Fiat Chrysler Will Pay Tesla To Dodge Billions In Emissions Fines (theverge.com) 155
MDMurphy writes: While people have good and bad things to say about Tesla, one consistent thing has been that the cars emit zero emissions when operating. But in Europe, in exchange for cash, Tesla is merging its fleet with that of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA). The amount FCA is paying Tesla is presumably less than they would in fines if they were on their own. With this merging of the fleets, in Europe at least, a Tesla is no more clean than a diesel Fiat. "The Italian-American carmaker is behind on meeting the new standard, and the so-called open pool option available at the EU allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet the targets," reports Bloomberg. "Payments to Tesla, whose electric cars don't produce CO2 emissions, may amount to over 500 million euros, according to Jefferies."
Ars Technica reports on the strict new EU regulations: "From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a $107 'excess emissions premium' per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some $3.12 billion, out of total net global profits of $4.1 billion."
Ars Technica reports on the strict new EU regulations: "From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a $107 'excess emissions premium' per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some $3.12 billion, out of total net global profits of $4.1 billion."
Tesla shorts are shaking (Score:1)
Betcha didn't see that one coming
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, no shit.
Coal powered cars for the win.
Re: (Score:1)
You aren't as smart as you think.
the so-called open pool option available at the EU allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet the targets
This should be a pretty clear indicator EU saw that coming too. It is the intended and desired outcome, not a loophole.
This is a way to get ICE cars to subsidize EV without having to do so specifically.
With this solution the automakers also gets a choice. They can either focus more on EV themselves or they can do like Fiat and subsidize someone who does.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Now you see the true power of the Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
So, with Tesla being the only automaker who can realistically deliver cars and charging stations for fleets around the globe needing to meet standards in this way, perhaps it starts to become clear just how incredibly valuable Tesla is becoming...
Other parts of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
You do know traditional car makers are also making coal powered cars now, right?
You know that not every body lives in China, India or Austalia, right?
( ^- the part of the world that have such a horrible mix of power sources for their electrical networks, that it doesn't make any difference if the car burns fossil fuels locally itself, or if power stations burn fossils centrally to charge the car's battery)
In most of the rest of the world, even countries where part of the electrical grid is still powered by burning fossils (hello USA !), the electrically-powered cars are still offsettin
Re: (Score:2)
Old numbers (Score:2)
I have to conceed, I was basing my reply on old numbers (back then China, India and Australia were still in the "doesn't matter if it is EV on coal electricty or ICE on petrol" category), apparently things have improved since and even China (the worse of above) has made efforts and even there nowadays EVs are slightly better than petrol.
Re: Now you see the true power of the Tesla (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, the ridiculous regulations are keeping them in business with government interference in the marketplace instead of,them competing on their own merits.
If the average car buyer was so concerned about CO2 emissions they would only buy electric or maybe hybrid. The fact that they,do not speaks volumes about what buyers want. So instead the government steps in, creates an artificial market in CO2 credits and hey guess what? The air has just as much new CO2 as before. Pollution levels unchanged but than
Re: Now you see the true power of the Tesla (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes regulation is required if the market is making bad decisions for the safety of the public. Let me guess, you think the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were terrible because if "the market" wanted clean air they would buy power from coal plants that voluntarily installed scrubbers? Or "the market" would move to places where industries were not dumping toxic shit into waterways?
The EU decided they want less carbon output from transportation. And they adopted a market-based solution akin to cap
Re: Now you see the true power of the Tesla (Score:1)
According to the summary, about $500,000,000.00 plus whatever the exchange difference is from Euros worth of pollution was saves. Otherwise Fiat wouldn't pay Tesla.
So a polluting company has paid a non/less polluting company a half billion euro. That means a polluter is now subsidizing a non polluter. This is the very definition of a free market economy, since pollution is a negative externality in an unregulated market.
Or is it ok if we all shit on your potato latkas?
Re: (Score:1)
1) pollution was not reduced. Only averaged ,,,
2) successful company forced to subsidize unsuccessful company. This is the opposite of free market.
You could argue that the legislation needs improved. That's usually fair game, but even as it is, it is still useful.
Guess what subsidizing a company making electric cars means? It means electric cars become more widely adopted, which means infrastructure is built to support them, which further accelerates electric car sales.
