***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[sfc415]

I'll be sure to keep my eyes peeled when I'm in Barcelona this summer.

/humblebrag
I know someone who went out there last year, and is now saving to move out there...so I'm sure I'm not going to come back. Just beach bum it out there.

I lived in Logrono, Spain for a summer. I was paying ~200 in Utilities but ~350 in rent in a small but decent apartment outside of the city center (I could've gotten something even cheaper if I looked around more). This narrative of Europeans struggling to make ends meet over utility bills is bull @#$@

 

[Cashflow]

Why do you guys continue to engage the village idiot?

 

[Black Lotus]

"No matter how the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it" 

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

 

 

Why you all wasting our time talking to the wind.

Da gust can't grasp a trend line, it is pointless

I have a degree in power engineering.

i'm sorry, I can't help correcting the signal-to-noise ratio when it gets windy.

I understand famb, when the economic nonsense would get spewed I sometimes could not stop myself

On some real ****, I don't have a problem with not going college or pursuing education beyond high school.

What I do have a problem with is people who don't respect the time it takes to understand how the world works. My grand-parents weren't educated, but they knew the value of education. When's the last time you heard a US politician talk about learning for knowledge's sake?

To make things worse, this country has elevated random people's opinions to the same level as researched facts, all to make a buck. And you now have ignoramuses thinking that just because sounds can come out of their mouth means that what they say is relevant.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Not everyone deserves a platform. Seems we're in a time where everyone's voice is considered equal.

Reminds me of when the media was telling everyone that we had to at least listen to all the poor white people who got left behind in middle America.

Why are we surprised that they have nothing of substance to say? How was this not apparent when that base elected Donald Trump. Hope it isn't too late to put that cat back in the bag, because the gusto that plain old idiots have had the gall to speak with lately is sickening. Only so long you can ignore ignorance until you just react and quell it.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

I'll be sure to keep my eyes peeled when I'm in Barcelona this summer.

/humblebrag
I know someone who went out there last year, and is now saving to move out there...so I'm sure I'm not going to come back. Just beach bum it out there.

I lived in Logrono, Spain for a summer. I was paying ~200 in Utilities but ~350 in rent in a small but decent apartment outside of the city center

This narrative of Europeans struggling to make ends meet over utility bills is bull @#$@

Yeah, I already see no real reason to return to this **** storm of a country.

 

[sfc415]

To be fair, I wouldn't move to Spain or Portugal unless I had a guaranteed long term job lined up though. It's terrible out there for younger people (21-early 30s) compared to SF, LA, and NYC; most of the well paying jobs are taken by people who have worked in those companies for years and have no intention of doing anything different. That's why most young people there live at their parents' homes until they finally move up the ranks in their 30s.

I lived on my own there because I was working as a contractor in the US and doing all of my work remotely for those three months. At the time I was only making around 35K a year, but I was still living very comfortably. If European food wasn't so @#$@ I wouldn't have minded staying there longer Even Chipotle tasted amazing after eating bland Spanish/fake Mexican food every day. My Asian side can't live like that permanently.

 

[ninjahood]

