jqpabc123 4 days ago

Just wait till Trump hits 'em with tariffs. That'll fix 'em --- NOT!

China is rapidly de-carbonizing and leaving the West behind.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewa...

2
passwordoops 4 days ago

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-has-more-than-...

For reference, England consumed 1 billion tons of coal during it's peak coal consumption decade.

So please stop with the "China is decarbonizing" crap, because they are not. A more accurate statement is "China understands the importance of energy and is applying an as-much-of-everything-approach to achieve its industrial goals"

tsimionescu 4 days ago

You are comparing a country that was probably less than 5% of China's current population during that peak. And not only is China 17.5% of the world's population, it is also the major manufacturing hub for the majority of the world. 10 times as much coal as the UK's peak is still a tiny number.

The reality is that China is emitting much less CO2 per capita than the US or Canada, and just a bit more than the more industrious EU countries like Germany. And this is territorial emissions: if you take into account what percentage of those emissions is going into goods produced in China but bought by those very countries, it's probably around the EU average if not lower.

Is China anywhere near a net 0 goal? No, not even close. But among industrial powers, it is one of the ones that went by far the most into green power.

teractiveodular 4 days ago

Yes, China still uses a metric fuckton of a coal, but they are decarbonizing: every year, the % of energy generated by coal goes down 1%, and renewables go up 1%.

https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/china/

Just to underline, this is not notional capacity (which inflates solar/wind), but actual power generation. This is all the more impressive because China's total consumption is simultaneously increasing rapidly.

tzs 4 days ago

Also please stop comparing absolute numbers between countries with more than an order of magnitude population difference.

snapcaster 3 days ago

They're making insane progress and they are decarbonizing in terms of their energy mix. Can you and others please stop with never letting china receive any praise for anything? it's so annoying when people seem incapable of pointing to ANYTHING in china and being like "nice". Is there anything positive you'll credit china with in this space or just nitpick?

makotech221 4 days ago

cool now compare the population difference.

In order to build renewable infrastructure, you do need to expend a lot of energy: mining, processing, transporting. China is using coal to build up that infrastructure and converting that dirty energy into clean.

passwordoops 4 days ago

So when GHG absorbs energy from the sun, it's on a per capita basis?

tzs 4 days ago

No, but when talking about whether a country is emitting more than its "fair" share of GHG for any reasonable definition of "fair" per capita is what matters, unless someone can make a convincing argument that some people have some kind of natural or divine right to contribute more to GHG emissions than others.

More details are in this comment [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42229636

ivewonyoung 4 days ago

Why didn't you include England's total historical contributions to GHG emissions and technologies in your comparison then?

graemep 4 days ago

Its not just about population. The UK was the world's foremost manufacturing nation at the time, just as China is now. It was the centre of manufacturing of an empire so the relevant comparison is with the population of the empire. There were no real alternative sources of energy - no nuclear, no solar, no wind (in a form suitable for most industry).

tsimionescu 4 days ago

The British Isles were not providing food, heating, cooling, electric light, raw materials etc for the population of the British Empire.

And if you want to count the population consuming industrial goods as the population that "causes" those emissions, then China looks even better, because they are producing goods consumed by literally billions of people.

graemep 4 days ago

> The British Isles were not providing food, heating, cooling, electric light, raw materials etc for the population of the British Empire.

Most of those did not use coal in most of the empire in the year of peak consumption: 1913.

It was providing a lot of raw materials.

mdorazio 4 days ago

The 100% tariffs are already in place under the Biden administration. Trump only needs to prevent a Mexico manufacturing loophole.

However, BYD still has the entire rest of the world to sell to. They will be fine.

jqpabc123 4 days ago

Yes, BYD will be fine.

And they know this is --- hence they are doubling the size of their already massive factory.

Guess who won't be fine? US auto manufacturers. They won't be able to compete anywhere other than the USA. And China loves it.