It also means companies get better at making electric cars, that are either better, cost less, or both.
What does those two things mean long term? Lower emissions, particularly if you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they plant a forest, the biggest CO2 fixation happens in the first few years of growth. Mature trees remove much less CO2 from the atmosphere.
This does not make sense and is quite obviously not true. As a data point a giant sequoia can absorb as much as 3.5 tonnes of CO2 in a year, how do you believe that works with a tree just a few feet high, what in your opinion happens to the carbon?
Re: (Score:2)
A white pine can grow up to 4 feet per year, and reach maturity (more or less max height) in about 10 years. "First few years" easily covers this time span.
It's also not really height, but mass. A tree that is 20+ years old will, for most species, have reached full size and not be putting on a lot of mass. A relatively young tree will be growing both in height and width, adding lots of branches, and absorbing much more carbon in doing so.
A giant sequoia may absorb 3.5 tons of CO2 per year, but it will also
Re: Now you see the true power of the Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this is a matter of averages, the EU has allowed manufacturers to engage in pools to offset their pollution against a company that produces cars with less pollution. One example of this pool is Mazda and Toyota. Another is now FCA (Fiat/Chrysler), Alfa Romeo and Tesla. The alternative for FCA was either to pay hefty fines to the EU (going into the billions of euros) or stop selling those polluting cars alltogether (which in this case would be most likely Maseratis, Jeeps and Dodge RAMs). This way they can still sell those cars, pay less of a penalty, help a manufacturer that does do what the EU wants and have more money left to invest in their own portfolio to compy with legislation.
2: In what way is Tesla not a succesful company.
3: typical AC comment. You may not agree with the law (and I am no fan of the EU) but this is what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
No pollution was reduced. By transferring the money to Tesla FCA gets to sell the same number of highly polluting cars just as if they paid the huge fine. FCA and Tesla will sell the same amount of cars as if there wasn't a law in place.
Allowing to pool multiple companies together was a huge mistake. If FCA wasn't allowed to pool their cars with Tesla, or anyone else, then they would either have to pay the fine, make their vehicles more efficient, or change the percentages of the vehicles available for sale
Re: (Score:2)
FCA and Tesla will sell the same amount of cars as if there wasn't a law in place.
FCA literally is paying Tesla hundreds of dollars per car that FCA sells.
If FCA sold 1 million cars and zero emission credits sold for $500 each that means Tesla would make $500m. That would allow Tesla to reduce the price of their 500k vehicles by $1k each.
That makes Tesla more competitive with FCA's polluting vehicles. The more cost competitive Tesla is, the sooner EVs appeal to more people. The more people that Tesla appeals to, the more cars they sell and the more efficiently (cheaper) they can sell
Re: (Score:2)
drive a gas car, and crash, BOOM you die in a fire.
Keep paying for oil changes, break oil changes.
Keep paying Arabs blood money.
Keep polluting suburbs and children with PM2.5
Yeah sell your GM shares now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Go eat some meat tainted with salmonella because it wasn't inspected by the FDA. Follow that with a side of botulism from improperly canned foods because they weren't inspected either.
Then drive your Ford Pinto down the road and pray you don't get rear-ended because nobody recalled them for turning info fireballs.
If you survive your day, you can go home to your asbestos-filled home (ignore that mild cough... it's surely nothing). Eat a nice dinner dinner with loads of FD&C #2 food coloring (not banned
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Now you see the true power of the Tesla (Score:1)
what buyers want
Buyers don't give a crap about anybody but themselves. How did our right to pursue happiness turn into an outright reverence for unrestrained self-indulgence?
Re: (Score:2)
nox and deisel pollutes and kills people, good luck chuck.
Oil companies have HUGE govt tax incentives.
Anon OIL SHILL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the ridiculous regulations are keeping them in business with government interference in the marketplace instead of,them competing on their own merits.
You mean a government, representing the people, forcing a company to pay the costs of externalities that had previously been paid for by everyone?
Re: (Score:2)
[ROLLS EYES]
Hmm, I'm still trying to find all that new oil supply pouring into the US from what wars in the middle east, or anywhere for that reason.
Where again did we overtake and steak claim to bring oil into the US from our recent wars?
