Slashdot Mirror
Fiat Chrysler Will Pay Tesla To Dodge Billions In Emissions Fines (theverge.com)
MDMurphy writes: While people have good and bad things to say about Tesla, one consistent thing has been that the cars emit zero emissions when operating. But in Europe, in exchange for cash, Tesla is merging its fleet with that of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA). The amount FCA is paying Tesla is presumably less than they would in fines if they were on their own. With this merging of the fleets, in Europe at least, a Tesla is no more clean than a diesel Fiat. "The Italian-American carmaker is behind on meeting the new standard, and the so-called open pool option available at the EU allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet the targets," reports Bloomberg. "Payments to Tesla, whose electric cars don't produce CO2 emissions, may amount to over 500 million euros, according to Jefferies."
Ars Technica reports on the strict new EU regulations: "From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a $107 'excess emissions premium' per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some $3.12 billion, out of total net global profits of $4.1 billion."
Ars Technica reports on the strict new EU regulations: "From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a $107 'excess emissions premium' per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some $3.12 billion, out of total net global profits of $4.1 billion."
I think most reasonable people would understand a "viable" business to be one that is able to sustain itself in an undistorted market.
That also describes Tesla now since they are still maintaining sales even though tax credits have mostly evaporated for the cars they sell.
If you compare Tesla's to other cars the price they charge is really reasonable, especially considering what you save in gasoline and some other routine petrol engine related maintenance over time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's surreal how bad and stupid political polarization has become, that we could have right wingers shunning and harassing Teslas and Tesla owners to make an anti-Democrat statement. It's not about being anti-science; it's just anti-Democrat, anti-left.
This is an AMERICAN car company that's spearheading this revolution. I happen to think that Elon Musk is annoyingly overrated, but I can't deny that he is basically the embodiment of every single pro-entrepreneur, pro-privatization, American dream cliche. American jobs. American pride. He's the same guy sending our satellites into space now; so why can't someone just drape an American flag over his shoulders and run with it?
I say this through grit teeth... personally, the hero worship of this guy really gets under my skin, sometimes it's even worse than Jobs, but that's just a pet peeve... from the standpoint of ushering in this revolution why aren't they calling Musk the next Henry Ford? It's in America's best interest for him to be leading this charge.
And yes, I said revolution. This SHOULD be a big deal, far exceeding its ecological implications. This really should be the biggest thing to happen to cars since the Model T. If battery technology can significantly improve and/or existing batteries come down in price a lot more, electric cars would offer huge advantages over the vast majority of diesel and gasoline vehicles on the road today. Electric cars should be significantly cheaper to build and maintain: lower operating temps, simple transmission, just fewer moving parts across the board.... I wouldn't be so surprised if in fifty years time we had electric cars capable of going millions of miles without needing a total rebuild.
And Tesla is also leading the charge with the other major automobile revolution--autopilot--which some day is going to lead to safer and much more efficient (i.e. fast) roads Which is a really big deal in a country as sprawling as America.
Also: the less the world relies on oil, the less money and power OPEC has. Aren't there still millions of voters out there who remember the oil crisis in the 70s? Is no one concerned about the prospect of the Salafi government in Saudi Arabia pulling even more money out of the ground? I for one wouldn't shed a tear if the wealth and power of the OPEC countries diminished. A couple years back even ISIS was managing to get their hands on oil money for a while there. Why can't oil independence be spun as a national security issue? So-called "Islamophobia" harnessed for a good cause, you might say.
But no... this would-be pride of American capitalism and security and optimistic futurism is instead just another pawn in the cultural proxy war.
Instead of something positive and bipartisan-y, liberals invariably lead with the negatives: First, by making some lazy and crazy comments implying human extinction (Don't go wildly exaggerating something that ordinary people already have a tough time perceiving! Sure, many species will go extinct, maybe some cities go underwater and we may have to switch crops and maybe worst case we lose a lot of seafood, but we're obviously never going to see mass starvation and human extinction unless something really far-fetched happens, like an extreme version of the clathrate gun effect or some other deadly positive feedback loop that for some reason was never triggered in past epochs.)
Second: the liberals will whine about America's sins and the sins of those running her. I know it's depressing, I know it is, but I really don't give a shit what Trump said. I don't need to see dozens upon dozens of posts trying to single out American carbon emissions as being particularly bad. I don't care if that's true or not; nobody needs to see that shit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual solutions. Nobody wants to hear you whine abou
That's the point: it's meant to be ruinous. Or you clean up your act by improving the emissions output of your vehicles.
that we could have right wingers shunning and harassing Teslas and Tesla owners to make an anti-Democrat statement.
From the Reddit thread you linked to:
It's weird that guys like this think that people who drive expensive electric cars vote differently than they do. I only know 3 Tesla drivers, and they're all Republicans.
From a comment nearby:
A lot of guys I work with drive lifted up trucks. You'd think we were all redneck Trump supporters, especially since we are construction tradesmen. We are union and we vote for our paycheck and for our union. We are mostly all democrats.
Further points - none of the trucks have any right wing bumper stickers. All I can discern from the highest resolution photo is two of them have "Mint" logos, which I have not been able to match up with a company but it doesn't SOUND very right-wing.
To me this is way different than right/left, this is car owners just being jerks probably because they see Tesla drivers as elite - could honestly be either conservative or liberal or just lifelong members of the Asshole Party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think most reasonable people would understand a "viable" business to be one that is able to sustain itself in an undistorted market. This is actually yet another data point in the opposite direction.
Current CO2 emissions are not viable, banning fossil fuel is not viable. Sure carbon credits distorts the market, but minimally so, the undistorted market alternative to Tesla getting a windfall is the polluter taking the full cost of sucking the CO2 out of the air and putting it back in the ground. Do you have a better suggestion or isn't "you brake it, you fix it" an applicable rule?
this is just ouragous to me; instead of investing €500m in developing a better engine, they just fool the system.
ofcourse the system allows it, and they should really close this loophole.
if they can't make their engines cleaner, well bad luck, plain and simple.
perhaps they can buy engines from somebody who can actually get their act together to put in their cars, instead of these scandalous tactics. this is nothing new and is done all the time, it can't be more expensive then paying the fines (or €500m).
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.