LyrArc Article Gist
Oversupply and price wars in China's solar power industry in 2012.

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
U.S. gasoline prices were below $2.06, adjusted for inflation, during 1986-2003, dropping to a low of $1.51 in 1998. U.S. gasoline prices at the pump dropped below $2.00 in Jan. 2015. Buyer behaviour responded quickly to the change for automobiles, with sport utility (SUV) sales rising to 34% market share in the U.S. in mid-Nov. 2014, according to Edmunds.com.

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
A shakeout for manufacturers in the solar industry is developing in 2011-2012, as prices of solar components drop sharply. There is slowing growth for solar products in 2012. Seven solar power manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy or insolvency in 2011, including two German companies Solar Millenium and Solon SE, and Solyndra LLC of the U.S. Debt exceeds market capitalization for the 10 largest publicly traded solar companies. A major reason is the subsidies offered by governments in Europe, the U.S. and China, which resulted in a glut in manufacturing capacity and falling prices. Chinese banks encouraged by the Chinese government have given $43 billion in credit facilities to Chinese renewable energy companies, according to Bloomberg Energy Finance. Prices of solar panels at $1.60 per megawatt in 2010, dropped to 90 cents per megawatt in 2011. Another problem is slowing demand. In Europe banks are reducing funding. Installations doubled for solar energy in Germany in 2010, and dropped 29% in 2011, according to Jefferies. Germany is the largest market for solar energy in the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chile, Mexico and the U.S. rank high in the diabetes rate for top soda consuming countries. In the U.S. the diabetes rate is at 7.7% of the population, in Chile 9.6% and Mexico 9%. Soda consumption per capita was at 165 litres in the U.S., 146 litres in Mexico and 134 litres in Chile, and 145 litres in Argentina where the diabetes rate is at 3.9%, for 2012. A new public service ad in Mexico City subway stations says it all, showing an ad with a soda bottle and the words- "Would you take 12 teaspoonfuls of sugar? Soda is sweet, diabetes isn't." The new Pacto de Mexico agreed to by all major political parties includes the soaring diabetes rate in Mexico as a problem to be tackled, including lunches at public schools and the consumption of coke and sodas by children. A particular acute problem in Mexico is the lack of clean drinking water in many areas and the dependence on coke and sodas for liquids. But bottled water could be used in its place if available at lower prices. One proposal is for a soda tax which could generate $2 billion and be used for setting up clean drinking water fountains in schools and other places. Elected officals in Mexico are firm about the need for action, as Mexico recently became the first country over 100 million inhabitants with the highest obesity rates at 7 adults out of 10 over the age of 20 obese or overweight, and the consequently high diabetes rate. Diabetes is the No. 2 killer in Mexico, and a serious health danger. Coca Cola gets its second highest revenues from Mexico after Europe, and the situation has evolved after years of heavy coke advertising to the point where Coca Cola is taken at every meal by some Mexican families, and is a sign of prestige. The company's response is to fight the public service ads with ads showing people burning off 149 calories by walking. The country now faces a long and uphill fight. Russia is one of the countries which is also conducting a similiar fight against soda drinks. The Bloomberg Philanthropy is financing efforts against soda drinks in Mexico, as part of its campaign against smoking and sodas as health hazards, and this maybe Bloomberg's bigger contribution to society than his service to New York City. Developing middle income countries such as Mexico, Chile, India, China, Brazil, are the hardest hit by soaring diabetes. And the costs to their health systems in 10-20 years from uncontrolled obesity and diabetes will be enormous. The U.S. is a developed country with similiar high rates of obesity and diabetes, with soaring medical costs, and serious problems that strangely have not received the public awareness and efforts that one should expect. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson says the bill in the U.S. Senate is symbolic because it allows companies to cite the undervalued renminbi as an illegal subsidy and have the Commerce Department impose duties on Chinese products. This would have to be done on a case by case basis, making it largely ineffective in dealing with the large trade deficit with China. He also cites the differences among economists that show a range between 1 million and 2.8 million jobs lost. The 2.8 million jobs estimate is from the Economic Policy Institute for the period 2001-2010. The 1 million is an estimate for 1990-2007, which estimates a loss of quarter of all manufacturing jobs. By WTO rules subsidies that are not targeted at specific industries or firms are allowed, according to lawyers. Which means China could appeal to the WTO, and impose retaliatory duties. In the meantime the trade deficit with China, with imports of $364 billion in 2010, and $86 billion in exports, would remain largely unaffected. This is the reason some Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), see this move as political posturing by President Obama and the Democrats, because the administration has no new proposals to address the trade deficit and the gradual erosion of America's manufacturing base. Samuelson cites Arvind Subramanium of the Peterson Institute, and his book "Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance." Subramanium says what is at stake is not a temporary imbalance in world trade a happened with Japan in the 1980's, but a gradual shift to a system of trade in which China has preferential access to raw materials (oil, grain, minerals), subsidizes exports in new industries as it moves upscale from shoes and textiles to automobiles, aircraft and alternative energy, and changes the very nature of the global trading system as it becomes the dominant trading nation in the world. By Subramanium's estimate China's share of global trade increased from 1.6% to 9.8% in the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010. In two more decades he estimates China could increase this to 15% of global trade, significantly larger than the U.S. In a response to Congressmen, businessmen and policymakers wary of starting a trade war, Samuelson says there already is a trade war as a "fixed" system of trade undermines America's manufacturing and industrial base. The only difference being that today only one side is fighting that war, and America is slow to grasp the implications or its policymakers are clueless how to respond....