Ford has gone to courts, siding with Biden to defend the EPA’s rules on tailpipe emissions.
Ford bet on EVs and failed. Its backup plan is to force the rest of the automakers to comply with the EPA’s new rules. The Wall Street Journal calls this Ford’s EV Stockholm Syndrome.
“Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards,” the company said in a brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the lawsuit. “Ford is investing billions in electrification efforts” and it “has a critical interest in ensuring that a level regulatory playing field applies to the entire industry.”
Translation: Ford has committed to spending tens of billions of dollars to comply with government EV mandates.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new tailpipe standards for greenhouse gas emissions will effectively require that EVs and plug-in hybrids make up roughly 70% of auto-maker sales by 2032, up from about 9% last year. Companies will have to produce one to two electric trucks for every gas-powered one in 2027, and closer to four to one by 2032. Republican states rightly say the EPA is exceeding its authority under the Clean Air Act by “attempting to use the weight of the federal government to force manufacturers to produce more EVs.”
The EPA’s quotas will also result in higher prices for gas-powered cars, as auto makers seek to offset EV losses. Note that Ford has slashed EV prices to boost sales, while raising prices on some popular gas-powered models. This cost-shift won’t be sustainable as the EPA mandate ratchets up. Ford’s worry is that its EV investments will be for naught if the rule gets blocked in court. Then competitors that haven’t spent as much on EVs will speed ahead.
Ford is supporting the Administration’s regulation because it wants to socialize EV losses across the industry, even if this means consumers can’t buy the cars they want. To adapt Henry Ford, customers can have any car they want as long as it’s electric. The company may also be trying to grease the wheels for more government handouts. The Energy Department last year awarded Ford’s battery joint venture a $9.2 billion low-interest loan for three plants.
The Biden Administration is using subsidies and mandates to take companies captive to its climate agenda. Ford is the latest business to come down with Stockholm syndrome, but it won’t be the last.
Stockholm Syndrome
Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time.
This condition applies to situations including child abuse, coach-athlete abuse, relationship abuse and sex trafficking, and now EPA rules.
2024 EV Sequence of Events
Jan 11, 2024: Hertz Is Selling 20,000 EVs Due to Lack of Customer Demand
Hertz is selling a third of its EVs globally, with 20,000 in the US and will use some of the money to buy more Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) gasoline-powered cars.
Jan 18, 2024: $2 Billion in Subsidies, Only 2 EV Stations Opened, the Holdup is Social Justice
In yet another example of Biden incompetence, the administration is setting up rules making it harder to deliver EV charging stations.
Jan 20, 2024: Ford Loses $36,000 on Each EV, Cuts Production of Electric Trucks
Demand for EVs is nowhere close to projections so car makers are slashing production.
April 4, 2024: Ford to “Re-Time” New EV Production, Expand Hybrid Production
Today Ford announces a two-year delay, “retiming” until 2027, on new EV models scheduled for 2025. In addition. Ford will focus on a full line of hybrids.
April 11, 2024: Volkswagen EV Sales Plunge 24 Percent in the First Quarter
When the subsidies run out, EV sales show their true colors.
April 15, 2024: Elon Musk Fires 10 Percent of Tesla Workforce, Prepares for “Next Phase of Growth”
In preparation for more growth, Musk issues a memo announcing an workforce cut of 10 percent and two top Tesla (TSLA) executives resign. Let’s cut through all the lies.
April 26, 2024: Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced, Good News, EV Sales Down 20 Percent
Ford (F) reports a huge loss on every EV. Sales are down 20 percent holding the losses to $1.3 billion.
May 6, 2024: Another Round of Mass Firings at Tesla, Sales Must Be Imploding
Tesla announced yet another round of layoffs today. News came in the typical way, an email starting “Dear Employee”. It seems “Dear Ex-Employee” would be more fitting.
May 14, 2024: BYD Unveils the “Shark” a Plug-in Hybrid Pickup Truck Built in Mexico
The Chinese automaker BYD (Build Your Dreams) announces a 700-mile range PHEV that will be built in Mexico, this year.
Drum roll ……..
May 26, 2024: Hoot of the Day: Ford Wants Stricter Tailpipe Emissions
Any questions?
I think I would pay for a debate between PapaDave and Jeff Green. The irony is all three of us agree on some things.
But I side with PD on how fast it is realistic to get from here to there and at what cost.
Moreover, had Biden just stood back, I bet we would be further along and better off with hybrids. Our infrastructure and lifestyle both clash greatly with his absurd mandates.
Finally, the inflation Biden caused is highly likely to cost Biden the election. If so, Trump will set things back for at least 4 years. The same thing is happening in Europe.
