers from selling vehicles that don’t meet the targets in states that haven’t agreed to follow its path. That should help avoid trouble in any future antitrust investigations. While it could also be argued that no automaker would bother building for two markets, it falls short of being able to claim there’s an industrial cartel afoot.

General Motors, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, and Toyota were previously shamed by Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware for not adhering to Californian law. “Instead of choosing the responsible path forged by four automakers and the state of California, one that will move us toward the cleaner, alternative fuel vehicles of the future, these companies have chosen to head down a dead-end road,” Carper said in 2019.

But the public outrage they were presumed to receive for not advancing the green mindset hasn’t manifested. No boycotts sprang up, and some even praised the brand for not going along with the crowd. Most of the opposition to California comes by way of private transportation costs. Critics often note California’s extremely high energy bill and the lofty MSRPs associated with electric vehicles. Automakers not involved in the state-based pact said they want to provide the kind of products people want  whether those be hyper-efficient models or a big bruiser with a large, gas-powered engine.

That said, most just want to be able to predict where the regulatory needle will be in a few years. Even those that signed on with CARB suggest they’d have preferred a nationwide standard across the United States. However, accompanying California offers an excellent opportunity to virtue signal, while setting higher targets means not getting caught with their pants down if the next administration tries to roll back the rollback.

[Image: Siripatv/Shutterstock]


Friday, July 24, 2020

Wonder why they didn't pick California? Bwahaha!

Tesla Picks Texas for Cybertruck Factory

Latest site will add to rapid expansion in Shanghai and Berlin.

Saturday, May 23, 2020

Politicians and bureaucrats live in the world of permissions where the first answer is no to protect their behinds

Look how in lockstep these petty politicians become when given the slightest power. It's why socialist societies that live at the behest of these fine print men fail to innovate. 


First they came for our guns (closed). Then they came for the religious (no services permitted). And, no our cars.

We are living through a period of panic porn...no disease supersedes Constitutional protections


You Can't Stop the Woodward Dream Cruis

Cities voted to cancel the Cruise, but they can only stop the action on the sidewalk.
Not a pandemic, nor a quarantine, nor a lockdown, nor cities NOT participating in street events will stop the Woodward Dream Cruise from happening Aug. 15 on Michigan’s most cruisable road. It simply can’t be done. 
The 2020 edition of the biggest annual one-day car show/cruise in the world was in doubt a few weeks ago when organizers sent letters to nine municipalities bordering famed Woodward Avenue to figure out where they were on the subject. Birmingham’s leaders voted no, 7-0; Huntington Woods voted no, 5-0; Ferndale’s vote is expected next week. Berkley is not planning to pass the resolution, according to the Detroit Free Press, but the city did say it won’t hold any in-person activities.
That means no Mustang Alley, no cruise-in concerts, no official car shows and no Roadkill Nights in Pontiac.
Birmingham held a virtual meeting about the event before the vote, including a public comment portion, where resident David Bloom said what most of us were thinking.
"We have a car culture here. You can’t go to a movie theater, you can’t go bowling, you can’t go to a bar or restaurant, you can’t go to a baseball game,” he said.
It’ll be tough to stop a 30,000-vehicle strong mass from using a public street. The cities won’t be giving out parking permits or allowing folks to congregate. However, they also won’t be giving out tickets just for cruising either. Speeding, burning tires ... that’s still illegal.
Woodward Avenue, officially M-1, is one of the main north/south drags in metro Detroit, and when the first robin appears and eats its first worm sometime in March, the cars start coming. And they don’t stop coming until well into September. On any weekend night— sometimes weekday nights, too—you’ll see all manner of modern hot rods, classic muscle, exotics and antiques cruising the strip, along with full parking lots of Japanese and German vehicles, usually surrounded by young drivers wearing cool sneakers and flat-brimmed hats. 
We assume the police will be stopping that sort of activity, the assembling. And there will be no roadside tents, no stages and no merchandise. But they can’t stop people from cruising legally on Saturday, Aug. 15, or any other day for that matter. We'll see you out there ... just stay in your car, please.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

2400+ CHP tickets a month for 100+ mph speeding

The Roads Are Nearly Empty, and People Are Driving like Idiots




 

The California Highway Patrol has seen tickets issued for speeds over 100 mph almost double.
porsche 911 turbo s
MARK VAUGHN
With the advent of The Pandemic and its consequent sequestration of the populous, no one is supposed to be out driving. So with great roads and pretty much nobody on them, that means the people who are out there are either diligently visiting the doctor, quickly getting groceries ... or just driving like total idiots. Here in Southern California it seems more of them than usual are driving like idiots. 

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Proving the AMG badge on a MB is not fluff.


608 people are talking about this

Friday, April 3, 2020

Milage standards are not being rolled back....

