Ford and the Environment
From Green Auto Market: The former Environmental Protection Agency official who played a leading role in 2011 negotiating fuel economy and emissions standards has called upon Ford Motor Co.’s executive chairman Bill Ford to lead the dialogue on the midterm review and beyond. Former EPA official Margo Oge sees Ford, a longtime environmental advocate, well suited to help California, the federal government, and automakers negotiate any flexibility needed through 2025 and to set a road map for 2030.
Automakers had been able to have the Trump administration reopen the 2022-2025 midterm review after it had been approved right before the end of the Obama administration. The former EPA official sees it as a win-win for Ford’s stock price and for resolving a difficult issue. “I believe if he does that, we will see the investor community respond with a stock price increase in Ford because investors are looking for companies that are not behaving like the traditional OEMs with competition from Silicon Valley, Tesla and China,” Oge said.
A few comments:
Bill Ford could be called an “environmentalist” in comparison to most of the industry, but this business-as-usual approach to the impact of transportation upon our environment can only end in disaster. Climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity will ruin this planet in fairly sort order if we don’t change our approach radically and immediately.
Having said this, the prediction made above about Ford’s stock price can only come true in a business-as-usual scenario. Selling cars (and especially pickup trucks) around the world to an ever-growing consumer base is the only conceivable way for Ford to maintain its current level of earnings-per-share ($0.58).
Yes, we should save, make, develop and use green energy. We should also use more green cars to protect the environment. I think Ford Motor Co’s approach is very environmentally friendly
Craig,
The real problem encountered by automakers is politicians and environmentalists with unrealistic expectations.
Since 2007 two popular conspiracy theories have proved impossible to shake.
1) If governments made automakers build EV’s the public would be eager to buy those vehicles.
2) Oil companies prevent EV development and adoption.
In fact, neither of these absurd statements are true !
The problem, as early EV pioneers like Bill Ford and Carlos Ghosn discovered is the technology simply doesn’t exist.
The general public will only buy mass (volume) production EV’s in conjunction with massive government support.
EV’s have several inherent technical problems, as yet unresolved.
1) Limited range. Although ESD (battery) capacity has improved it’s still lags behind the convenience of contemporary, and rapidly improving ICE technology.
2) Limited power. This restricts Ev’s to a narrow range of lighter, or specialist vehicles.
3) Charging. Batteries, especially lithium, still take an unacceptable time to charge. This problem can’t be overcome as long as Lithium battery Technology remains the ESD.
4) Expense. Lithium batteries have dropped in price with mass production, but this depends on an increase in cobalt mining and the rising price of lithium exploitation.
As a result, consumers are being asked to pay a premium for a less convenient product.
5)Charging facilities. As long as EV take more than 2-3 minutes to charge, the vehicles will remain impractical for a huge percentage of the population.
A careful examination of the earnest proclamations by governments about banning ICE vehicles, shows in the fine print these announcements are more about hopeful intentions, than reality.
Like Volvo, by stretching the definition of “Electric Vehicle” to include even very mild hybrids, the promises can be achieved and considered feasible.
Craig, it’s all very well writing ominous warning like an Old Testament prophet of doom;
“business-as-usual approach to the impact of transportation upon our environment can only end in disaster. Climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity will ruin this planet in fairly sort order if we don’t change our approach radically and immediately”.
…but, the question must be fairly asked of yourself and your acolytes, fellow travelers, true believers etc, “What sort of car do you own ? ” Do you own and drive an EV ?”.
If the answer is ‘NO’, then next question should be,” why not ” and “where the hell do you get off preaching, what you don’t practice ?” !
Back in 2005, green activist Sarah Connolly, an organizer with the Jumpstart Ford Campaign demanded of Congress.
“Solar powered EVs are an immediate solution to the persistent problem of Ford’s low fuel efficiency and high greenhouse gas emissions. Ford blames lack of consumer demand for killing its EV program because it is in denial there is a long waiting list for EVs of every make and model” ,
In 2007 the Sierra Club announced the result of a study conducted in conjunction with the University of Southern California claiming after exhaustive research the US car industry could immediately produce EV’s to fit every market segment more cheaply than fossil fuel models, with millions of eager consumers ready to buy.
The report concluded that any EV ‘commuter’ vehicle would sell in the millions, and the only reason automakers denied the American people these cars was a conspiracy involving oil companies who were raising the price of dwindling oil supplies due to peak oil.
The truth was very different ! As history has proven, there were no eager buyers for inferior technology (or peak oil) !
In fact, the only really successful EV maker,Tesla, sells most of it’s production to wealthy conservatives.
The problem for EV’s remains the same as it was 20 years ago, ESD capacity, dynamics and technology are inadequate.
Until technology improves, the EV remains of limited market appeal.
On the bright side, hybrid technology is quickly becoming dominant.