Jeff Green idolizes China, still building coal plants. Ok they have a great, cheap EV, but hypocrite Biden won’t allow them here.
The only “debate” is how many trillions in debt you all plan to stick your children with
Before you talk about your fantasy debate, you need to pay for the hundreds of billions of failed green energy projects all over Germany and the UK. You need to pay $4 billion for the NY offshore wind fiasco, and the now canceled (indefinitely postponed) wind project off CT / RI. You must pay in CASH, not in DEBT.
You need to pay billions to home owners who installed solar panels expecting to pay the cost via utility rebates – but the utilities still have to build natgas and coal to support the grid on cloudy days so the utilities cannot pay and the solar panels are massive losses.
How economic is it for China to mine for coal, convert that to electricity, store the electricity in horrid batteries, and then reconvert the battery into electricity to power a motor in a car? Each conversion involves an energy loss. It “works” or appears to work in China because most still don’t own cars. Motorcycles with side carts are far more prevalent than cars.
Lets not talk about the environmental damage of mining lithium and cobalt and “rare earth metals”… that just makes the story worse.
Biden is a stupid senile idiot, but the whole EV thing is decades away from economic viability. Bureaucrat edicts are not going to change physics, no matter what stupid sh!t comes out of Ford or the White House.
We will still be using fossil fuel cars 40 years from now, long after Mish and Biden and Musk and PD and JG have all become worm food.
The only “debate” is how many trillions in debt you all plan to stick your children with
It works better in China because they don’t have the legacy infrastructure (gas stations, auto parts stores, garage repair shops, auto dealers etc) that has to get retired along with the switch to EVs. That’s another problem that has to be overcome here that you didn’t even touch on and that politicians and others rarely talk about.
Didn’t mention legacy infrastructure because it doesn’t matter IMHO. EVs are simply not viable given the present state of technology (batteries, transmission, generation costs, etc). Given a small enough market of EVs and big subsidies from other sectors, the appearance of viability can be simulated.
Decades from now, you are right that legacy assets may impede the switch-over. Not an issue now
Yes. We all agree on some things and disagree on others. Understandable.
I can try to sketch out a brief summary of my position. Feel free to point out where we agree and disagree if you wish.
Mankind has been using fossil fuels for a couple of centuries now. This has led to unprecedented economic growth and improvements in living standards in the countries that used the most fossil fuels. One barrel of oil has the equivalent energy of 23,000 hours of human labor. The more we use, the more productive and well off we become.
However, the emissions from FF have caused a rapid increase in greenhouse gasses, which are causing global warming, and climate change. This threatens our economic growth, our standards of living, and our health and well being.
So it’s a catch-22. We need to use more fossil fuels to spur economic growth, but using more will cause more global warming and a decrease in economic growth. What is difficult to estimate, is when will the negatives of emissions outweigh the positives of using FF. This is an incredibly complex issue because the reality is so uneven throughout the world. One tiny example: People are starving in some countries as their water sources dry up and they are unable to grow crops and feed themselves. While we live in the lap of luxury as a result of our consumption of the fossil fuels that are leading to that starvation.
Governments around the world recognize the problem and have signed agreements and made commitments to solve this emissions problem. Their basic goal is to increase the use of renewable energy and decrease the use of FF. They have been successful in many areas: more renewables, more EVs, and various policies to reduce emissions, to name a few. But in spite of 3 decades of trying, they have been unable to reduce our use of FF and our emissions. I have elaborated many times about why we are failing at this, but in a nutshell, every government wants economic growth and is unwilling to sacrifice growth today in order to prevent a loss of future growth. Governments will always focus the most on today’s problems rather than tomorrows problems.
So governments want to reduce FF use and the FF industry has got the message and has reduced capex in order to reduce future supply. Why spend money finding more oil and gas if we are not going to use it?
But demand for FF is still going up each year. As this demand runs into restricted supply, there will be upward pressure on prices. Which is why the FF industry is gushing profits and cash flow. And why roughly half of my market investments are in oil and gas stocks.
The country that is currently building the most solar, wind and nuclear every year is China. I do not “idolize” them (as you say Jeff does). I simply recognize it. As you do Mish, when you mention how China dominates these industries.
Hope that helps. Gotta go. Time for my run.
Growth of oil is slowing due to EVs
/thinc
/2024/05/29/gas-prices-staying-low-thank-an-ev/
Global petrol demand growth could halve in 2024, squeezing second-half refinery margins, analysts said, driven by a shift to electric cars in China and the United States and a return to normal consumption after last year’s bounce following COVID-19.