CLIMATE CHANGE
Merkel’s Green Hypocrisy
MAY 26, 2017 AT 9:39 AM CEST
"Climate chancellor" Angela Merkel in Greenland: The German leader may no longer deserve that nickname, critics say. Source: Michael Kappeler / AP
Source: AP Merkel’s Green Hypocrisy
A decade ago, Angela Merkel was feted as the “climate chancellor” for championing the fight against global warming. In 2007, she persuaded President George W. Bush to sign up to a pledge to limit global temperature rises to two degrees over pre-industrial levels. A few years later, she launched Germany’s green energy revolution to wean the country off fossil fuel by 2050.
This week, she once again urged nations to work together to fight climate change and said there would be economic benefits in doing so. That remark was an apparent bid to persuade US President Donald Trump to drop any plans to ditch the Paris climate accord, which seeks to stop the world using fossil fuels this century.
“We are responsible for each other,” Ms. Merkel told a meeting of about 30 nations in Berlin on Tuesday, preparing for global talks on climate change in November. “I am trying to convince doubters. There is still work to do.”
It was a message she likely reinforced at a meeting of Group of Seven (G7) leaders from the world’s leading industrial nations this weekend. But environmental experts said Ms. Merkel has long since stopped practicing what she preaches. “Not much is left of the climate chancellor of 10 years ago,” said Jan Kowalzig, a climate change analyst at Oxfam in Germany.
Around half the decline in German greenhouse gas emissions has resulted not from green policies but from the restructuring of the smoke-belching industry of the former communist eastern Germany following unification in 1990, said Mr. Kowalzig.
She rallies the international community behind decarbonization but in Germany she hasn’t dared to set a clear timetable to phase out coal.
Christoph Bals
Political director of Germanwatch
Since that revamp has been completed, the decline in German CO2 emissions has been modest and Germany will miss the target it set itself in 2007 of cutting its emission by 40 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, he said.
“There have been no remarks by the chancellor let alone countermeasures,” he said.
Ms. Merkel has also intervened to delay and weaken EU reforms on vehicle emissions to protect the German auto industry, famed for its production of high-performance limousines and SUVs, green experts complained. Mr. Kowalzig accused Ms. Merkel of “going on her knees to the auto industry” even though it was the only sector that had failed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.
Christoph Bals, political director of Germanwatch, a think tank, described the chancellor’s commitment to climate protection as “ambivalent.”
“Internationally she carries weight by stressing the importance of implementing climate goals but in the EU she picks up the phone to pare back CO2 standards for cars, and readily accepts that Germany is about to miss the 40 percent reduction goal by miles,” he said.
“She rallies the international community behind decarbonization but in Germany she hasn’t dared to set a clear timetable to phase out coal.”
In addition, Ms. Merkel’s coalition of conservatives and center-left Social Democrats has slowed down the expansion of renewable energy generation by setting upper limits, said environmental groups.
Meanwhile the reform of the EU’s CO2 permit trading scheme for cutting carbon emissions by European industries has been so tentative that it will fail to have much real impact on corporate investments until after 2030, they added.
And instead of taxing coal-fired power stations to make them less attractive to run, the government has agreed to pay utilities billions of euros in taxpayers’ money to keep them as a reserve source of energy.
Environmental experts said the new government formed after the next general election in September must implement the German Climate Action Plan 2050, approved by Ms. Merkel’s coalition last year to fulfil the nation’s obligations under the Paris climate agreement.
Top of its to-do list will be the phaseout of German coal mining and coal-fired power generation by 2030 or 2035 at the latest. Coal still accounts for around 40 percent of electricity generated in Germany and is viewed as an important pillar of the power supply as the country exits nuclear energy by 2022 and shifts to renewable energy.
If Ms. Merkel wins a fourth term, her coal policy will decide “whether she will bury the Paris climate agreement or become its strongest activist,” said Mr. Kowalzig.

https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/merkels-green-hypocrisy-771843

"short term plans"

 

[whywesteppin]

 

[ninjahood]

China cuts coal at home but state owned companies and banks drive new coal expansion overseas, despite top level promises of green growth for developing countries, writes Beth Walker

Article image
Coal hotspots are emerging in Turkey and the Balkans, where local players are also active. (Image by Iwona_Olczyk)

Chinese companies and banks are continuing to drive global coal expansion, as state owned companies, backed by state loans, build coal-fired power plants across the world. This is despite commitments from China’s top leaders to deliver clean energy and low carbon infrastructure for developing countries.

The world’s largest carbon emitter aims to reposition itself as a global green power. In a joint US-China statement at the White House in September 2015, President Xi Jinping agreed to strictly control public investment for overseas projects with high pollution and carbon emissions. China won praise for promising to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 at the UN climate summit in Paris in 2015 – and trying to wean itself slowly off coal. Chinese manufacturers are now major suppliers of cheap solar and wind parts worldwide.

However, these efforts are being undercut by Chinese backed coal power plants planned and under construction from Indonesia to Pakistan, Turkey to the Balkans –as well as in Africa and Latin America. These could boost global emissions and lock developing countries into fossil fuel intensive energy systems for decades.

New data collected by chinadialogue and the CEE Bankwatch Network shows that since 2015 many new Chinese coal plant project deals have been announced and are under development. “The majority of these projects are under loan consideration by China's policy-driven financing, and supplied by equipment from the country's largest power generation manufacturers,” said Wawa Wang, public finance policy officer at CEE Bankwatch Network.

Chinese banks and companies are currently involved in at least 79 coal fired generation projects, with a total capacity of over 52 GW, more than the 46 GW of planned coal closures in the US by 2020.