_DeadFred_ 4 days ago

The US government bailed out GM under Obama. Do you know what GM did this month? They spent billions on stock buybacks and millions on bonuses while firing a ton of people. F'em. They aren't a car company, they are a stock company that happens to make cars, a route most large American companies seem to be taking (see also Boeing, whose management cares so much about/is detached from their product that they relocated their management away from the business and to Washington DC).

MaxPock 3 days ago

China is a 30 million a year car market and up until 2 years ago,GM used to sell more cars in China than in the US . It was an incredible cash cow .

_DeadFred_ 3 days ago

It was so weird going to China backing in the early 2010's and seeing everyone driving Buicks. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't a sea of Buicks.

tibbydudeza 3 days ago

GM sales has cratered there - a wrong product mix for a market that wants 36% EV's or hybrids hence them focusing on new EV platform and doing the new Bolt.

api 4 days ago

US auto makers have been on the ropes since the 1980s. My hypothesis is that their heyday was 50s and 60s “greaser” culture and they kinda got their heads stuck in that era. “Golden ages” are incredibly dangerous.

When people started wanting just practical small reliable affordable cars as the price of gas increased and cars became just an appliance they didn’t respond to that market and the Japanese did. It’s been either sideways or downhill since. The only thing keeping them alive now is unnecessarily large status symbol trucks and that is a limited market that will be trashed if oil spikes again. There’s got to be a limit somewhere to how much people will pay to show off or own the libs or whatever motivates one to buy an F-5000 Super Chungus.

They are still mostly missing the EV boat. First Tesla caught them asleep and now China. Culturally they still are not crazy about EVs because they do not go vroom vroom.

Trump might string them along a bit longer with protectionism and a pull back on EVs to push more vroom vroom but meanwhile BYD will eat the entire world.

grecy 4 days ago

> US auto makers have been on the ropes since the 1980s.

Without a doubt.

In about 2000 the US automakers sued the EPA because their proposed clean air regulations for about 2009 were "impossible".

They were actually more lax than what Japanese automakers were already selling cars for in the year 2000.

So the automakers sued the US government to admit that in 2009 they couldn't build cars that were as clean as cars Japan was already making in 2000. That says a lot.

themaninthedark 3 days ago

They were right about those regulations. The CAFE is why we now have the proliferation of huge trucks and SUVs instead of sedans.

Cars from Japan, 2000 or current that are clean aren't street legal here because they don't meet the safety standards. Those safety features add weight, which in turn drive down the efficiency.

grecy 3 days ago

> Cars from Japan, 2000 or current that are clean aren't street legal here because they don't meet the safety standards

I've seen this repeated for 25 years now, and to be honest I think it's simply not true.

Can you list one safety standard they don't meet?

The GT-R is identical as sold in Japan and the USA (well, actually, the US version has wider seats - true story).

Even when that one guy homologated the R32 Skyline into the USA he barely modified the front bumper at all and it met crash safety standards as it was.

themaninthedark 2 days ago

I am not familiar with the NHTSA and EPA regulations to point you to one specfic place in the code but here is a citation. Also a lot of the Japanese vehicles that people point to as being more efficient are Kei class, these vehicles don't meet NHTSA code as they would not survive the crash tests.

https://gearshifters.org/nissan/how-to-import-a-nissan-silvi...

>Beginning in January 2024, the 1999 Nissan Silvia S15 will turn 25 years old. It will no longer be subject to NHTSA regulations after it turns 25 and can be legally imported into the USA.

>Because it did not adhere to federal safety and environmental regulations and featured a right-hand steering column, like cars in England, this particular vehicle was deemed unlawful in the United States. However, some Silvia vehicles have been registered in the US after being modified to comply with US laws.

_DeadFred_ 4 days ago

Their downfall was earlier than that. Post WW2 everyone was looking to buy a new car (people kept their old one during the war because production was going to the war effort). The car companies had such demand they moved to a 'car salesman' sales structure to milk every customer as much as possible because demand was so much higher than production. They got hooked on the easy money and entrenched a lot of bad business practices/policies as a result.