In the lowest growth since 2020, demand is likely to rise 340,000 barrels per day (bpd), to stand at 26.5 million bpd this year, says consultancy Wood Mackenzie, down from growth of 700,000 bpd last year, as China nears the point of peak transport fuel demand and the U.S. has surpassed it.
“Penetration of electric vehicles has been increasing in U.S. and China,” said Woodmac analyst Sushant Gupta.
“For this year Chinese demand will grow by only 10,000 bpd, due to higher EV uptake.”
Donald Trump destroys what ever he touches. Don gets in and tampers with industry to please his benefactors. Mainly big oil. Here is bloomberg below saying we can stay below 1.75*C if we do so with urgency. More than likely ugency won’t happen under the best of conditions. We have never really done enough fast enough to stay out of the proverbial hot water. 3*C if were lucky with the way is going now. Libertarianism kicks in strongly and this goes even higher.
Best case scenario is 1.75*C peak
Worst case scenario is Donald Trump getting elected and a strong dose of world wide libertarianism. Should this happen, we will be in the social stupidity zone.
.yahoo
/news/donald-trump-says-hell-stop-144231560
Donald Trump Says He’ll Stop All Electric Car Sales
Former United States President Donald J. Trump, currently facing 34 felony counts in criminal court, is campaigning for re-election this fall by taking shots at the increasingly popular electric car industry. Trump has already called for oil and gas industry executives to donate significant campaign funds in exchange for a reversal of Biden administration climate policies. If elected this November, Trump would roll back tailpipe emissions targets and dramatically slash EV tax credits. These policies may prove unpopular even among Republican voters, as electric vehicle production has spurred job growth and investment in southern states.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/urgent-deployment-of-existing-technology-can-get-world-close-to-net-zero-bloombergnefs-new-energy-outlook-2024-shows/
The report’s NZS, which is consistent with a 67% chance of holding global warming to 1.75 degrees Celsius, sees demand for oil, gas and coal reach an immediate peak and fall into a steep decline starting from the year 2025. The power, transport, industry and buildings sectors transition at different speeds based on the technologies available for them to decarbonize, but all see emissions start to fall immediately. These short-term changes only come to pass thanks to a rapid scale-up of clean energy technologies, in particular a tripling of global renewable-energy capacity by 2030, rapid uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) leading to a full global phase-out of combustion engine vehicle sales by 2034, and a major scale-up of carbon capture technology, alongside energy storage and nuclear power, before 2030.
The future is hard to predict. It’s possible that Trump will trigger a global trade war which could result in a recession deep enough to lower our use of fossil fuels for a year or two.
Some people try to make it look like EVs are going to fail. The reality is far different than that.
bloomberg
/news/articles/2024-05-28/the-slowdown-in-us-electric-vehicle-sales-looks-more-like-a-blip
The Slowdown in US Electric Vehicle Sales Looks More Like a BlipEV sales are still booming for most automakers — even if Tesla is in a rut.
For every sign of an EV slowdown, another suggests an adolescent industry on the verge of its next growth spurt. In fact, for most automakers, even the first quarter was a blockbuster. Six of the 10 biggest EV makers in the US saw sales grow at a scorching pace compared to a year ago — up anywhere from 56% at Hyundai-Kia to 86% at Ford. A sampling of April sales similarly came in hot.
Agree. EV sales are not going to zero. But they are not growing at the rates necessary to make a difference.
We are never at enough when it comes to global warming. But it is one of the more encouraging signs of getting to enough some day.
This report states what is needed to reach 1.75*C above preindustrial.Government support is what speeds the whole thing up. Speed of energy transition will save life on earth.
msn
/en-us/money/markets/is-net-zero-by-2050-still-possible-yes-but-it-ll-cost-19-more/ar-BB1mMi6M
(Bloomberg) — Governments and companies need to spend an extra $34 trillion on the clean energy transition between now and 2050 to reach net-zero emissions, according to BloombergNEF.
The research group’s 250-page New Energy Outlook report, which crunches 18 million datapoints, says that amount is 19% more than what’s expected in its base case scenario. The finding indicates that sectors from electric vehicles and renewable energy to power grids and carbon capture need extra support.
Yep. We need to spend a crap load to solve this problem. The report is over-optimistic. Because governments all around the world are NOT going to spend that much. They are too concerned about the more immediate problems they face. And they will focus the majority of their resources on immediate problems. Like dealing with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, crop failures, and other climate impacts. Not to mention mass migration of climate refugees.
You have noticed the gloomy side well. All the things you have mentioned are the symptoms of global warming. It is that double edged sword in which we must deal with its damage and deal with our antiquated system of fossil fuels. The longer the delay, the more extreme the list of damages you have so accurately pointed out. In the stick and carrot scenario, the sting of the stick grows ever stronger.