Beijing has encouraged state owned coal companies and energy intensive industries such as concrete, steel and cement, to “go out” as part of the One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR). This aims to open up new opportunities for Chinese companies and to build infrastructure to link China to European markets and beyond.

New outlets

The overseas push comes as China’s power sector is struggling with severe overcapacity with the slowing economy and slashing of energy intensive industries at home. This has led to the lowest use of existing power generation capacity since 1978. Greenpeace estimates that at any given moment, more than half of China’s coal capacity lies idle.

Yet despite central government attempts to reduce its coal fired power and the toxic smog it produces, there is a surge in new approvals for power plants as a result of pushback from provincial authorities and the perverse incentives created by falling coal prices and government fixed electricity prices.

In addition, Huaneng– one of five state owned energy giants – plans to significantly boost its share of profits from overseas projects by 2020, according to its five year strategy. Its expansion will focus on coal in South and Southeast Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe; hydropower in South Asia, Africa and Europe; and wind and solar in Europe and Latin America. While the corporate strategy highlights overseas risks from war, terrorist attacks and corruption, environmental risks are not mentioned.

All this contributes to concern that China will follow developed countries’ example and simply export its carbon emissions as it moves up the global value chain, threatening any fragile international progress on emissions reduction.

Industry insiders argue that China’s coal advance will bring tangible environmental benefits by providing more efficient technologies than countries could otherwise afford. But the number of new projects in the pipeline will counteract any modest emissions savings made by “supercritical” technology, especially since China’s new, stringent standards for domestic plants do not apply to exports.

While global coal use is thought to have fallen by 4.6% year on year through the first nine months of 2015 – urgent action is still needed to avoid locking in carbon intensive resource use in the future. A third of the new capacity in the global pipeline is coal (1161/3165 GW) according to estimates a forthcoming paper by Phillip Hannam, a scholar at the Princeton Environment Institute – and nearly 90% of this is in rapidly growing Asian economies.

China’s expansion comes as the World Bank and many developed countries have stepped back from funding dirty coal. In 2013 the World Bank strictly limited coal funding and last year OECD countries including Japan and Korea promised to end public financing of coal plants overseas except to the poorest countries.

An earlier study from the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative found that China had invested as much as US$38 billion (253 billion yuan) in coal fired power plants overseas between 2010-2014 and had announced plans for another US$72 billion (480 billion yuan) worth of projects (though not all with firm commitments).



Asia – a global hotspot

China’s coal footprint is particularly large in Asia. In 2015 coal-fuelled plants accounted for 68% of generating capacity built by China in the rest of Asia, and in future this is set to rise, according to an earlier paper co-authored by Hannam. In contrast, where countries built capacity without Chinese support, coal-fired plants made up only 32% of new capacity. Worldwide, the majority of China’s support to the power sector in the global south was funnelled into coal, says the paper.

Since 2000, China has overtaken Japan to become the leading exporter of coal equipment – offering “bargain” prices to energy-starved countries and increasing its share of global coal exports from zero to 37% (85GW). It may be much higher, since, where data is missing, exports are largely attributable to China.

China is the largest supplier of equipment to India, which is expected to double its coal capacity by 2031. Chinese firms account for 60% of the equipment ordered in the private sector and are involved in at least 19 projects across the country, the largest being a massive 4,000 MW plant in Gujarat, built by Huaneng and financed by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)

Coal flows along the Silk Roads

Historically, coal power financing has predominantly flowed to India, Indonesia and Vietnam – but now China is diversifying with multimillion dollar projects planned in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Kazakhstan. Further along the OBOR corridors, coal hotspots are emerging in Turkey and the Balkans, where local players are also active. These countries lie outside more stringent European Union environmental regulations and the limitations placed on international finance.

The money and equipment flow into countries where environmental regulations and laws are weak and corruption endemic. In Pakistan alone, China is building at least 7,800 MW of new coal capacity under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor project. This includes the excavation of the dirtiest kind of lignite coal in the Thar desert – one of the world’s largest untapped coal deposits. The projects have met with protest on the streets and in the courts. In a land mark case, a seven-year old girl has sued the government for violating the rights of her generation to a healthy life by developing coal. In her petition she argues this will dramatically increase Pakistan’s carbon emissions, while ignoring the potential of wind and solar.