Yeah, I can't think of any either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Italian-American carmaker
Is that a bit like an "Italian-American businessman"? "Nice emission-free car youse got dere, be a shame iff'n something wuz to happen to it".
No, now you see the true power of corporations (Score:1)
The point is where it shifts (Score:3)
his is just going to shift a bunch of money around at the top
Yes that is true.
What is also true is a bunch of that money is in fact shifting to Tesla, a company that not that long ago it was claimed was not viable.
Now it's the only company that can fulfill fleet requirements for large numbers of electric cars and infrastructure.
Tesla is successful in an undistorted market too (Score:3, Interesting)
I think most reasonable people would understand a "viable" business to be one that is able to sustain itself in an undistorted market.
That also describes Tesla now since they are still maintaining sales even though tax credits have mostly evaporated for the cars they sell.
If you compare Tesla's to other cars the price they charge is really reasonable, especially considering what you save in gasoline and some other routine petrol engine related maintenance over time.
Re:Tesla is successful in an undistorted market to (Score:5, Informative)
I'm getting a feeling that I'm not seeing a true Scotsman here.
Look, almost no market that exists is NOT distorted in some way or another. Trade tariffs? Market distortion. $457 million in federal grants to Boeing? Market distortion. Federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance (not including repayments) $50,346,920,000 for General Motors? Market distortion. Any sort of taxation with redistribution of funds? Market distortion.
There do exist some markets that are not distorted, but you'll find them in places like Somalia.
So, what's your point again? You want to live somewhere that there is no government and the free market rules?
Does having a .50 cal mounted on the back of a Toyota pickup count as market distortion? Maybe a totally free market does not exist even in Somalia.
Re:Tesla is successful in an undistorted market to (Score:4, Funny)
"Does having a .50 cal mounted on the back of a Toyota pickup count as market distortion? "
The poor and rich alike may mount a .50 cal on the back of their Toyota pickups.
Re: (Score:3)
Trade tariffs? Market distortion. $457 million in federal grants to Boeing? Market distortion. Federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance (not including repayments) $50,346,920,000 for General Motors? Market distortion.
And people around here regularly bitch about every single one of these examples. But in those discussions, posts along the lines of "dude, distortions and corruption are everywhere... shut up or go live in the bush" get modded all the way down, not all the way up. Fascinating, isn't it? It's enough to make one think the real issue is not that people really want less-distorted markets, but that people just want the distortions to be directed to their team rather than others'.
[Speaking of distortions, mayb
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that external revenue streams are a distortion but external costs are not?
Re: (Score:2)
The market remains distorted.
You need a market to be distorted, for your own sake. Free Market is a term that is completely misunderstood. People think it means "Perfect Market". It doesn't. A market is only a perfect market with complete regulation. Free Markets have only a single stable point: Complete monopoly with the consumer getting screwed.
Re:The point is where it shifts (Score:5, Interesting)
I think most reasonable people would understand a "viable" business to be one that is able to sustain itself in an undistorted market. This is actually yet another data point in the opposite direction.
Current CO2 emissions are not viable, banning fossil fuel is not viable. Sure carbon credits distorts the market, but minimally so, the undistorted market alternative to Tesla getting a windfall is the polluter taking the full cost of sucking the CO2 out of the air and putting it back in the ground. Do you have a better suggestion or isn't "you brake it, you fix it" an applicable rule?
Re: (Score:3)
An undistorted market is one where everybody pays for all the damage/polution etc they're causing. In cars, Norway is probably the best example, and guess which manufacturer does very well there.
Any governmental intervention to reduce emissions is going to cost significant money. If it's all fines, the manufacturers that are a bit behind the schedule will go out of business, causing all sorts of problems in local economies. Those that are ahead can rest on their laurels. With trading, those that are behind
Re: (Score:2)
An undistorted market is one where everybody pays for all the damage/polution etc they're causing. In cars, Norway is probably the best example, and guess which manufacturer does very well there.
Just to set the record straight, Norway's high car prices was because it has historically been taxed as a luxury particular focusing on grand, high horsepower vehicles but hitting all personal vehicles hard. How it managed to stay that way despite the car becoming a commodity without a political rebellion is its own topic, but there it is. The focus on environmentalism, fuel consumption and emissions is a recent flex in the last decade. Basically, pretty much all our "subsidies" is that electric vehicles go
Already much lower (Score:1, Offtopic)
Tesla makes $60,000+ cars
Fake News [theverge.com], Tesla Hater!