I am not even hopeful we will stay below 1.75*C. I am hoping to even stay under 3*C. This is a discussion of what is possible in today’s world. What I enjoy is discussing what is possible. From that point of view, how can society be nudged ever closer to going for more of the carrot to avoid the stick.
Good to see some realism on your part. Carrot or stick does not matter. We are simply unable to reduce our emissions anytime soon. We cannot build renewables fast enough to reduce our use of fossil fuels. So global warming will get worse.
This is not something I want to see happen. It’s just an observation. I cannot change it. All I can do is recognize it and take advantage of it.
Its always been there. I just never expressed it.
Detroit always writes C.A.F.E. standards. It’s funny watching the democrats take credit for increasing them and republicans quiet on them raising under R pres. Detroit tells Washington what they can meet in the future and Washington “forces” the new standards onto the companies.
Every EV purchase must include free fire insurance for your home and the vehicles you park beside. EV’s also need 50 yards of retractable cord to reach the third floor of apartment dwellers.
To put things in perspective, statistically, there is one ICE vehicle fire for every 26 million miles driven. For EVs its one fire for every 120 million miles. So ICE vehicles are almost 5x more likely to catch fire. But both are relatively rare.
Apartment dwellers are more likely to purchase an ICE vehicle, but if they want electric, they could purchase a PHEV, rather than an EV.
ICE cars are on average much, much older than EVs. Also, ICE fires are much, much easier to put out than EV fires. It’s not a fair comparison.
Mindful that, using conventional approaches, it takes 15x-40x as much water to extinguish an EV fire so the smaller number use more resources, which is an even larger problem in near or sub-freezing temperatures.
Of course innovation continues:
https://ctif.org/news/new-revolutionary-method-extinguishes-lithium-ion-ev-fires-ten-minutes-minimal-water
“Its backup plan is to force the rest…”
This IS America as of now: Force those less incompetent….. All of America. And; in America; what’s attempted passed of as “business”, is nothing but exactly that.
No ability to compete, in anything resembling a free market. Not a single person in control of any meaningful wealth; who obtained it in any other way than others being forced… Nothing. Just, 100%, a full stop totalitarian backwater.
Ford just wants to be bailed out of making the wrong bet. As taxpayers we should not do that because it tells Ford there is no risk for making wrong bets.
Ford should:
1) Shut down unprofitable EV’s and eat the loss short term and hope to recoup some of that in the long term if/when EV’s are in wider adoption.
2) Issue new stock to raise money to cover the losses (and/or borrow money).
3) Potentially declare bankruptcy if things are really bad to shed even more unprofitable factories/union contracts etc.
4) Continue partnering with China for EV tech (batteries/know how etc) that can be sold at a profit.
We don’t need any specific car company so none is too big to fail.
Ford can FOAD.
“Ford bet on EVs and failed. Its backup plan is to force the rest of the automakers to comply with the EPA’s new rules.”
I’d find that to be a reason not to buy any Ford vehicle.
That is a good reason not to buy Ford. It comes in second best reason next to Ford quality, and Ford planned obsolescence.
When auto-maker sales of EVs and plug-in hybrids make up roughly 70% of total sales in 2032, will Ford then be able to auction off the remaining 30% of their production?
This might raise the profitability from ICE cars enough to offset the losses from EVs.
This would benefit the wealthy as they would be the only ones who could afford an ICE car. Their heightened self worth would continue by exhibiting their conspicuous consumption as opposed to their previous virtue signal/wealth display achieved by their early adapter status that came with their earlier purchase of an expensive EV.
If the auction proved incapable of getting Ford to profitability, President Harris could just print the difference. This approach would also make it possible to give the UAW raises to $200.00 per hour with retirement at full pay and benefits after 10 years on the line.
Little did Gutenberg realize that he had created the tool to be utilized by Democrats 500 years later to unlock nirvana.
China is growing into every auto market, mostly with plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
If you are Ford, do you:
1. Lay down and die
2. Pretend China will go away
3. Find a way to make enough vehicles with plugs at large enough scale to be competitive globally, ideally with some government checks to help with capital costs
If you want to be productive, come up with a fourth option. I don’t see one. The government can pay some now or pay more later, if they want to keep Ford around.
Paying “some” now, always and everywhere results in having to pay _more_ later. Not less.
If mindlessly paying money for incompetence somehow reduced it, American once-was industry wouldn’t be the collection of uncompetitive basket cases it currently is.
