Jump to content

Ford signs COP26 declaration for 100% ZEV transition by 2035


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Kev-Mo said:

And where is Subaru? The darling green automobile of 'woke' Boulder Colorado environmentalists - seriously doubt they'll all be trading in their Outbacks for a Ford now. 

 

Time will tell on this move by Ford, but I think they could have played it smarter.  Looking to future is great, but you don't have to kick your long time traditional customers to the curb.

.

 

Subaru, like Mazda is in trouble as the market changes quickly. I loved my Crosstrek, but the Crosstrek plugin sucks, and the Escape Hybrid is a winner. The plugin Escape is also a winner. Lincoln is going to do a Corsair Hybrid also to complement the plugin. Meanwhile, Mazda just did a BEV that is already planned for its only 100 mile range. I'm sure Subaru and Mazda can keep their loyal customers for now, but the future looks bleak as the big boys go full force into electrics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paintguy said:

Believe all listed cities and states mayors and governors have a "D" after their name.

they also ( a majority ) have check marks next to Country leading Homelessness, high Taxes, defund the Police and "largely peaceful " Protests correct?....theres a common denominator unfortunately...f'in IDIOTS...sorry to go down a political road...but that's EXACTLY what these BS propositions and proposals are...nothing more nothing less...pandering...

Edited by Deanh
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Kev-Mo said:

And where is Subaru? The darling green automobile of 'woke' Boulder Colorado environmentalists - seriously doubt they'll all be trading in their Outbacks for a Ford now. 

 

Time will tell on this move by Ford, but I think they could have played it smarter.  Looking to future is great, but you don't have to kick your long time traditional customers to the curb.

.

actually I think its a wise move...they don't sign they get crucified by the "mob"....they do sign theres no backlash....and the reality is this is but a proposition...can it or will it become reality?....Therein lies the REAL question. It could infact draw out another 10 years or so for all we know...but it LOOKS good to the small % of the public one constantly has to appease to to avoid "tantrums" and backlash. And truth be told, if the  implementation is fundamentally ignored/ rejected or instills backlash by the bulk of buyers, it becomes dead in the water, and or something gets compromised...you CANNOT just say its my way or the highway...look at the reaction to vaccine mandates.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kev-Mo said:

And where is Subaru? 

 

Like other Japan based automakers, Subaru did not sign the COP26 declaration. As FordBuyer said, Subaru is in serious trouble as the automotive industry rapidly transitions to 100% electric vehicles.

 

Subaru will show its Solterra EV at the L.A. Auto Show next week, but it seems too little, too late. Subaru Solterra EV Reveal Livestream | Los Angeles Auto Show

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Subaru, like Mazda is in trouble as the market changes quickly. I loved my Crosstrek, but the Crosstrek plugin sucks, and the Escape Hybrid is a winner. The plugin Escape is also a winner. Lincoln is going to do a Corsair Hybrid also to complement the plugin. Meanwhile, Mazda just did a BEV that is already planned for its only 100 mile range. I'm sure Subaru and Mazda can keep their loyal customers for now, but the future looks bleak as the big boys go full force into electrics.

 

Subaru is in bed with Toyota.  Their coming EV is a rebadged Toyota.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is every one on every Ford GM or Mopar enthusiast site against BEVs?  Seems so sometimes.  I think by 2035 most of the problems you complain about with EVs will be solved.  Heck that's 12 model years yet. Where was Tesla 12 years ago? How far have they come? The world of the future is going to be electrified not gas powered. The old Detroit three can be a part of it or be out of business after 2040.  Kinda like refusing see your horse drawn carriage business is going to become irrelevant in back in 1908 when the Model T came out. Fpd sold 10,000 vehicles in 1909.  Buy 1922 it was 1.3 million per year with almost  as many sold by competitors that year. I am not young, but I am not stuck in the past either. Battery powered mowers and snow blowers finally became cost competitive last year or two. I love my battery mower and can't wait to try out my battery snow blower this winter. I owned lots of V8s the last 30 years but love my new Eco-boost and just purchased a hybrid vehicle as well. They just made more sense than a V8 this last time around. I would have got a Mach E if not for the price, but when I go looking for new vehicles again towards the end of the 2020's I am sure it will be a BEV. BEVs will become competitive. The charging and range problems will be solved. Tesla, Rivan and similar startups, or the Chinese and other Asian countries will solve the problems if Detroit doesn't. Don't worry if you want an ICE vehicle I am sure there will be new ones for you to purchase until at least 2035 more likely 2045 or 2050. It will be a transition. It always takes longer than they say. We will have both ICE and BEV for a least the next two decades. Calm down. People get so angry and it gets personal. It makes some of us not want to bother with these forums anymore at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tico said:

Is every one on every Ford GM or Mopar enthusiast site against BEVs?  Seems so sometimes.  I think by 2035 most of the problems you complain about with EVs will be solved.  Heck that's 12 model years yet. Where was Tesla 12 years ago? How far have they come? The world of the future is going to be electrified not gas powered. The old Detroit three can be a part of it or be out of business after 2040.  Kinda like refusing see your horse drawn carriage business is going to become irrelevant in back in 1908 when the Model T came out. Fpd sold 10,000 vehicles in 1909.  Buy 1922 it was 1.3 million per year with almost  as many sold by competitors that year. I am not young, but I am not stuck in the past either. Battery powered mowers and snow blowers finally became cost competitive last year or two. I love my battery mower and can't wait to try out my battery snow blower this winter. I owned lots of V8s the last 30 years but love my new Eco-boost and just purchased a hybrid vehicle as well. They just made more sense than a V8 this last time around. I would have got a Mach E if not for the price, but when I go looking for new vehicles again towards the end of the 2020's I am sure it will be a BEV. BEVs will become competitive. The charging and range problems will be solved. Tesla, Rivan and similar startups, or the Chinese and other Asian countries will solve the problems if Detroit doesn't. Don't worry if you want an ICE vehicle I am sure there will be new ones for you to purchase until at least 2035 more likely 2045 or 2050. It will be a transition. It always takes longer than they say. We will have both ICE and BEV for a least the next two decades. Calm down. People get so angry and it gets personal. It makes some of us not want to bother with these forums anymore at all.

 

I don't think anyone is "against" BEVs, but rather against the forcing them down peoples throats in a condensed timeline "because they're green" all while ignoring the "ungreen" aspects of them and ignoring the affects on the power system demanding renewable energy sources that won't be realistic.  They're demanding the entire world change an entire infrastructure built on another power method in 14 years......while also disallowing power generation methods like nuclear.

 

Sure things will improve by then regarding BEVs themselves, but why not just let it happen naturally if they're so great?  Why force everyone into them and outlaw ICE vehicles?

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I don't think anyone is "against" BEVs, but rather against the forcing them down peoples throats in a condensed timeline "because they're green" all while ignoring the "ungreen" aspects of them and ignoring the affects on the power system demanding renewable energy sources that won't be realistic.  They're demanding the entire world change an entire infrastructure built on another power method in 14 years......while also disallowing power generation methods like nuclear.

 

Sure things will improve by then regarding BEVs themselves, but why not just let it happen naturally if they're so great?  Why force everyone into them and outlaw ICE vehicles?

So this is a site to discuss politics and power generation policy now and not just Ford products? The libs are shoving it down our throat. The energy companies and their conservative allies are blocking and sabotaging us. Which is it? That discussion does not belong here. I guess if this is where the world is headed Ford better try to lead rather than follow and I am interested in Mach E and F150 Lightning, Maverick and other electrification projects that are ongoing. Because I think the technology is cool. Because I know a battery and motor a lot easier to maintain than an ICE engine and the hundreds of bolt-ons that come with it. Its not about rules , regulations, policy or who really won the last election. Aren't there plenty of other sites to discuss politics? The world has too much of that already. Technology is headed toward electrification. Space X is cleaning Boeing's clock and Tesla will do the same to Ford if they don't act. Don't under estimate Elon Musk and those who aspire to compete with him in America and around the world. They are the Henry Fords and Dodge brothers of today. Politics has nothing to do with the final outcome of this story. Its can speed or slow the transition but not change the final outcome. People think it is so important who is elected to various offices but in the long view maybe business has more influence on the future than politicians. Ford should do what ever it has to to thrive.  That means investing in BEVs right now. If the transition is slower as you say Ford has plenty of know how to keep cranking out ICE vehicles. But reality is Tesla and now Rivian are both valued at more than Ford. From a business point of view Ford must take notice. That valuation comes from powerful fund managers and banks pumping up the values, not tree hugging eco terrorists. Again business and wall street are determining the future. Not politicians. And if the demand is there and there is money to be made some smart businessmen will figure out the issues with the power grid and power generation also. There are tons of green and nuclear FUSION starts ups out there today. Don't underestimate where they will be in 10 or 15 years.