Get your head out of three years ago... or wherever else it may have ended up.
No, it *does* impact emissions (Score:2)
The European system was apparently *deigned* to allow and *encourage* this.
It's the same notion as "emission credits" that tend to create more economic output for the same amount of pollution by allowing the "right" to emit to be sold to someone who can make better use out of those emissions.
Here, it changes the industry incentives: when an electric can "sell" in this way, it creates a subsidy from the polluting producer to the clean company. This is *no* different than a reduction in the cost of steel or
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly hot air at this point (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Another idiot
First Q1 is shorter than Q2 has more holidays etc...
You cant count cars already ON A SHIP on its way to Europe, even tho if you did the true 'shipped' products are HIGHER.
Why not count SHIPPED cars, like APPLE counts SHIPPED IPHONES.
FOzzy idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
given the incredibly weak Q1 delivery numbers
There's nothing weak about Q1 delivery numbers other than people (typically accountants) who stare at the current number and don't look at it in relation to anything which has recently happened ... such as a concerted effort to boost Q4 deliveries on account of the end of the tax breaks.
Now if you remove the distortion that occured due to an arbitrary external factor (say by looking at combined Q1/4 and combined Q2/3 you continue to see a normal and stead upwards trend.
Back to medieval days (Score:1)
Should demands more. (Score:3)
I see little reason why Tesla should be taking accepting anything less than a billion euros. It's in the best interest of the world (and Tesla) if they make Fiat Chrysler really bleed to pay to avoid such a massive fine.
Re: (Score:1)
Even better would be if they did a deal with the EU to invest the fine money in EV R&D and building charging infrastructure, with a requirement to have X new EV sales and X new charging stations open by 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil shills have mod points today?
So what in the world was accomplished? (Score:1)
Those who were going to buy Teslas, bought Teslas.
Those who were going to buy Fiats, bought Fiats.
Fiat effectively paid a fine to Tesla instead of a larger fine to the government.
The "combined fleet" emitted exactly the same amount of CO2 both before and after the money changed hands.
Hooray?
Re:So what in the world was accomplished? (Score:5, Insightful)
" So what in the world was accomplished? "
Two things actually:
1) We got to see corporate lobbying in action. They effectively got themselves a loophole that would let them reduce their fines by 70% or whatever.
2) Even so, an electric car company got a big cash infusion paid for by a big polluter; helping increase the competitiveness of Tesla at the expense of Fiat.
It's effectively subsidizing electric car research, development and production, paid for by fiat ... which really means it's paid for by the people who chose to buy chryslers and fiats.
It also seems like this, at least, is precisely the desired outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically 1) again.
Re: (Score:3)
If Tesla wants to maintain their profits, they can lower prices.
If FCA prices are higher and Tesla prices are lower, there are probably some people who will decide to buy a Tesla instead of an FCA.
Pride of America (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an AMERICAN car company that's spearheading this revolution. I happen to think that Elon Musk is annoyingly overrated, but I can't deny that he is basically the embodiment of every single pro-entrepreneur, pro-privatization, American dream cliche. American jobs. American pride. He's the same guy sending our satellites into space now; so why can't someone just drape an American flag over his shoulders and run with it?
I say this through grit teeth... personally, the hero worship of this guy really gets under my skin, sometimes it's even worse than Jobs, but that's just a pet peeve... from the standpoint of ushering in this revolution why aren't they calling Musk the next Henry Ford? It's in America's best interest for him to be leading this charge.
And yes, I said revolution. This SHOULD be a big deal, far exceeding its ecological implications. This really should be the biggest thing to happen to cars since the Model T. If battery technology can significantly improve and/or existing batteries come down in price a lot more, electric cars would offer huge advantages over the vast majority of diesel and gasoline vehicles on the road today. Electric cars should be significantly cheaper to build and maintain: lower operating temps, simple transmission, just fewer moving parts across the board.... I wouldn't be so surprised if in fifty years time we had electric cars capable of going millions of miles without needing a total rebuild.
And Tesla is also leading the charge with the other major automobile revolution--autopilot--which some day is going to lead to safer and much more efficient (i.e. fast) roads Which is a really big deal in a country as sprawling as America.