The Punjab high court’s objections to the Sahiwal coal plant on environmental grounds were brushed aside in 2015, since it is being fast-tracked under the CPEC. While Pakistan is desperately short of power, the economics are dubious. Sahiwal will require billions of dollars investment in new rail infrastructure to haul imported coal 1,000 km from the port city of Karachi. Petitioners say pollution around the site has already breached national air quality limits.



No transparency

Compared to others, Chinese banks are particularly opaque: “Policy driven Chinese financial institutions have yet to adopt information disclosure and accountability policies to protect the rights of affected communities. The situation is further aggravated when there is no institutional oversight of Chinese overseas financing of energy infrastructure projects and the economic, social and environmental problems they cause,” says Wang.

The information behind the map was collected by chinadialogue and Bank Watch from company and bank annual reports and available commercial data. In many cases financial data is unavailable.

A way forward

China has no road map yet for phasing out overseas coal investment. “Implementation measures from the two countries are needed before the US-China joint statement can be translated into action ,” says Yang Fuqiang, senior adviser on climate, energy and environment at The Natural Resources Defense Council, a Beijing based NGO.

He is working with a team to develop green guidelines –“an implementable policy that can be adopted by Chinese financial institutions.” They are preparing their recommendations for the government at the moment.

“Now we are trying to investigate experiences from the past two years to see what we can learn and improve because OBOR is a big global strategy, and without this, investors will face many risks, including environment and climate change risks,” says Yang.


Yang’s work at the NRDC builds on a growing movement within China to hold Chinese banks to account on their green lending credentials – and a growing interest in green finance from institutions themselves. China is the world’s largest issuer of green bonds, but unless progress is made fast, Chinese money and equipment will be used to lock in dirty fossil fuel in developing countries and tarnish China’s ambitions to become a green superpower.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9264-China-stokes-global-coal-growth

"short term plans"

 

[AEA18]

 

[hipstermike]

To be fair, I wouldn't move to Spain or Portugal unless I had a guaranteed long term job lined up though. It's terrible out there for younger people (21-early 30s) compared to SF, LA, and NYC; most of the well paying jobs are taken by people who have worked in those companies for years and have no intention of doing anything different. That's why most young people there live at their parents' homes until they finally move up the ranks in their 30s.

I lived on my own there because I was working as a contractor in the US and doing all of my work remotely for those three months. At the time I was only making around 35K a year, but I was still living very comfortably. If European food wasn't so @#$@ I wouldn't have minded staying there longer

Even Chipotle tasted amazing after eating bland Spanish/fake Mexican food every day. My Asian side can't live like that permanently.

I live in LA and have a nice tech job

I want to move to Detroit and help the tech industry there 

 

[daruma]

it's ******* windy in here.

 

[gry60]

And instead of taxing coal-fired power stations to make them less attractive to run, the government has agreed to pay utilities billions of euros in taxpayers’ money to keep them as a reserve source of energy

Environmental experts said the new government formed after the next general election in September must implement the German Climate Action Plan 2050, approved by Ms. Merkel’s coalition last year to fulfil the nation’s obligations under the Paris climate agreement.

Top of its to-do list will be the phaseout of German coal mining and coal-fired power generation by 2030 or 2035 at the latest. Coal still accounts for around 40 percent of electricity generated in Germany and is viewed as an important pillar of the power supply as the country exits nuclear energy by 2022 and shifts to renewable energy.

NH's favorite debate strategy: grab a snapshot in time to disprove a process that is happening over time.

Show me where the article discredits what I said... Politicians, scientists, engineers, and other people necessary to the policy-making process don't walk around with magic wands. The bottom line is, there is a transition in energy sources that is happening, and there may be other factors that could go into why Merkel may or may not be stalling the transition process, but you can't even see it so there is no point in discussing these things with you.

 

[ninjahood]

For Climate Cause, Trump’s Withdrawal from Paris Accord Just One Hurdle Among Many
Economic forces at work beyond the reach of the global climate agreement present their own enduring challenges.
by Andrew Revkin
ProPublica, June 2, 2017, 8:30 a.m.

President Donald Trump spoke about the U.S. role in the Paris climate accord on Thursday, June 1, at the White House. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo)

The Trump Administration
ProPublica’s ongoing coverage of the 45th President.

In much of the debate surrounding President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, some critical points have been lost.

