The Truth: Automakers “Going Green” Because They Have To
By Edward A. Sanchez – Aug. 31, 2021
Nearly every other day, a press release or story comes out about the latest “green” initiative or carbon-neutrality goal announced by a major automaker. On the surface, all of these developments are positive. But let’s be honest, if it weren’t for pressure from environmental advocacy groups, government regulators, studies from the scientific community, and let’s face it, increasingly extreme weather in the form of floods, droughts, and so on, most of them would continue on their merry way maintaining the status quo.
Even Audi CEO Markus Duesmann, who back in July 2020 said the brand would continue to “massively invest” in internal combustion engine development, just this past week, as part of Audi’s “Vorsprung 2030” event, said: “The pace of change in our society is rapidly increasing. That’s why we're accelerating our own transformation.”
As part of the initiative, the company’s last internal-combustion models will be launched in 2026, and the company said it will stop producing internal combustion engines altogether in 2033. Well, so much for that “massive investment” in ICE.
Nissan, once considered a leader in the EV space with its Leaf EV, is jumping on the green bandwagon with its support of the United Nations’ “Race to Zero” campaign, which is a pledge to keep the global temperature increase to just 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. While noble, that’s a somewhat slippery target that may or may not be met. A firm end date for ICE was not announced, only that it’s “aiming” for all of its products to be “electrified” in Japan, China, the U.S., and Europe by the early 2030s. Again, plenty of wiggle room in those broad pledges and vague language.
Nissan was a frontrunner in the EV marketplace with the Leaf – a car that is still a solid offering. Yet the company’s commitment to full electrification is vague at best. (Image courtesy Nissan)
There were many brands that had an early-mover advantage in EVs that didn’t take advantage of it to any significant extent, chief among them being Nissan and BMW. At the time, they fielded vehicles when Tesla was not a serious threat, almost as an “us too” exercise to prove that they too could build an EV.
General Motors built the EV1 as a proof-of-concept EV to comply with California’s zero emissions vehicle mandate. But let’s give credit where it’s due. At least GM made a serious effort. Most other companies fielded cynical conversions or token oddballs or, frankly, put most of their resources into political lobbying to water down and challenge the mandate to the point it was ultimately revoked.
The difference between then and now is that global and regional regulations are effectively hastening the demise of the internal-combustion engine. Outright bans in many countries are coming as soon as 2030, with many more coming in 2040.
How genuine were BMW’s i8 and i3 when it came to electrification? (Image courtesy BMW)
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Tesla undeniably deserves credit for proving that an EV could be a desirable, sleek, sexy status symbol, rather than just a utilitarian pod. Unsurprisingly, consumers responded favorably, and legacy automakers, that for whatever reason, decided to style, engineer, and package their EV offerings to be less appealing than their more conventional ICE models, were caught flat-footed, and subsequently scrambling to make more earnest efforts for their EVs. We’re finally seeing the fruits of that development through both startups and legacy OEMs making handsome, desirable, long-range EVs.
It’s a natural instinct to want to preserve your incumbent advantage – I get it. But in this case, I wonder how many of the automakers might have made different strategic decisions a decade ago.
(Audi Skysphere image courtesy Audi)
- Podcast - Facebook - Google News - Twitter -