Relative to the needs of the American people, we already know that Washington is full of elitist traitors, why should the corporations behave any differently?
Ford, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up. You trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
Regardless of Biden mandates people won’t buy an EV if they don’t want one and/or can’t afford one.
It is more about affordability AND EV driving distance fears.
Our niece came by last Winter with her Tesla. On the way out, she was looking for a nearby charging station between our Family home and her home. There was only ONE. Her car died on the way and we got a call at 1am.
When your so-called “private company” is little more than a ward of the state, your company’s future is at the mercy of the leadership (or lack thereof) of that state.
Government Motors and Chrysler are going the way of Mini Cooper, Jaguar, Volvo, Saab, Peugeot, and countless other wards of the state.
Ford Motor briefly rallied when the Ford family tried to run it and Reagan / Bush Sr / Clinton gave the Ford family some room to attempt a recovery. But Bush Jr and Obama and now the Senile Biden took over Detroit and are finishing the place off. The Ford family has taken a back seat again, Ford’s CEO Farley is a bureaucrat caretaker and all around bench warmer.
If the democrat party really cared about union workers, why do they keep wrecking the geese that pay those golden wages?
Its not just the UAW and Detriot. Look what happened to USW and Pittsburg. Look at the big unions and big airlines from Eastern to PanAm to Delta, UAL and American. Look at the Teamsters and big trucking companies (too many failures to list). Big unions + big government = failure every time. Check out the success the government had when they put Franklin Raines in charge of FNMA!!!
Ford is now a ward of the state. Its in public housing, attending inner city schools and getting food stamps. It doesnt have a chance
What was the episode of the Sopranos where Tony and his gang give a gambling loan to a guy who owns a sporting goods store, only to declare its a “bust out”? As the silent partners of the business, Tony and gang engage in purchasing fraud, store theft, over-charging customers on purpose, paying themselves lucrative “consulting contracts” and dividends, leveraging the store to the kilt and then some. Eventually the store goes bankrupt and closes.
When the mafia does it, its called a bust out. When the government does it, its called a taxpayer rescue. Same action, same behavior, same ethics … same outcome.
They sound like LBO private equity dudes.
The Happy Wanderer gets Davey Scatino in an Executive Poker game (get to play with Frank Sinatra Jr, a penile implant doctor and two gangsters in a crummy hotel room). “Bust Out” has Tony destroying his business…red coolers sell.
How does a Sopranos “Bust out” differ from what happens to corporations that get a big taxpayer bailout? They get a cut rate loan (below what the market would charge) but Biden or some other decrepit politician owns the business and destroys it.
GM and Chrysler were already “busted out”, shareholders and UAW got screwed. Ford is now getting busted; the EV nonsense is just smoke and mirrors for the media to argue about. Ford (or what is left of it) is getting hollowed out, while Biden and his gangsters get all the upside.
The UAW didn’t get screwed. They got in on the ‘bust out’ too via their fat salaries, job protection and pensions.
The taxpayer and car buyers are the only ones getting screwed.
Red states say its unworkable and other states are in the game to play ball on reducing pollution. Ford sees a path to workability on this. In the true libertarian way, let the game move forward without all the pranks that can be pulled because industries are scared of change.
reuters
/business/environment/automakers-back-key-parts-new-us-epa-vehicle-emissions-rules-2024-05-20/
The second largest U.S. automaker (F.N), opens new tab
said it supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations announced in March to cut passenger vehicle fleetwide tailpipe emissions by nearly 50% by 2032 over 2027 levels.
“Complying with emissions regulations requires lengthy advance planning, and Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards,” the Dearborn-based automaker said.
It said it welcomed the regulatory stability that the Multi-Pollutant Rule will provide, preventing the “possibility of flip-flopping or changing standards.”
Former President Donald Trump, who is seeking a return to the White House, has vowed to reverse the Biden rules that would boost electric vehicles.
Earlier, a trade group representing General Motors (GM.N), opens new tab
, Toyota Motor (7203.T), opens new tab
, Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE), opens new tab
, Ford and nearly all other major automakers on Monday said it supported two key aspects of the rule.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation filed in support of the EPA in including electric vehicles in fleetwide averaging of emissions and excluding upstream emissions from compliance calculations, but did not weigh in on the entire rule or the legality of the standards.
Last month, 25 Republican-led states sued the EPA arguing the new regulations saying they are unlawful and unworkable.
The auto alliance, which also includes Stellantis (STLAM.MI), opens new tab
, Honda Motor (7267.T), opens new tab
and Hyundai Motor (005380.KS), opens new tab
, said the two key provisions it is backing “are essential if vehicle manufacturers are to have any possibility of demonstrating compliance with the GHG reduction targets.”