President Donald Trump’s decision to slow the huge increases in fuel-efficiency standards put in place by the Obama administration in 2012 was met with derision and scorn by green groups, the big media and others on the left. In fact, it’s a wise move, one that will save Americans money, but more importantly, will save lives.
Trump’s action is perfectly timed. With the economy in turmoil from the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns, automakers will not have the means to retool, research and revamp their car lines to obey President Barack Obama’s absurdly stringent rules. Auto sales are now plunging.
Obama’s rules would have required automakers to push the Corporate Average Fuel Economy from 25.3 miles per gallon per vehicle in 2012 to 54.5 mpg by 2025. To do that, fuel efficiency had to increase about 5% a year.
Contrary to complaints in the media of Trump’s “rollback” of standards, all the new rules do is reduce the fuel efficiency gains required to 1.5% a year, rather than the unreachable 5%. So the U.S. fleet average will be 40 mpg, not 54.5, by 2025. Even so, that will still be 28% higher than Obama’s rules.
More importantly, automakers strained to meet the Obama requirements, forced to radically downsize cars and create a money-losing electric-car fleet that still requires subsidies even to exist.
Of course, everyone likes clean air. But our fuel-efficiency standards didn’t start out with that as their goal. In fact, America’s fuel-efficiency standards got their start in 1975 as a way to mitigate the impact of the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo. At the time, with oil prices surging, inflation raging and increasingly worthless dollars flooding global oil markets, it seemed like a good idea.
And the truth is, even before the new regulations went into effect, automakers were already raising their fleets’ fuel efficiency in response to the market pressures brought by a flood of fuel-stingy Japanese cars into the U.S. and rising oil prices.
Even so, as with so many other “good ideas,” this one got hijacked by special interests to become something entirely different: A way to impose a costly and wealth-destroying “green agenda” on American consumers.
It was part of a two-prong war against fossil fuels that continues to this day. The idea was to fight oil drilling and fracking in the continental U.S. on the front-end, while making cars prohibitively expensive on the back-end through ever-more burdensome regulation. It became a linchpin in the left’s anti-industrial, anti-capitalist agenda. A non-stop war on cheaper energy.
The idea gathered steam during the 1990s as the debate over global warming heated up. But it really gained traction in 2007, after a Supreme Court decision declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant.” A ridiculous decision, given that CO2 is a key and necessary part of the natural life cycle for both plants and animals. That includes humans.
Using that singularly bad high-court decision as pretext, Obama imposed his sweeping new fuel-efficiency standards on the auto industry in 2012, during his re-election campaign. At the time, he vowed that his move “to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels.”
Of course, oil consumption did fall in the U.S., not because of Obama’s new CAFE standards but because frackers made natural gas a cheap substitute for crude oil as fuel.
Now, the media talk of Trump’s “rollbacks,” as if fuel-efficiency standards were going into reverse. As we noted above, that’s not the case.
Meanwhile, little-mentioned in news accounts is the fact that not only will consumers save billions of dollars from this move, but thousands of lives will be saved as well.
For despite what the green left and its media allies say, the extremely lighter cars that automakers are required to build to meet fuel-efficiency standards are inherently more dangerous.
The big media are in total denial about this. In fact, the leftist media watchdog MediaMatters calls it a “right-wing lie.”
Truth is, multiple studies show that decreasing the size of cars to achieve higher fuel efficiency leads to more deaths on our highways.
Start with the Environmental Protection Agency, which ran its own numbers. It found a $2,340 total reduction in car-ownership costs by 2029 as a result of Trump’s move. All told, societal costs would be diminished by $500 billion over that time.
What does that get us? About 12,000 fewer highway deaths from all the cars that are made from now until 2029. That’s more than 1,000 lives saved a year.
A study by Harvard University and the Brookings Institution, which can’t be called right-wing sources of disinformation, concluded that for each 100 pounds lighter a vehicle is to meet CAFE standards, roughly 440 to 789 more people die in car accidents. That’s a range of 2,200 to 3,900 lives a year.
As H. Sterling Burnett, writing in The Hill, memorably noted, “As a result, CAFE has resulted in more deaths than all U.S. soldiers lost in the Vietnam War and every U.S. military engagement since then.”
A study by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 concluded that CAFE standards were responsible for 2,600 deaths in 1993 alone. With current standards much higher, there is no question that deaths will result. Lighter, less-sturdy cars are deadlier than larger ones. It’s common sense.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an industry group that actually has a serious financial interest, concluded that “Bigger, heavier vehicles are safer.” Forcing automakers to shrink cars costs lives.
That’s a big reason why a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the new rules would reduce fatalities by 3,000 and add 2.7 million in new-car sales.
This, by the way, is why suburbanites and others who drive a lot prefer big SUVs to small regular sedans. The SUVs are not subject to the same regulations as the smaller cars, and afford more protection for families. They’re far safer in crashes. That’s a fact, not right-wing propaganda.
The added costs of regulation tack on car costs, too. Since the end of the financial crisis, car prices have jumped 10%. Meanwhile, car sales in 2019 were less than 1% higher than they were in 2005, despite 11% growth in U.S. population.
So while new cars have nice safety features, mostly thanks to technology, fewer people can afford them as a share of the population.
Obama’s original 54.5 mpg standard was a pipe-dream at best.
“There isn’t any realistic way carmakers can meet this requirement without radically transforming their product lines, most particularly by slashing vehicle weight and going to more expensive all-electric or plug-in hybrid electric drive technologies,” wrote Larry Bell, a University of Houston professor who writes frequently on energy in Forbes. “In fact even the most efficient hybrids on the market today won’t comply.”
Bell wrote that in 2011, and he was dead-on accurate. Trump was wise to throttle back the CAFE standards. At a time of economic emergency, he will save Americans money. More importantly, he’ll save lives.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists from the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. 
You can help us keep our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!