related Autoworkers strike brings EV issues to fore https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4206828-autoworkers-strike-brings-ev-issues-to-fore/
This Wall Street Journal editorial board article contains two glaring errors. First, it is inaccurate to claim the Biden administration is "mandating" that electric vehicles comprise two-thirds of auto sales by 2032. The government does not have the power to dictate EV sales percentages. It can only set fuel economy and emission standards. Second, the article illogically argues that EVs being currently unprofitable and requiring less labor is grounds for the UAW strike. In fact, the auto industry's inevitable transition to EVs, which are less labor intensive, should improve profitability in the long-term. Tesla has already demonstrated the potential for far higher profit margins with EVs, which is why legacy automakers are now heavily investing to catch up. The editorial board article tries to politicize the UAW strike by pinning blame on Biden's policies. But the strike appears driven by typical tensions over wages and benefits during contract negotiations. Connecting it to the EV transition is a tenuous argument at best. Through simple fact checking and pointing out logical inconsistencies, this opinion piece is revealed to have flawed reasoning and dubious claims.
I believe the statement in the editorial reads "the Biden Administration’s policy mandating a rapid transition to electric vehicles." I do not see how that is inaccurate, given the emission standards: https://www.nada.org/legislative/epas-new-electric-vehicle-mandate-too-far-too-fast#:~:text=The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,to advancing this transportation transformation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new emissions standards that would effectively require 67.5% of U.S. vehicle sales to be electric by 2032. Dealers are making significant electric vehicle (EV) investments and are essential to advancing this transportation transformation. right why "illogical"? you may in fact disagree with the argument, but the plain fact of your disagreement does not necessarily render the claim "illogical." that may be; time will tell. At the moment the UAW is striking in large part because of the pressure to switch over to EVs. not just the Journal. See the Hill piece shared this morning I don't necessarily see it the way you see it, and I do not believe I am alone in holding this perspective
The fundamental issue is that we are in a period of transition driven by new technologies like AI, electric vehicles, and energy. Labor unions have legitimate concerns about the impacts on workers during this transition. This shift is more capitalistic in nature rather than a top-down push from government. The ongoing Hollywood strike exemplifies this, with unions worried that generative AI is taking creators' work, training on it, and generating new content without compensation. Massive layoffs seem likely without negotiation. This is why unions are making a comeback, as most Americans will eventually share similar concerns about job impacts from technology transitions. Labor unions can offer some protections, so administrations that support them to balance pure capitalism will likely gain political support for years. The Wall Street Journal editorial board seems behind the curve in failing to grasp these trends, likely due to the politically motivated nature of their arguments.
It is simply inaccurate to claim there is a government mandate for electric vehicle sales. The government set higher fuel economy and emission standards, but did not directly mandate EVs. While EVs may be the obvious path for automakers to meet the new standards, there could be other approaches that emerge. The Wall Street Journal editorial board illogically argues that unprofitable EVs prevent automakers from meeting union demands. However, these legacy manufacturers understand precisely what will boost profits long-term - transitioning to electric vehicles. Tesla has proven the profit potential of EVs with far higher margins (4x IIRC). Rather than a hindrance, the EV transition represents the future profit center legacy automakers need to remain competitive. The Hill has little to no original thought and typically just rephrases content with different wording. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, on the other hand, presents original arguments, so I take their pieces more seriously in comparison to The Hill.
fair enough, if you are troubled by the term "mandate" then so be it. That was the Editorial Board's word, not mine. The fact remains that it is clearly the policy of the Biden administration and the U.S. government to speed up/accelerate/promote the progress of the transition to EVs (for better or worse). Whether you want to call that a "mandate" or something less authoritarian, the result is the same: U.S. policy is to promote EVs. Biden administration aims $2 billion in grants at US electric vehicle transition https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/biden-administration-aims-2-bln-grants-us-electric-vehicle-transition-2023-06-28/#:~:text=The Biden administration, as part,shifting to EVs by 2032. excerpt: The Biden administration, as part of its goal of decarbonizing the economy by 2050, is pushing the U.S. auto industry to accelerate a transition to EVs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April proposed rules that could result in as much as two-thirds of the new vehicle market shifting to EVs by 2032. That is simply the political and sociological reality that lies in the background of phenomena such as the UAW strike. Wishful thinking to the contrary cannot make it otherwise.