Edited by Tico
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

While governments and businesses need to collaborate with each other to achieve the goals summarized in the COP26 declaration, Diess' "not doable" comment is absurd.

 

Experts who have actually studied the situation in Europe, instead of relying on their opinion only, beg to differ:



scathing report in May from the European Court of Auditors on the EU's support for public charging infrastructure found that "on top of higher vehicle purchase costs, the lack of charging and refueling stations is holding back the market development of alternative fuels."

The EU, which has made improving the charging network a pillar of its European Green Deal environmental strategy, is far from reaching its policy objective "to make electric vehicle charging as easy as filling a conventional vehicle tank," the auditors said.

"The EU is still a long way off its ambitious Green Deal target of 1 million charging points by 2025, and it lacks an overall strategic roadmap for electromobility," the report found.

https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/electric-vehicles-flood-market-charging-network-remains-stuck-low-gear?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20211112&utm_content=hero-headline

 

None of the problems mentioned are insurmountable, but to dismiss them as "absurd" is pollyannaish. Executives responsible for billion dollar decisions are rightly skeptical and expecting more definition from their respective governing bodies.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harley Lover said:

None of the problems mentioned are insurmountable, but to dismiss them as "absurd" is pollyannaish. Executives responsible for billion dollar decisions are rightly skeptical and expecting more definition from their respective governing bodies.

 

Diess' statement is absurd by any standard. VW already has experience building EV public charging infrastructure through its Electrify America subsidiary. Nothing from governing bodies in the EU and U.K. prevents VW from doing its own part building public charging infrastructure in those regions as well.

 

Moreover, by making that absurd statement, Diess squandered an opportunity for VW to be taken seriously as an automaker that embraces a future of 100% ZEV. Professor Enrique Dans asked in May "Just How Real Is Volkswagen's Conversion To Electric Vehicles?" Just How Real Is Volkswagen's Conversion To Electric Vehicles? (forbes.com)

 

"As long as Volkswagen and others that claim to have seen the light refuse to commit to going fully electric in the immediate future, it will be the same company that prefers to buy emission credits and to pay emissions fines, and that clearly prioritizes its short-term profits over the long-term common good. If you want to be perceived as serious in your commitments, don’t tell me how many electric vehicles do you plan to manufacture: tell me when will you stop manufacturing the polluting ones."

 

By refusing to sign the COP26 declaration, Diess' and VW's answer remains "not real".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

On a side note:  Is that GM's new logo?  Talk about emasculating a company!

From "Mark of Excellence" to lower case. I think it's partly to appear trendy or more recognizable, as most digital addresses are lowercaseandallruntogether. A shift to softer, gentler trademarks has been going on for a decade plus. Walmart went from a hyphenated "Wal-Mart" to putting a big red star in the middle (Peoples' Republic of Wally World) to all one word, "Walmart" with a more rounded, less bold script and a sunray burst at the end. The overarching reasoning is to appear more approachable, engaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

People who buy a Subaru wouldn't know the difference.

 

FordBuyer is correct that U.S. Subaru customers want Subarus, not rebadged Toyotas. Those people choose Subaru, and remain loyal to Subaru, because of the attributes that are unique to that automaker such as boxer engine, symmetrical AWD, etc.

 

If Subaru's BEV strategy ends up creating mainly Toyota clones without the uniquely Subaru "DNA", they risk major customer defection as the automotive industry goes 100% electric.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tico said:

