Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Report analyses the climate policy engagement strategies of fifteen of the largest global automakers in seven key regions (Australia, EU, Japan, India, South Korea, UK, US). It shows how even in countries where major climate legislation has recently passed, such as the US and Australia, the ambition of these policies has been weakened due to industry pressure.
The report highlights that these anti-EV efforts in the industry are often coming from industry associations rather than coming directly from automakers, shielding them a bit from inevitable public backlash.
Hmmm... there have indeed been some car companies that either aren't putting big efforts into EV development, or have been trying to slow the pace of mandatory restrictions on ICE vehicle sales.
That said, accusing the whole industry of working to sabotage the transition to EVs - in my opinion , that's unfair. As noted in this article: "Vehicle manufacturers and battery makers plan to invest $860 billion globally by 2030 in the transition to EVs. Nearly a quarter, $210 billion, is expected to be invested in the United States, more than in any other country." https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_stor...d-for-the-u-s/
That's not what I'd call sabotaging. Moreover, you don't need to look too hard to find out that a few companies have been doing well with their EV sales, but many companies have been losing money, and some have completely failed. So it's no wonder they don't want to be pushed headlong into a business that's not going great, for most of them - they want to survive, and slowing down the changes can help with that.
I would think that an automaker has to take into consideration what is best for the shareholders. If there isn't money to be made it makes no sense to jump in the bandwagon. As with a great number of "green technology" that have gone down the drain, it is imperative for any company to be cautious.
Why would they sabatage it ? A sale is a sale. If no one is buying them they are taking up space of something that will sell.
One reason I can think of is maintenance. Electric cars don't require oil changes, timing belts, and any number of other components that no longer need dealerships or parts replacement for. Sure even Electrics need some maintenance, but nothing compared to ice.
From a political science standpoint that can be analogous to business is the notion of hegemony; that is the processes in which the dominant culture maintains its dominant position. So often times business are watching the rearview mirror to see who's coming after them and when to expect competition to take a strike at them. It's not very different from how Big Oil paid for and suppressed environment/climate impact studies over the last 50 years or how any other business tries to create "moats" to protect their revenue streams and relevance. It's not to say this is nefarious but it should be expected. Some may see it as greedy and self-serving, others will view it was self-preservation.
Specifically to the transition of EVs and legacy automakers in the US, I think they were caught flat-footed and saw early developments in EVs from the 1970s-1990s to be expensive "false-starts" of sort. Then the Global Credit Crisis of 2007-2009 crippled the Big 3 auto manufacturer leading to bankruptcies and shedding of R&D dollars. 2012 Tesla launches the Model S, followed by the X and 3, and now everyone is playing catchup. Aside from early charging infrastructure scarcity, lower range, high battery costs, extreme weather inefficiency, and both software & hardware glitches, EVs have proven to be cheaper from a performance/luxury perspective. The challenge is how to scale it to profitability and how to properly scale affordable EVs for the masses.
The latter is the issue legacy manufacturers face. Now combine that to what's happening in China where their EV industry is booming with huge government subsidies and questionable intellectual property thefts. We like to blame China for their growth in pollution over the last 40 years, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that their transition to EVs is a big way for them to curb pollution and leapfrog ahead of the US in global EV sales. Occupying Africa where the rare earth materials are has become very alarming. Meanwhile, folks in the US are still fighting with each other about climate change, the causes of it, and choice/anti-choice about powertrain options. So this will continue to be debated and I'm sure folks will hurl fear and suspicion towards the things they feel threatened by.
Parts availability
Manufacturers sequestering needed information to make repairs
Lack of knowledge on what can be repaired and at what cost
Reluctance to even try to repair
High cost of repairs
We have entered an age where 'fixing things' has become uneconomical. Small electronic devices work 3-5 years and then are tossed. Even home appliances like washers and dryers go to the dump after a few years operation. Consumers are told "they got their monies worth", cost to repair is too expensive, just toss it.
Even with the cost of new vehicles at 30-40k and up .... are we getting to the point even cars are not worth repairing? If we are lucky enough for them to last long enough to get them paid for, did we get our monies worth?
I don’t think there’s some sort of industry-wide conspiracy to avoid producing EVs, but I do think that some companies are trying to be more realistic about the speed of the transition as well as demand from customers.
...or ...people just don't want to buy EV's. Nearly everyone I have spoken with doesn't want one. They are expensive to repair. They don't last as long (My Scion has 200k miles on it, and my Buick 210k miles on it...EV's wont do this). They ain't worth the hassle. Has little to do with "pressure from auto companies.". It is an infantile industry that just isn't there. What difference does pressure make if there is little demand for them?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,761 posts, read 81,674,039 times
Reputation: 58140
When the first hybrids and then EVs came out thought the manufacturers were indeed trying to sabotage them by making them ugly. The worst was the early Honda Insight, then the Prius, but then some started to hybridize existing vehicles like the Ford Escape and Fusion, and they started to sell well. With the early EV, the GM EV1 was awfully ugly, as was the Nissan Leaf, and the Volt. Tesla managed to come out with a really nice roadster in 2008 and then a decent looking Model S and later Model X, though they all look old now without any design changes. Besides Tesla, the best looking EVs are the small startups like Polestar, Rivian, and Fisker, and I think those have caused the major manufacturers to try making theirs more aesthetically pleasing, but if they can't make any money they cannot continue.
It's like one of my favorite restaurants, but on a much larger scale. I would go there for their deep-fried Bay Scallops, and loved them. I went back one day and they were not on the menu, so I asked the waiter. He told me that they had not been profitable, what people were willing to pay didn't justify the cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