Also: the less the world relies on oil, the less money and power OPEC has. Aren't there still millions of voters out there who remember the oil crisis in the 70s? Is no one concerned about the prospect of the Salafi government in Saudi Arabia pulling even more money out of the ground? I for one wouldn't shed a tear if the wealth and power of the OPEC countries diminished. A couple years back even ISIS was managing to get their hands on oil money for a while there. Why can't oil independence be spun as a national security issue? So-called "Islamophobia" harnessed for a good cause, you might say.
But no... this would-be pride of American capitalism and security and optimistic futurism is instead just another pawn in the cultural proxy war.
Instead of something positive and bipartisan-y, liberals invariably lead with the negatives: First, by making some lazy and crazy comments implying human extinction (Don't go wildly exaggerating something that ordinary people already have a tough time perceiving! Sure, many species will go extinct, maybe some cities go underwater and we may have to switch crops and maybe worst case we lose a lot of seafood, but we're obviously never going to see mass starvation and human extinction unless something really far-fetched happens, like an extreme version of the clathrate gun effect or some other deadly positive feedback loop that for some reason was never triggered in past epochs.)
Second: the liberals will whine about America's sins and the sins of those running her. I know it's depressing, I know it is, but I really don't give a shit what Trump said. I don't need to see dozens upon dozens of posts trying to single out American carbon emissions as being particularly bad. I don't care if that's true or not; nobody needs to see that shit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual solutions. Nobody wants to hear you whine abou
Why do you assume they are right-wingers? (Score:2, Interesting)
that we could have right wingers shunning and harassing Teslas and Tesla owners to make an anti-Democrat statement.
From the Reddit thread you linked to:
It's weird that guys like this think that people who drive expensive electric cars vote differently than they do. I only know 3 Tesla drivers, and they're all Republicans.
From a comment nearby:
A lot of guys I work with drive lifted up trucks. You'd think we were all redneck Trump supporters, especially since we are construction tradesmen. We are union and w
Re: (Score:2)
To me this is way different than right/left, this is car owners just being jerks probably because they see Tesla drivers as elite - could honestly be either conservative or liberal
Actually, by definition, their actions are conservative. “(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.”
Rural areas (which it was) are dominated by Republican voters and it happened in a Republican dominated state.
Could one of them be a closet Democrat? Sure... but it's rather improbable. So what's more likely? Well, I saw one comment sum up their hate for Tesla quite nicely.
Because Tesla is green and liberals like green so therefore they hate Tesla. Because climate change is a hoax so keep chugging oil. Because Tesla is from California, and California is liberal, so don’t trust Tesla. Because it’s not what their dad and grandad said was good.
Umm, you have that all backwards still... more (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, by definition, their actions are conservative. âoe(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.â
Fine, if you want to claim all Democrats are conservative, since they all oppose Trump reforms for example.
However since we live in the real world perhaps lay off the grammar nazi bit a little, Mkay? It just makes you look petty.
Rural areas (which it was) are dominated by Republican voters
If you bothered reading your own link you'd find it happened in
Hopefully FCA doesn't buy them (Score:2)
I for one hope that FCA doesn't buy Tesla. FCA doesn't have the best track record regarding quality and I think "they don't get it" - it would kill Tesla as they try to move from Jogging to Running.
People down the middle don't care about your (valid) arguments, many don't know who Tesla is. The two ends are fighting against each other to an unknown end. You can say "told you so" when the water in NYC is knee deep.
One side feels that it's all about government control. Raising taxes (carbon tax) and try
Re: (Score:2)
Well .... I, for one, can't think of anything smarter than trying to supply the demand that's out there with a business. Do I think this is just insanity, trying to impose these artificial restrictions on carbon emissions? Why yes .... yes I do.
I mean, this volcano in Mexico is suddenly erupting over and over after having been dormant for the last half century or more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
That, alone, probably contributes more to emissions than all of the motor vehicles they're so concerned abou
Re: (Score:2)
If for the sake of argument you grant that global warming is a serious long term problem and the switch to electric cars would make a dent in that problem, I'm making the point that the switch to electric cars is going to happen anyway. The advantages are too significant for it to not happen. So thi
Re: (Score:2)
It is American pride to be free. The Land of the Free. Land of opportunity. A land built on distrust of the government with limited government actions. It's a land that very much lead the way in exploitation of workers and resources. That is AMERICAN! Drill baby drill, but only if you're doing so while burning American coal.