One reality is that the agreement was always going to reflect, more than determine, whether the world develops a sustainable relationship with the climate system. The language was intentionally “soft” on what countries pledged to do domestically. There was no other way to get nearly 200 sovereign states to the table. And there was little reason to aspire to more.

The forces both driving and constraining worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases are largely outside the top-down influence of some accord. Rising global energy needs and the enduring abundance of fossil fuels are driving fuel demand and emissions growth. Dropping costs of renewable energy, the increasing substitution of natural gas for coal, and a growing focus on energy efficiency in developing economies are slowing emissions.

But obviously the agreement wasn’t soft enough for Trump, who made no mention of the clear risks from climate change laid out by his secretary of defense, James Mattis, after his confirmation hearing earlier this year, but warned of “massive legal liability” if the United States remained a signatory.

There were going to be setbacks no matter which option Trump chose, and it will take years for the consequences of his decision to play out. He included enough nuance — including the notion of working with Democrats to “negotiate our way back into Paris” or crafting something to replace it — to keep everyone guessing.

And separate from Thursday’s announcement, he had already decided on steps that could undermine international action. For example, his earlier decision to cut funding to United Nations programs related to the climate agreement (not to mention funding for population programs) is going to have substantial adverse impacts on its own. And if his budget cuts for climate science and programs aimed at fostering environmental resilience are not altered by Congress, there’ll be lots more real consequences not directly related to Paris.

Perhaps the most sobering, largely shrouded, reality is that the nations some have pointed to as the new climate leaders lose some of their luster on closer examination.

China and the European Union have used the Trump moves on climate and energy to assume, at least rhetorically, a leadership role in the public discourse over limiting global warming.

Both have garnered headlines for their aggressive and heavily subsidized pushes to expand wind and solar power generation. But while Chinese and German clean-energy policies and investments have driven the deep drop in the cost of solar panels, the economies of both countries remain heavily dependent on coal and oil.

China, while curbing domestic construction of coal-powered plants, has become a leading lender financing the construction of new coal-burning power plants in developing countries, according to a 2016 study by researchers at Boston University and the Institute for World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Science.

China is clearly past the peak of the domestic coal-burning binge of the early 2000s that fueled its dizzying recent rate of urbanization and industrialization. But it will be burning billions of tons of coal or turning it into cleaner natural gas for at least several more decades. Synthesizing gas from coal is great for curbing urban air pollution, particularly if the gas substitutes for burning coal as a domestic heating and cooking fuel, as is still common in China. But there’s a climate cost, as Princeton researchers have found, because the energy required to synthesize the gas is supplied by, yes, coal, producing more greenhouse gases.

And Europe, while generally basking in the glow of the Paris Agreement, has been quietly lobbying the Trump administration since February to fast-track approvals of multi-billion-dollar terminals for exporting America’s abundant shale-drilled natural gas as liquefied natural gas, or LNG, across the Atlantic. Who’s the fossil fuel villain there?

There Are Lots of Climate Uncertainties. Let’s Acknowledge and Plan for Them With Honesty.


A New York Times column on the climate set off yet another dangerous tempest of exaggeration and simplification. Read the story.

In an interview in early April at a conference on sustainable energy in New York City, Maros Sefcovic, vice president of the European Commission for energy policy, said LNG exports were a central focus of meetings earlier in the year in Washington with Trump administration officials. The hope is to cut European dependence on piped Russian gas — and to provide the flexible power generation needed to balance variable output(aka brownout prone) from solar and wind installations.

Later that month, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry used an appearance at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance meeting in Manhattan to announce the approval of a giant Texas LNG export terminal, owned by Qatar, ExxonMobil and others.

In an onstage discussion with Ethan Zindler of Bloomberg, Perry used a question on Paris to point out the difference between Europe’s climate-focused public statements and its work to gain gas supplies. “We’re out in the public and they’re giving all these speeches about the Paris accord and all the things we’re going to do, and we get into private meetings, it’s like, ‘How do we get that LNG?’,” he said, adding: “Don’t get up on the front end and make all these speeches about how good you’re doing, when the fact of the matter is you’re not.”

It’s important to note that expanded gas exports to Europe were also a goal of the Obama administration, both for economic and strategic reasons. President Obama had also urged fracking-averse Europe to do its own energy development, as well. Hillary Clinton, too, took heat from environmentalists during her campaign for her longstanding support of natural gas drilling, and natural gas exports.