Hoot of the day
Jeff Green “In the true libertarian way, let the game move forward without all the pranks”
Indeed – End all the subsidies, tax credits, government support and let’s see how fast this gets don.
THe libertarian speed isn’t enough.
The market isn’t just the United States but in the world. The more we are laggards in electrification, the more we loose out on markets down the road. The BYD seagull already is the economical EV that the common man or woman can afford. If we are going to stay in the game, we have to play ball in the EV market.
The so called climate agenda reveals an agenda of its own by the wall street journal. Science shows us we are warming from our own pollution. Nothing else has caused it. Otherwise it is just lies to support the fossil fuel agenda. As a matter of fact, it the world’s oil barrens that have us all in the Stockholm syndrome. More like drug addiction syndrome. We are just too insecure to quit.
Globaloney advocated by people like Bill Gates who has four private jets..each flight puts more carbon in the air than Joe Sixpack will in a lifetime. But Gates is the benevolent dictator who wants you to live in a locked community, eat fake meat and be poor while he plots the next fake epidemic with the mandatory cancer and heart disease causing “vaccines” to follow.
It ain’t science when dissenting voices by other scientists are suppressed.
BIll Gates is just copping out on your part. Everyone has added their share to the atmosphere of co2. Everyone does their share to get to a better place for life on earth to have a decent chance.
Barrens = barons.
More textbook crony capitalism from the Biden administration. It is sad to see how Ford, a once great bulwark of American industry has sunk to a mere toady of the ever more diminutive Buttigieg. The solution to this insanity is market economy, just let drivers purchase what they want and bonus we could eliminate whole government bureaucracies that regulate emissions, mileage requirements and safety. Maybe just require lights and fenders. Put people in charge of their lives and destiny and I will bet they will make better decisions than the senile Biden and his intelectual dwarfed Vice President Harris. I know that that is a small bar.
Regarding PapaDave’s last paragraph, is there a Green (a Soviet) named Lysenko in the government, who will insist that we meet mandates that can’t be met?
More than one futurist has said that we look headed to a time before Henry Ford made automobiles affordable, to a time when only the rich can afford cars. That will be mixed with Havana since 1958, with old cars kept on the road to an unbelievable age, or until government prohibits gasoline needed to operate them. (I am reminded of something that Ralph Nader supposedly said, that the best thing the Soviet Union did for its people was to NOT put a car in everyone’s garage.)
— The rest of us will have to get used to getting around on foot, or bicycle.
— All this also can lead to an end to fertilizer, and to tractors, meaning that like Cambodia in 1975 many of us will have to leave the cities and go back to scratching a life on farm plots.
No current government on the planet wants to go backwards economically. It’s political suicide. Which is why mandates and promises change or disappear when reality slaps them in the face.
You can try to eliminate fossil fuels and mandate renewables and EVs in a futile attempt to slow global warming, but when you’re threatened with the lights going out, you will burn coal, gas, or dung to keep them on. All your promises and mandates go out the window.
Our modern society has four pillars of products that we simply cannot get by without; steel, cement, plastics and fertilizer. None of these can be produced at scale without fossil fuels at this time. So fossil fuels are not being eliminated anytime soon.
At best, we can increase our production of electricity to perhaps 90% renewables and nuclear. And perhaps we can increase electricity use to 25% of all energy from the current 20%. Which leaves fossil fuels at 75% of all energy.
Which means emissions will get worse, and so will global warming. Which will impact economic growth in other ways. We are stuck in a catch-22. Damned if we keep using fossil fuels and damned if we don’t.
Yeah but how bad are they going to screw us over trying? You know, leave us in shambles before backing off.
It is not in their best interest to “screw you over”. All governments want to be re-elected.
And they back off their mandates and promises when they have to.
I do not vote. Nor do I care who is in charge. But I am always stunned that some folks think government is deliberately trying to impoverish them. That’s just stupid. Impoverishing voters is the last thing they want to do.
According to this article, Ember is saying 2024, fossil fuels will drop to 57.6% of the energy on the electric lines. The electric lines will also be absorbing more of the load of energy as the world changes it energy profile. Solar is the majority of new energy growth in the world.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/climate/clean-energy-milestone-ember/index.html
The rise of renewables is also pushing fossil fuels into decline, slowing their growth by almost two-thirds over the past decade, the report found. Already, more than half of countries are five years past their peak in fossil fuel-generated electricity.
Fossil fuels’ share in the overall electricity mix has fallen from 64.7% in 2000 to 60.6% in 2023. Ember predicts this number will drop significantly in 2024, to 57.6%, as the rapid increase in solar starts to be felt.