So this is a site to discuss politics and power generation policy now and not just Ford products? The libs are shoving it down our throat. The energy companies and their conservative allies are blocking and sabotaging us. Which is it? That discussion does not belong here. I guess if this is where the world is headed Ford better try to lead rather than follow and I am interested in Mach E and F150 Lightning, Maverick and other electrification projects that are ongoing. Because I think the technology is cool. Because I know a battery and motor a lot easier to maintain than an ICE engine and the hundreds of bolt-ons that come with it. Its not about rules , regulations, policy or who really won the last election. Aren't there plenty of other sites to discuss politics? The world has too much of that already. Technology is headed toward electrification. Space X is cleaning Boeing's clock and Tesla will do the same to Ford if they don't act. Don't under estimate Elon Musk and those who aspire to compete with him in America and around the world. They are the Henry Fords and Dodge brothers of today. Politics has nothing to do with the final outcome of this story. Its can speed or slow the transition but not change the final outcome. People think it is so important who is elected to various offices but in the long view maybe business has more influence on the future than politicians. Ford should do what ever it has to to thrive.  That means investing in BEVs right now. If the transition is slower as you say Ford has plenty of know how to keep cranking out ICE vehicles. But reality is Tesla and now Rivian are both valued at more than Ford. From a business point of view Ford must take notice. That valuation comes from powerful fund managers and banks pumping up the values, not tree hugging eco terrorists. Again business and wall street are determining the future. Not politicians. And if the demand is there and there is money to be made some smart businessmen will figure out the issues with the power grid and power generation also. There are tons of green and nuclear FUSION starts ups out there today. Don't underestimate where they will be in 10 or 15 years.


I don’t see partisan politics in this discussion, but you can’t discuss government mandates without some political points.

 

Ford is committed to BEVs - they don’t need mandates to force their investment direction.  They are ready and willing to compete with Tesla, Rivian, Lucid and all the rest.

 

What most of us object to is a government mandate that ignores the real technical, financial and ecological issues with going 100% BEV.  A gradual shift as those issues get addressed makes far more sense.  If they all get addressed by 2040, great, but let the technology and infrastructure drive the change not mandates.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tico said:

So this is a site to discuss politics and power generation policy now and not just Ford products? The libs are shoving it down our throat. The energy companies and their conservative allies are blocking and sabotaging us. Which is it? That discussion does not belong here. I guess if this is where the world is headed Ford better try to lead rather than follow and I am interested in Mach E and F150 Lightning, Maverick and other electrification projects that are ongoing. Because I think the technology is cool. Because I know a battery and motor a lot easier to maintain than an ICE engine and the hundreds of bolt-ons that come with it. Its not about rules , regulations, policy or who really won the last election. Aren't there plenty of other sites to discuss politics? The world has too much of that already. Technology is headed toward electrification. Space X is cleaning Boeing's clock and Tesla will do the same to Ford if they don't act. Don't under estimate Elon Musk and those who aspire to compete with him in America and around the world. They are the Henry Fords and Dodge brothers of today. Politics has nothing to do with the final outcome of this story. Its can speed or slow the transition but not change the final outcome. People think it is so important who is elected to various offices but in the long view maybe business has more influence on the future than politicians. Ford should do what ever it has to to thrive.  That means investing in BEVs right now. If the transition is slower as you say Ford has plenty of know how to keep cranking out ICE vehicles. But reality is Tesla and now Rivian are both valued at more than Ford. From a business point of view Ford must take notice. That valuation comes from powerful fund managers and banks pumping up the values, not tree hugging eco terrorists. Again business and wall street are determining the future. Not politicians. And if the demand is there and there is money to be made some smart businessmen will figure out the issues with the power grid and power generation also. There are tons of green and nuclear FUSION starts ups out there today. Don't underestimate where they will be in 10 or 15 years.

 

The opening article in this thread is literally about the politics of BEV transition, so yes, it's applicable in this instance.  This thread isn't about the products.

 

Nobody is saying Ford shouldn't be investing in BEVs, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.  The debate is the timeline of it all, and whether actual customers are ready for it - absent any mandates.  Yet politicians are enacting anti-ICE mandates, so yes, companies must adapt and move forward.  I don't know how you can say politicians aren't determining the future when they're the ones literally making ICE vehicles illegal - they already are in a lot of European city centers - if that's not determining the future, I don't know what is.  Same goes for nuclear - you could have 1,000,000 nuclear startups, if politicians don't allow it, it doesn't do any good.

 

Yes, Ford should be investing in BEVs because it's (currently) the future whether consumers/the public want them yet or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, akirby said:


I don’t see partisan politics in this discussion, but you can’t discuss government mandates without some political points.

 

Ford is committed to BEVs - they don’t need mandates to force their investment direction.  They are ready and willing to compete with Tesla, Rivian, Lucid and all the rest.

 

What most of us object to is a government mandate that ignores the real technical, financial and ecological issues with going 100% BEV.  A gradual shift as those issues get addressed makes far more sense.  If they all get addressed by 2040, great, but let the technology and infrastructure drive the change not mandates.