GM for all intents and purposes died (remember we funded a whole new GM, a completely new business entity, during the 2008 financial crisis timeframe) and yet new GM just 'invested' 6 billion dollars in stock buybacks, millions in management bonuses while conducting employee layoffs. But they will have no problem coming and asking the government for billions 'to remain competitive' soon. F'm.

themaninthedark 3 days ago

Source for manufacturers making everyone go to dealers, wiki says the opposite. With the NADA lobbying to make it illegal for mfg to sell direct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_the_United_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealership https://caredge.com/guides/how-did-car-dealerships-become-so...

_DeadFred_ 3 days ago

Sorry for the confusions, but I didn't talk about dealers I talked about the 'car salesman' model.

parpfish 4 days ago

I think there’s a little bit more to the golden age story.

The “malaise era” started in the early 70s as a perfect storm of fuel economy restrictions and more widespread US economic woes. This lead to decades of low quality cars being made.

US automakers not only lost out on consumers looking for simple appliances to drive, but ALSO the enthusiasts that liked driving and cars. The car guys that came of age in this era have two choices: chase after the same American muscle cars your dad liked, or switch over to imported hot hatches and the JDM tuner scene

jmb99 4 days ago

> This lead to decades of low quality cars being made.

Really, it was only a bit over one decade. Taking GM as an example, their last great cars were produced for the 1973 model year, after which point the economy, emissions, and efficiency requirements resulted in drastic (bad) changes. It only took until the late 1980s for them to make some genuinely good vehicles though. For instance, the Buick Regal/Oldsmobile Cutlass/Pontiac Grand Prix from 1988 were well built, comfortable, handled (relatively) well, and were very reliable - especially from 1990 with the introduction of the 3.8L V6, what is likely GM’s most reliable engine ever built (second possibly only to the small block V8). The same was tru for their sports cars (while not making much power out of the displacement, the TPI V8 firebird and corvette were similarly efficient to European sports cars at the time). Many GM cars from that era (late 1980s until early 2000s) are some of the most reliable American cars ever built.

The same is true for Ford; for example, the 1988 Probe, while not the most popular vehicle, was very reliable, comfortable, efficient, and well-built, likely in part due to their partnership with Mazda. It could reasonably be argued that as early as 1980, Ford was making pretty good vehicles, with the Mercury Grand Marquis/LTD Crown Victoria being well-built and reliable, if very down on power with questionable efficiency.

Not worth talking about Chrysler because they didn’t know how to make good/reliable cars before the fuel crisis and they certainly didn’t figure out how to afterwards.

I know this isn’t your main point but it’s worth considering that the US did actually figure out how to build really good cars again, and it didn’t take them that long. Mid-90s to early-00s American cars were, in my opinion, at the perfect point of technological advancement: CAD and high-precision/low-tolerance manufacturing resulting in engines that last well over 300k miles without major servicing; enough computer advancement to have high precision per-cylinder fuel and spark control with accurate air metering leading to better power, efficiency, and reliability; and enough material advancement to have interior and exterior build quality that makes the car look like it wasn’t built in a shed. But most importantly, they hadn’t figured out how or where to cheap out on components, so you end up with the “unreliable” components (like the 4L60e and 4T60e transmissions) “only” lasting 200k miles before requiring a rebuild - which in today’s money is still less than $1000, let alone 20-30 years ago.

From the birth of the US auto industry until about 2010, the only period where there wasn’t a single American car worth buying brand new was probably 1974-1981. The “malaise era” itself was by the loosest definitions only about 13 years, from 1974-1987.

parpfish 4 days ago

So in your opinion, what hat would be the standout 80s American cars for enthusiasts and collectors?