Elon is the antithesis of that vision. It's a company that is built on the opportunity and expectation that competitors cannot continue due to their "freedoms" being reigned in through r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals have the power to change how they do things and perhaps win battles instead of losing them. The preaching to the choir is so dull, so pointless. The lines can be redrawn; parties can be redefined and red states can flicker blue (or maybe another color entirely) if you catch people off guard and hit them with something they weren't expecting to hear.
I don't care who is more to "blame", and nei
Re: (Score:2)
The economy of batteries is the bottleneck and also the big question mark... I don't know what the bottom line is there. Prices have fallen significantly more than I would've expected, so future Li Ion battery prices might depend entirely on lithium mining and refining. I think I heard most of the word's
For some OEMs this has the potential to be ruinous (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the point: it's meant to be ruinous. Or you clean up your act by improving the emissions output of your vehicles.
Cheating. (Score:1)
Because that's the only thing the auto industry knows how to do.
Disappointing.
scandalous (Score:4, Interesting)
this is just ouragous to me; instead of investing €500m in developing a better engine, they just fool the system.
ofcourse the system allows it, and they should really close this loophole.
if they can't make their engines cleaner, well bad luck, plain and simple.
perhaps they can buy engines from somebody who can actually get their act together to put in their cars, instead of these scandalous tactics. this is nothing new and is done all the time, it can't be more expensive then paying the fines (or €500m).
Re: (Score:2)
It only kicks the bucket down the road, not a complete circumvention. The Tesla fleet is already zero emissions, so unless Tesla suddenly starts selling much better than FCA in Europe (which is possible) this merger was a one time benefit. FCA will still need to improve their own fleet to continue progressing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think this actually makes perfect sense - Tesla doesn't just meet the EU specs, they exceed them. So in return they get cash from an automaker that doesn't meet emission specs. If there weren't this "loophole" then Tesla would get no cash in return for exceeding specs. That cash helps them continue to increase their scale to better compete with current automakers, and subsidize EVs a bit more while scale and performance continues to improve.
Re: (Score:2)
don't know about other EU countries, but how it works here is that your road-tax is tied to the emission your vehicle has.
tesla would get more 'cash' by increased sales since their cars are cheaper to own (thus more interesting to buy).
Re: (Score:1)
When the emissions were retested on all EU cars in 2018 Fiat were the company that had cheated least... maybe they weren't clever enough?
The most [transportenvironment.org], not the least. Well, together with Suzuki, but Suzuki source their diesel engines from Fiat.
Is this in the best interests of Fiat/Chrysler? (Score:1)
Whilst paying Tesla may reduced the size of the financial penalty, they are in effect subsidising a competitor. It might be more economic in the long run to pay the EU fine.
Who'd buy an EV from someone who hates EV? (Score:2)
WTF with this article summary? (Score:2)
> With this merging of the fleets, in Europe at least, a Tesla is no more clean than a diesel Fiat.
That's total bunk. Tesla is effectively selling the clean energy credits. They have an excessive amount of them. They've been doing this in California for years. This doesn't make a Tesla "no more clean than a diesel Fiat".
Goddamn, so menacing (Score:2)
This is what we call a carbon market. It's the goto proposal by the left for how to fight climate change. American liberals point to these policies as an example for the U.S.
Why does the title and summary sound so menacing?
Ooh-ooh-ooh! I KNOW! (Score:4, Informative)
If the Fiat is now "cleaner" how can the Tesla not be "dirtier"?
It's actually very simple to demonstrate.
I'll sit in a Tesla, with a hose running from its exhaust right next to my face, and you can do the same with a Fiat.
Then we turn on the cars and see who gets a better mileage.
It is THAT simple and easy!
Or... you know... you might want to learn to distinguish a metaphor from a thing it designates.
Particularly when it is in a form of a trademark which can be applied to a whole range of products, company policies, executives, stocks...
It also helps if you understand the concepts of taxes, regulations, reality, policy, incentives, subsidies... and a couple of others but those should do.
Re: (Score:1)