In an email, Myles R. Allen, a climate scientist and policy analyst at Oxford University, said Trump’s decision hinted at a bigger issue, simmering well beyond the United States, that would continue to hinder progress — the enduring abundance of, and demand for, fossil fuels:

The proposal to renegotiate the U.S. terms is interesting — is it just a distraction tactic? Perhaps, but if we really want to put the future of the planet first, we do need to think about how to make the agreement both more effective and more acceptable to nations with substantial fossil reserves — or the U.S. won’t be the last one to jump ship.

It is worth noting that the site of next year’s round of annual climate change negotiations, announced Thursday by the United Nations, will be Katowice, Poland — a city in the heart of the Polish coal belt. Poland signed the Paris Agreement along with the rest of the European Union last October, but only after gaining concessions allowing its coal use to continue

https://www.propublica.org/article/paris-climate-accord-trump-withdrawal-one-hurdle-among-many

"short term plans"

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

[sonoftony]

 

[ninjahood]

http://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-pulls-us-climate-accord

writer from propublica from said article on NPR

"short term plans" [emoji]129300[/emoji]

 

[wavycrocket]

 

[ninjahood]

it's ******* windy in here.

semester's over, get a jacket.

 

[ninjahood]

Donald Trump's early trade moves favor Fiat Chrysler
Mack Hogan | @hogan_mt
Wed, 1 Feb '17 | 10:43 AM ET
CNBC.com
Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne
Getty Images
Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne
The auto industry faces an uncertain future as President Donald Trump rips up the Trans Pacific Partnership, pledges to renegotiate NAFTA and change the focus of the Environmental Protection Agency. But one automaker seems poised to benefit more than its competitors: Fiat Chrysler (FCA).
The company has been saddled by poor sales of small and midsize cars, overreliance on trucks, poor performance outside of the United States and a lack of alternative energy offerings. Trump's policies, however, are making up for key weaknesses in the Italian/American conglomerate's portfolio. These weaknesses may become strengths as Trump's policy unfolds.
Though the Fiat brand is known for efficient microcars, FCA draws almost all of its profit from trucks and SUVs sold under the Ram and Jeep brands. Across all seven U.S. market brands under their umbrella, Fiat Chrysler offers only one plug-in hybrid and one electric vehicle. FCA does sell a lot of small cars globally, but in the current climate, truck and SUV margins industry-wide dwarf small-car margins.

"Amongst all major global auto manufacturers, FCA is the closest thing to a pure play on the U.S. light truck/SUV market," Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a report. "They were also inarguably in the most vulnerable position with respect to fuel economy standards which may have a more relaxed cadence/target level under the new administration."
More from Global Investing Hot Spots:
A multibillion-dollar natural gas boom promises to reunify Cyprus
10 popular products in the US you didn't know were made in Mexico
After China, Saudi Arabia fires a warning shot at Trump
Ram is the biggest moneymaker in the United States, while Jeep is globally its most profitable brand. Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge and Alfa Romeo are all valued negatively by Morgan Stanley.
FCA derives around 75 percent of its profit from North America.
U.S. auto market sales did cool off in January (FCA led the decline and its shares went lower on Wednesday) but FCA stock is reflecting bullishness relative to the other major U.S. automakers, up more than 50 percent since the November election results. It's a run made even more notable by the fact that it faces a new EPA case over allegations of flawed diesel emissions technology.
"Amongst all major global auto manufacturers, FCA is the closest thing to a pure play on the US light truck/SUV market."
-Adam Jonas, analyst for Morgan Stanley
Most American automakers were unified in their disapproval of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
"We've been very vocal both as an industry and as a company, and we've repeatedly said that the mother of all trade barriers is currency manipulation," Ford CEO Mark Fields recently said, standing outside the White House after a meeting with the Big Three chief executives and the president. "And the TPP failed to address that."
The partnership would have allowed for cheaper Japanese and Korean competition in the U.S. market, posing a risk to all American automakers. But the TPP also helps make up for one of Fiat Chrysler's deficiencies: Asia.
FCA has weak sales in Asia. Ford and GM, on the other hand, have strong footholds in the Asian market. The TPP would have made the Asian market more profitable, giving Fiat Chrysler's competitors a leg up.
Trump's trade wars