It was a point about the WSJ EB piece, and not you. So don't take it too personally I believe accuracy with language is important, and "mandate" is clearly the wrong word choice here. Calling it "less authoritarian" is also incorrect. The power to set fuel efficiency standards has existed for decades and was democratically granted through our system of government (meaning Congress provided the executive branch this authority). Yes, promoting cleaner air and slowing global warming is clearly a policy priority for the Biden administration.
Good I think the arguments made in the article consist of invalid, weak, and illogical points. It comes across as yet another politically motivated piece.
LOL..... WSJ editorial board strikes again! When you don't want to report news or facts..... call the WSJ Editorial Board!
While I think onshoring was a trend before Biden, he made it into US industrial policy. Also, the supercycle of labor vs capital was starting to tilt a bit towards labor but is also being pushed by the industrial policy.
"Mandate" is appropriate given the wsj provided caveats to its description: The Biden Administration, with California as its co-enforcer, is mandating that EVs make up an increasing share of auto-maker sales—two-thirds by 2032. California and other progressive states plan to ban all new gas-powered cars by 2035. California's regulation of air quality has always been a thorny point for republican admins. Granting that waiver is tacit approval by the Biden admin for California's standards while bypassing far lax federal requirements. https://www.environmentalleader.com/2023/09/house-passes-bill-aimed-to-revoke-california-ev-mandate/ House Passes Bill Aimed to Revoke California EV Mandate The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill intended to thwart California’s efforts to phase out gas-powered cars and bar all states from limiting gas-powered car sales. In May, California announced a plan to require all new vehicles sold in the state to be electric or plug-in electric hybrids by 2035 in order to reduce emissions. The move is especially impactful as states often follow California’s legislative decisions — 17 states reportedly put emissions standards in place along the lines of the new regulations. According to the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to pursue clean air rules that are more strict than the federal government, provided they get permission from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA offered California a waiver which granted them the ability to instate the new mandate. The House bill aims to strip the EPA of the power to grant such a waiver. Since offering the waiver, California has reportedly considered completely phasing out new gas-powered car sales in the state. Although the House bill was passed, with 214 Republican and eight Democrat votes, it is not expected to pass in the Democrat-led Senate. The White House also recently released a statement voicing its opposition to the House’s actions. Reasons for Push Back on EV Transition The House bill reflects a larger trend of Republican pushback against President Biden’s climate agenda, specifically the goal of having 50% of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030. Republican House members called California’s ruling a “restrictive government mandate,” some claiming that EVs are unable to meet the needs of their constituents. Cited concerns include EVs’ susceptibility to temperature changes, which may cause a decrease in range, and their assumed inability to handle certain types of terrain. EVs, including trucks and large vans, are being developed and improved to address such concerns. House members also cited how limiting sales of combustion engine vehicles infringes on American consumers’ freedom. Auto workers have also recently voiced concerns that increased EV production has been used as an excuse for auto companies to undercut wages. Republicans have reportedly used these concerns to gain more support against an EV transition. In California, the zero-emission rules would cut 25% of smog-causing pollution from light-duty vehicles in a state with the worst air quality in the nation. The state also currently faces sea-level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, and increasingly more wildfires, urging its considerable effortstowards climate change mitigation.
It'd be (extremely?) ironic if we needed entirely new and undiscovered (at scale) battery technology to combat extreme weather. Almost like Europe firing up coal plants to make up for natural gas shortages.
Fair point but.. I ignored that portion because it’s silly. California is a state, not the federal government, so tying what California does to the Biden administration demonstrates twisted logic by the WSJ editorial board. One could argue that the federal government has to approve California’s plans, which is true, but this has historically been the case. There was one instance where the EPA didn’t approve a waiver for stricter California standards, but that decision was quickly reversed after a review. The waivers that are much less likely to be approved are those requesting a less stringent standard. But for a more stringent standard? Knock yourself out.
@Os Trigonum I didn't realize that the union was concerned about job losses due to EV manufacturing from the first article. Biden is trying to balance jobs with environmental standards. It would be nice to hear your thoughts on the strike https://www.reuters.com/business/au...h the,the United States, starting immediately.