“We’re going to get that boom in renewables, which will really change the picture very quickly,” Jones told CNN.
Your link the Propaganda Central, CNN, killed your arguments.
You are entitled to your bias.
Yes Jeff, we are making progress on reducing the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity.
In 2000, 80% of electricity generation worldwide was from fossil fuels and in 2024 that is expected to drop to 58%. That’s a drop of 22% in 24 years. And as I said, we might be able to reduce that to 10% eventually (90% renewable and nuclear as I said). Based on current build out of renewables, we might reach that point by 2050.
However, that is JUST electricity. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that electricity represents just 20% of our overall energy use. Even if we get ALL our electricity from renewables, the other 80% of our energy use is still from fossil fuels.
The next step is to increase our use of electricity from 20% of all energy. We have already increased electricity from 16% of all energy in 2000 to 20% in 2024. Perhaps by 2050 we will increase that to 25% of all energy. Which still leaves 75% of energy from fossil fuels.
However, since our use of energy will increase every year, we will be using MORE fossil fuels in 2050 than we do today. We are running faster and faster on the treadmill, and we are not getting anywhere.
Your infatuation with EVs and electricity from renewables is all well and good, but they won’t result In a reduction in emissions. All they will do is prevent the problem from getting worse at a faster pace. But they will not solve the problem.
Have you been listening? Electricity and storage? There are some really great gains in a lot of areas that can electrify now and in the future. Our electric wires will handle the load eventually of over 90% of our energy needs if not 100%. IF nuclear and geothermal is needed, then so be it.
Lol! You’re the one not listening. You keep focusing entirely on “electricity”. As if all the energy we use is “electricity”.
Listen carefully Jeff:
Electricity represents just 20% of ALL the energy we consume. It doesn’t matter if you generate 100% of your electricity from renewables. It doesn’t matter if you build out Terawatts of storage. You are only reducing emissions on 20% of your energy consumed.
How are you going to replace the other 80% of the energy we use? Not with electricity.
You can’t make plastics from electricity. You can’t make fertilizers with electricity. You can’t make cement and steel in any quantity with electricity. You can’t make an EV from electricity. How about rubber for tires? How about the asphalt or cement roads you drive on? Are you going to make them from electricity?
Stop talking about electricity and start to focus on “energy”. You’re missing the forest for the trees here.
Mish wants to see a debate between us. But that would be a waste of my time because you are so focused on renewable electricity and EVs, that you are completely missing the big picture.
You aren’t getting my point or I’m not communicating well enough. Electricty will replace fossil fuels. The work we now do with fossil fuels will be done electrically. Not all, but most. In the articles coming across of google news feed, there is now mining equipment as in large mining trucks now going batteries. In the right geographic location, the truck loads at the top of hill, charges the batteries going down the hill with regen with all the extra weight contirbuting energy for the batteries. Another is mining trucks with trolley like electric lines. The trolley line trucks outperform the FF trucks getting more work accomplished while costing less money to operate with electricity to the tune of 3 times more efficient.
Plus, we don’t subsidize our clean energy transition, we lose out to countries that do. Libertarianism is to lose out competitively to everyone else.
I completely understand your point. I simply keep repeating that it is impossible to achieve your idea in any time frame that will make a difference. Your Goldilocks world is hundreds of years away, yet you talk like we will get there “soon”.
You expect all energy to be electricity and you expect all electricity to be renewable. And you think that will happen “soon”.
You expect every car, motorcycle, truck, transport, tractor, construction vehicle, airplane, boat, ship etc to be electric in a few years.
You expect we will replace every fossil fuel furnace, heater, bbq, appliance in the world with an electric equivalent “soon”.
You think we will abandon and replace 80% of the infrastructure in the world “shortly”. You expect we will be able to make the plastic in your EV from some unknown magic material other than oil. You expect we will be able to meet all our fertilizer needs from some other unknown magic material, other than natural gas. You think we will be able to produce all our steel and cement without fossil fuels.
And I keep telling you that you live in Lala land. Here is reality:
In 2000, 16% of all energy was electricity. Today, 24 years later, it is 20%. Projections for 2050 are 25%. Not 100%.
In 2000, renewables accounted for 18% of electricity. Today it is 30%. Projections for 2050 are for 50%. Not 100%.
So by 2050, renewables will account for 50% of 25% which equals 12.5% of all our energy. Not 100%. Guess where the remaining energy will come from? Yep, fossil fuels. In fact, we will be using MORE fossil fuels in 2050 than today, because our demand for energy won’t stop increasing.