Off the top of my head, there’s:

- fox body mustang

- fiero

- gnx

- bronco

Anything else would be selected primarily for idiosyncratic nostalgia reasons (eg “this is the faux-wood station wagon I grew up with”)

jmb99 2 days ago

GM F-bodies (Firebird, Camaro) and the Corvette are good contenders as well. Barely counts but the C4 ZR1 Corvette (launched in 1989 for the 1990 model year) that made 375HP and was partially designed by Lotus would be up there as well. Taurus SHOs are quite popular now too. The Merkur XR4Ti was also a very cool car, and very cheap these days (mostly due to lack of parts availability without creativity); stock they only made a max of 175HP, but (speaking from experience) the fuel injected and intercooled versions of those engines can make over 300HP with little more than "turning up the boost." (The 2.3 turbo was also available in the Fox platform in the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Mustang Turbo GT and SVO, and a few others.)

Foxbodies are the most accessible especially when it comes to parts availability, community knowledge, and to a lesser extent these days, price. Except for maybe Fieros, and they have the benefit of being cheap too, for the most part. The GNX is absurdly expensive now, for what it is, but Cutlass Supremes and regular Regals aren't - they're popular conversion and modification targets.

And of course, there's the DeLorean. Probably the car with the single largest cult following. They're terrible cars - unreliable, slow, poorly built, but people love them.

If it were me and money were no object, I'd be going for the C4 ZR1. I've driven every other car mentioned above, except the GNX, and the standard TPI C4s making 250HP/LT1 C4s making 300HP are a lot of fun. I don't think you can get much more 80s America than a nearly 400HP Corvette with a top speed of over 180MPH. The Foxbodies are fun, but they definitely feel sketchy once you start making any more power than stock unless you spend a lot of money on suspension work.

Of course if it were really up to me there were no time constraints, I'd own a 1990s Buick Roadmaster with the same LT1 as the standard corvette and a T56 manual conversion (insert something witty about "faux wood that I grew up with"). But I already do, so that's kinda moot ;)

wbl 4 days ago

The US consumer does not buy small new cars.

JKCalhoun 4 days ago

As has been pointed out, they sure did in the 70's when there was a huge financial incentive.

I expect that acting like all American's want are $60K+ luxury cars is what is going to take the US auto industry into the next massive downward spiral.

peterbecich 4 days ago

I.m.o. consumer weight on safety has dramatically increased since the 70s. Frugality has decreased. Of course it is an arms race with all the other giant cars already on the road. Consequently GM etc. are trying to appease US consumers with giant EVs.

JKCalhoun 3 days ago

I agree. But there's a tipping point too (I think). Another depression and we'll no doubt tip over.

peterbecich 4 days ago

I agree with you. I.m.o. consumer preference is the root cause of the issue.

The 2008 bailout had some strings attached to modernize. I believe the Chevrolet Spark was one of these strings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Spark#Third_generati.... It was eventually discontinued.

FooBarBizBazz 4 days ago

> Guess who won't be fine? US auto manufacturers.

The US is trying to do industrial policy (like now in China, and previously in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, and in Germany before that), but without the key aspect -- export discipline -- that makes industrial policy work. I'm thinking about Joe Studwell's How Asia Works. Everything I'm seeing in the US reminds me more of the failures in Indonesia and India than of the successes in Japan and Korea. With the exceptions of -- "say what you will about Elon, but" -- Tesla and SpaceX. Bidenonics will take time to bear fruit, though, and could yet yield some successes.

Point is, using tariffs to protect "infant industry" is the opposite of export discipline.

(As a side note, most of those countries also had major land reform, whereas property rights -- sorry, "rule of law" -- are pretty sacred in the US )

kwere 4 days ago

Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia and many other countries turned sour on importing chinese EVs in favour of some kind of protectionism. Most developing countries dont have the infrastucture for EVs. Europe hit BYD with a 17 % tariff (10% being the standard)

bdangubic 4 days ago

why does that matter?! :)

teractiveodular 4 days ago

When they're locally built, tariffs don't apply. Like Japanese, Korean and European car manufacturers, BYD will do the same in Mexico and eventually the US if necessary.