LyrArc Article Gist
Matt Vela responded to Shailen's comments on this article on the BW site. Comments were on NYTimes columnist Tom Friedman's remarks, about the dangers of overdependence on Mideast oil vs. GM and Ford's efforts to simply move cars off the lot. A quick reading of reader comments about 5-6 (all comments) shows a huge perception and marketing gap for Ford and GM if this is even anywhere near a representative sample, because they were heavily negative. Friedman said in the NYT, that "GM is more dangerous to America's future" than any other company, that "its like a crack dealer" addicting Americans to SUVs in the face of higher gas prices- by offering buyers of its least fuel efficient SUV's gas capped at $1.99 per gallon. He also said GM is in cabal with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to buy votes in Congress. BY May 2006 compared to 2003, in just 3 years, once popular midsize SUV's like the Ford Explorer, Chevy Trailblazer, and Dodge Durango saw a sales plunge of 50%. And this after the gas promotions such as the Ford one for free gas upto $1000 with aprepaid Master Charge debit card, enough for 6000 miles. Add to this zero percent financing. GM offered rebates of $2500 to $3500 per SUV. In this manner the whole profit structure of SUV's is being lowered, and no new strategy is being developed to deal with changing conditions and changing consumer preferences, and a changing global situation....

LyrArc Article Gist
The critical exchange between oil companies and auto companies about who is at fault for the energy crisis. In one ad that ran last year, Chevron argued that "if automakers improved fuel economy across the board by just 5 mpg, we'd save over 22 billion gallons of gasoline a year." The criticism is also sparked by the high price of oil which is hurting sales of pickups and large SUV's that the automakers depend on for profits. One ad by Exxon Mobil shows a cartoon of a large SUV filling up at a gas station and hints that the problem rests with the automakers who have failed to build the kind of highly fuel efficient vehicles that are needed. The ad says that the average fuel economy of new U.S. autos has not gone up much in two decades, the small gains have been offset by the increases in the size and weight of vehicles.

LyrArc Article Gist
This analysis of coal use using graphs shows a clear move away from coal in the world, except for two growth markets China and India which account for 60% of the increase in coal use since 2008. India has gone black in its shift to increasing use of coal. China has begun the shift away from coal to address the smog over large urban areas, poor air quality and health impact of coal use. Because China used five times the coal used by India in 2017, the overall impact in China and India is showing a shift away from coal to hydropower, other renewables including solar energy. It is likely that India will make the shift following China's example in the future. 

The trend is clear when one looks at the incremental terawatt hour and where it comes from. The shift is clear to renewables, hydropower, and non fossil uses in the rest of the World and China which account for most of the coal use in the world.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
Fuel efficiency rules require average fuel efficiency in the U.S. of 35 mpg by 2016. The debate is now on what to do for 2017 to 2025. New technology such as the P2 systems for hybrids already used in VW, Nissan and Hyundai vehicles makes a 20% increase in fuel efficiency possible. Large investments are being made to bring new technology to bear on increasing fuel efficiency significantly. Government agencies are looking at different scenarios by which the new fuel economy standards beyond 2017-2025 could be set between 47 mpg and 62 mpg. An additional factor is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions- at 47 mpg the reduction would be 3%, at 62 mpg the reduction would be 6%. Another factor is how much the impact is on the cost of vehicles and reduced cost on gasoline. Here there is a wide range in the numbers for average mpg rules at 62 mpg- with EPA estimates at $2800-$3500 increase in vehicle cost and $5000 savings in fuel cost, Centre for Automotive Research estimates at $9790 increase in vehicle cost. The 62 mpg translates into "real world" actual efficiency of 45 mpg. In April 2011, 17 senators put out a letter of support for the 62 mpg proposal. There is a public value involved in this that is also significant- the reduced dependence on foreign oil means savings in defense expenditures in parts of the Middle East, and an economy that is less impacted by volatility in the price of oil. As this aspect of public value or benefits cannot be quantified easily even though they are significant, this may tend to be lost in the debate and the politics of fuel efficiency. For automakers there is significant marketing value in having a visible and strong presence in fuel efficient vehicles because of perception as forward looking- something that hurt Detroit carmakers in the last decade. During periods of gasoline prices at $5 a gallon this provides carmakers with an extra cushion of safety in securing car sales. Carmakers in one country such as the U.S. also have to worry about what carmakers in other countries such as Japan and Germany are doing- if the standards in the U.S. develop a gap compared to other countries developing advanced fuel efficiency technologies this poses significant risks because of the global nature of the automobile marketplace. See the group "Asleep at the Spigot" for more details on this. Many of these less quantifiable factors do not get the attention they deserve because they are significant from experience but not easily quantified. Throw into this the large unknown of what new technologies not yet developed lie ahead with a burst of effort by one country or another, which bring cost reductions at the same time - and the debate requires as much a good sense of what is the path offering the greatest advantages in years ahead than a pure exercize in numbers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat-Chrysler told a conference in Michigan -"these are people who did not grow up and become conditioned to doing business in Detroit. " He cited this as one reason the new generation of leaders at the U.S. auto companies had embraced the new fuel efficiency standards. Another point he made that was well received was that "anybody who surrenders 14 years before the date ought not to be in business." He was referring to the 2025 deadline for the new standards. This view was well accepted by the other auto companies and by the UAW workers union, showing the big change that has come about in the U.S. auto industry.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration is pushing for new U.S. fuel efficiency standards of 56.2 mpg by 2025. In May 2009 President Obama announced domestic car and light truck fuel efficiency standards of 35 mpg by 2016. Europe is expected to reach fuel efficiency of 60 mpg by 2020. This would still leave Europe considerably ahead of the U.S. in fuel efficiency for automobiles, but the gap would be much smaller. For the last several decades the U.S. has fallen sadly behind Europe and Japan in fuel efficiency. The perception of poor fuel efficiency hurt the automakers badly during periods of high fuel prices and when buyers were facing difficult economic choices. The automakers are beginning to grasp this fact. Mark Reuss, president of General Motors, commented that- "it's very challenging, but its upto us engineers to provide high value to the customer and support the environment." This is an issue that has serious national and global implications as it affects the future prices and demand for oil, emissions, and future economic growth. It would also bring the U.S. in line with Europe and Japan when it comes to fuel efficiency of automobiles. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the U.S. Federal Reserve's forecasts in March 2012 show the U.S. will experience low inflation and high unemployment for many years. These forecasts are in sharp contrast to the expectations in the equity markets based on an uptick for a couple of months of unemployment numbers. The Fed's own statements suggest the improvement in hiring may be temporary and a response to the overreaction in hiring in 2009-2010 to the financial crisis, and not a lasting improvement. The Fed pointed out that the long term unemployed are at about 40% of the total unemployed and the share of the population that is working in March 2012 has barely budged from 58% in 2009.

LyrArc Article Gist
Spain's central bank was lauded for macroprudential supervision before the housing bubble burst. Will China's central bank and financial authorites which have managed the housing bubble upto this point face similiar problems? Can China be the sole exception even as housing bubbles burst with wide repercussions in the U.S., UK and Spain? Nicholas Lardy, of the Peterson Institute of international Economics, says urban housing stock makes up 41% of Chinese household wealth in 2011. The same figure for the U.S. is 26%. Chinese buyers invest in homes because low interest rates on savings accounts cannot keep up with inflation. Real estate investment was 13% of GDP in 2011. Home ownership is a recent development in China, only since 1990, Chinese have never experienced large price declines. Household debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased significantly in recent years, up to 53.6% in 2011 from 31.3% in 2008, according to Lardy.