Lets look at just one of your ideas. That the 1.5 billion personal ICE vehicles will “soon” be replaced with EVs. There are 75 million vehicles produced each year. Even if they were all EV, it would take 20 years to produce 1.5 billion of them. But only one in seven are EV. Perhaps we can get that to one in five. But as long as we keep making mostly ICE vehicles, your dream is hundreds of years away. Never mind making all other vehicles like transports, airplanes and ships electric.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Yes, we are moving in the direction you so desperately want to see. But we are moving so slowly that we are not reducing our emissions. We are hundreds of years away from zero emissions.
Global warming is just going to keep getting worse. And in desperation, some are going to try geo-engineering the climate. And then we are really f*cked.
I disagree, It will happen this century. Most of the advanced countries will hit net zero around 2050. Carbon tarrifs will occur before 2050 speeding this up. At some point, FFs will become uneconomical to keep using.Micheal Barnard was pointing out in an article that by 2030 batteries will reach $30/kw-hr. There is acceleration coming down the pipe. The speed of change will keep coming.
“We are stuck in a catch-22. Damned if we keep using fossil fuels and damned if we don’t.”
But, far and away, what damns the most people the most; is that some totalitarian gaggle of self dealers use the whole charade as nothing other than yet another excuse to redistribute even more. As always, from competent people who actually produces some value, or who could if the pervasive theft didn’t make it far too costly; and to absolute leeching nothings whose only “skillzz” are closeness to the Junta.
All the other, natural, physical stuff; can be worked around as/if they materialize. The world’s always been changing. It’s why life is flexible,not narrowly optimized. Such problems are always just engineering problems.
But systemic, pervasive, all encompassing theft; by a massively asymmetrically armed adversary; have no solution at all; other than the complete and utter collapse of all and everything that keeps the self perpetuating totalitarian “system” in power.
You mean to tell me that you are not taking advantage of this situation? Why not?
Single minded obsession with desperately grabbing on to more turds than the next sewer rat, doesn’t hold nearly the same importance for species sufficiently evolved to have long since left the sewer behind.
I see. Translation: you don’t know how to take advantage of it. So, instead you complain about it.
Gotta create demand for that negative cost California solar power.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/solar/california-is-throwing-away-excess-solar-power-raising-electricity-prices/
Thanks for the link. Apparently, in 2022 California “wasted” 5% of its solar power generation because it lacked storage for when excess power was being generated. This represented 1% of its total power generation. And it has since started selling this excess power to neighboring states where possible, but it could sell even more if it had more power lines built. In addition they are adding more storage systems to retain more of this excess power.
Yep, sounds like growing pains for their solar generation. But nothing that can’t be sorted out over time.
Still, electricity remains just 20% of all the energy we use. The remaining 80% of energy is fossil fuels.
First: As I always say, EVs are a distraction that prevents us from making more meaningful reductions in our emissions. But, of course, there is nothing I can do about this, but accept it. If an EV makes sense for you personally, then feel free to buy one.
Second: PHEVs are a better solution for most people and would probably do more to reduce emissions than straight EVs. I have given my reasoning many times before, so I won’t repeat it here.
Third: People here keep repeating that EV sales are declining or soon going to zero. Yet the numbers show otherwise. Here are monthly EV/PHEV sales in the US so far this year:
Jan 2024: 89,042 sales, a 15% increase from Jan 2023
Feb 2024: 110,200 sales, an 11.4% increase from Feb 2023
Mar 2024: couln’t find the numbers
Apr 2024: 120,074 sales, a 2.6% increase from April 2023
The rate of increase is slowing, but sales are still growing. Which does not fit the narrative often heard here. Though I expect that the big growth in the future will be PHEV, which will favor the legacy domestic manufacturers, as opposed to Tesla and other straight EV makers.
Regarding mandates: they will be altered or dropped when they can’t be met.
Yes, the resulting numbers do not lie unless the numbers are lies, but the Government would never lied to us, RIGHT?
Sigh.
First: I got those numbers from 3 different non-government sites.
Second: Only cult conspiracy morons would think that the government would lie about something as insignificant as monthly EV sales. Particularly when there are so many other sources to get those numbers.
No questions, Mish…sad to see what’s left of America descending into more rent-seeking corporatism. Buy a politician who promises to crush your competition via the unelected regulatory state…that’s the American way, hmm?
I’m glad i’m as old as I am. I’ve seen enough. F….. this planet.
Don’t crash out yet – “it ain’t over till the fat lady sings”. But the present path is definitely down – and accelerating.
I am old, too, and recall a Resilient America, making stuff, and being a window into a world of success to other nations and it appears that window is fogged over now.