One could also point to government mandates being necessary to push industry into making the necessary investments and changes to drive that shift.  The obstacles can be overcome in the timeline mandated, however without the force of government, those necessary investments and changes may not otherwise happen because it is easier and more profitable to stick with the status quo.  One could also postulate though that venture capital and wall street have already made the determination that the change to BEV and a sustainable future is necessary for survival and is thus reflected in the market cap of the EV makers vs the legacy companies and that because of this the mandate is unnecessary.  I believe it is a bit of both.

 

What we are generally seeing is a pushback of those that don't like change and are fighting to keep within their comfort zone.  This happens with any major technological shift.  The companies that embrace the change will survive, those that don't will perish.  People themselves will gradually make the switch as they see friends and family members making the change for fear of being left behind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

One could also point to government mandates being necessary to push industry into making the necessary investments and changes to drive that shift.  The obstacles can be overcome in the timeline mandated, however without the force of government, those necessary investments and changes may not otherwise happen because it is easier and more profitable to stick with the status quo.  One could also postulate though that venture capital and wall street have already made the determination that the change to BEV and a sustainable future is necessary for survival and is thus reflected in the market cap of the EV makers vs the legacy companies and that because of this the mandate is unnecessary.  I believe it is a bit of both.

 

What we are generally seeing is a pushback of those that don't like change and are fighting to keep within their comfort zone.  This happens with any major technological shift.  The companies that embrace the change will survive, those that don't will perish.  People themselves will gradually make the switch as they see friends and family members making the change for fear of being left behind.

 

That's a fair point.  Sometimes government does push things in a positive direction (surprisingly lol), i.e. safety measures, etc.

 

I know for me, I'm not anti-EV.  I've driven a Mach-E and enjoyed it (though I'd prefer the GT which wasn't out at the time), but I'm not ready for a BEV yet.  While daily driving it'd be fine, taking road trips would be much longer, and more importantly charging could be an issue - in my current living situation a charger could be installed, but should I move to a condo which is a possibility, I'd have nowhere to charge it.  A buddy of mine considered a Model 3, but lives in an older condo building that doesn't have that infrastructure, so he went a different route.  Will things get there?  Sure.  But they're definitely not there now, and may not get there in the timeline laid out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Diess' statement is absurd by any standard. VW already has experience building EV public charging infrastructure through its Electrify America subsidiary. Nothing from governing bodies in the EU and U.K. prevents VW from doing its own part building public charging infrastructure in those regions as well.

 

Moreover, by making that absurd statement, Diess squandered an opportunity for VW to be taken seriously as an automaker that embraces a future of 100% ZEV. Professor Enrique Dans asked in May "Just How Real Is Volkswagen's Conversion To Electric Vehicles?" Just How Real Is Volkswagen's Conversion To Electric Vehicles? (forbes.com)

 

By refusing to sign the COP26 declaration, Diess' and VW's answer remains "not real".

 

Classic. Completely ignore the expert study cited and quoted, ignore the substance of what Diess said, instead post more opinion and try to masquerade it as some sort of fact. That's why you're on ignore.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

One could also point to government mandates being necessary to push industry into making the necessary investments and changes to drive that shift.  The obstacles can be overcome in the timeline mandated, however without the force of government, those necessary investments and changes may not otherwise happen because it is easier and more profitable to stick with the status quo.  One could also postulate though that venture capital and wall street have already made the determination that the change to BEV and a sustainable future is necessary for survival and is thus reflected in the market cap of the EV makers vs the legacy companies and that because of this the mandate is unnecessary.  I believe it is a bit of both.

 

What we are generally seeing is a pushback of those that don't like change and are fighting to keep within their comfort zone.  This happens with any major technological shift.  The companies that embrace the change will survive, those that don't will perish.  People themselves will gradually make the switch as they see friends and family members making the change for fear of being left behind.

 

Yes sir Flying68, excellent post. As you said, government mandates provide a framework and incentive for automakers to reach the end-goal of 100% ZEV as soon as possible. This is mentioned in the 1st sentence of the declaration.

 

"As representatives of governments, businesses, and other organisations with an influence over the future of the automotive industry and road transport, we commit to rapidly accelerating the transition to zero emission vehicles to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Well they better get going on cleaning up electrical generation if that’s the plan because we are still sitting at 60% generated by fossil fuel sources. The environmental crowd is also against nuclear power. Better hope for a lot of wind and sunshine to keep all these vehicles running.

with all the Global Warming there should be an abundance of sunshine...cough, cough....

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...