Company stock
YTD (%)
1-year (%)
Since election (%)
FCA 19.5 55 54
Ford 2 3 8
GM 4 20 14
Of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the room for automakers is NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement. The trade deal, which Trump said he will destroy, allows tariff-free trade with Mexico and Canada. This allows carmakers to build vehicles in the two countries and export them to the United States, which opponents allege has driven manufacturing out of the U.S.
This is a cause of concern for all automakers. From Toyota to Ford, almost every auto manufacturer builds cars in Mexico for the U.S. market. While the 20 percent import tariff that made headlines last week is far from certain — the White House quickly said it was only one of many options — border tariffs would make exportation from Mexico a non-starter, forcing the car companies scrambling to shift their strategies.
Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, however, has positioned his company in a way that makes it more prepared than most. Fiat Chrysler is shuttering small-car production, which in the current climate is only profitable if done abroad. More importantly, he's moved or prepared plans to move all of FCA's most profitable models to the United States.
One of the last profitable FCA models for the U.S. market built in Mexico is the Ram 2500 and 3500, but Marchionne claimed at the Detroit Auto Show that the company's new investment in Michigan was partially "to provide additional capacity in the event that we have to move the heavy-duty truck out of Mexico and into the U.S."
A border tax certainly will hurt FCA in other ways. Engines for most of their models come from south of the border and the supply chain is deeply entrenched in Mexico, but compared to crosstown rivals like General Motors, who build some of their most profitable vehicles in Mexico, Fiat Chrysler may stand to gain market share.
PLAY VIDEO

Environmental standards are a point of contention among American automakers, as Tesla and GM benefit from tax credits for electric vehicles while other automakers worry that the EPA's fuel economy targets are getting too ambitious.
A less regulation-intense EPA would bode well for Fiat Chrysler's current lineup.
President Trump has already frozen all EPA grants and contracts, awaiting the confirmation of Scott Pruitt, his pick to head the agency. Not only did the former Oklahoma attorney general sue the EPA multiple times, but Trump himself called the agency a "disgrace."
"On the global warming issue, scientists at the EPA have been copying their files onto thumb drives for fear of a draconian style of leadership in the EPA," Richard Levick, head of crisis management company LEVICK, told CNBC.
A less litigious EPA with a weaker enforcement arm under Trump could also alleviate FCA's most immediate environmental problem. Earlier this month, the EPA accused the carmaker of cheating diesel emissions.
"It was no accident that within the last full week of the [Obama] administration is when the EPA announced this. And because Fiat Chrysler just announced more jobs in America, it's a favorable time for them to deal with Trump's administration," Levick said.
Experts told CNBC that the case against FCA is not as strong as the case against Volkswagen, which has paid out near-$20 billion so far related to the scandal. Executives are still facing criminal charges.
Tyson Slocum, director of the Public Citizen's Energy Program (an advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader), said the Fiat software does not appear to be designed to fool lab testers, as in the VW case. Diesel engines have difficulty in extreme cold temperatures, and the FCA software appears to disable it under certain circumstances. That is something that a carmaker has to inform the EPA about, and the EPA appears to be alleging that FCA failed to notify them. But Slocum said that's not the same as cheating.
"The prosecutors who come in under Trump may be more conservative and more likely to push these into civil, not criminal, cases," said Peter C. Anderson, principal at environment law firm Beveridge & Diamond.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/some-of-donald-trumps-biggest-moves-favor-fiat-chrysler.html

da hemi.

 

[Belgium]

Da Don better fill those disaster agency positions soon

Awfully windy around here 

 

[EddieDoyers]

So the auto industry would mostly be in a flux except for maybe Fiat/Chrysler? K.

That's sure some positive news

 

[aepps20]

Da LIBBIES need to take note of Da Knowledge being posted B. Da Hemi is back B. VROOOOOOOM, VROOOOOOOM B

 

[RustyShackleford]

So the auto industry would mostly be in a flux except for maybe Fiat/Chrysler? K.

That's sure some positive news

They deserve it, after making through the great recession

Not like Obama had to save Chrysler like he did the damn banking industry and in turn the entire US economy

Not like people that worship da Hemi should thank da evil Kenyesian for saving Dodge.

 

[Belgium]

They deserve it, after making through the great recession

Not like Obama had to save Chrysler like he did the damn banking industry and in turn the entire US economy

Not like people that worship da Hemi should thank da evil Kenyesian for saving Dodge.

Well if Obummer wasn't too busy playing golf then maybe he could have prevented 9/11, da war and da recession