Not sure how this is an example of over regulation.

Regulations goal is to reduce CO2 output. If a private company want to achieve that by funding a foreign electric car company to create a reduced total footprint, that’s their choice.

Ultimately the regulation achieves its goal, reducing CO2. That fact it’s done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.

> Regulations goal is to reduce CO2 output.

Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them. Like improving charging infrastructure.

Putting a gun to the head of one if not the largest manufacturing industry on the continent is pretty stupid way of doing so.

> That fact it’s done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.

Yeah great, us europeans will all be thrilled by the increased foreign competition and dead local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.

The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.

Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.

Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.

> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.

Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.

> Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.

A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.

> Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.

So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.

> Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.

You’re going to have to explain why this is shooting ourselves in the foot. I’m still not seeing it.

> A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what your trying to say. Which regulations are so much looser and can you explain what advantages they provide to Tesla vs an EU company.

> So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.

EU companies own factories in the US (VW is a notable example), and US companies own factories in the EU. Nothing wrong with that.

> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.

No, the goal is not to reduce CO2, it is to eliminate it entirely, and in order to do that one of the things you have to do is convert all auto transportation over to electric cars. But I bet you already knew that.

> Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them.

Maybe instead of picking a technology you should manage to the target you actually want. The target could in theory be reached with Hydrogen cars and perhaps that would be better — shame if they’d regulated for electric.

(Actually I think hydrogen is an absurd transport fuel, and California’s hydrogen power funding a waste. But the principle holds)

I suspect the EU law is the same as the California one in that it doesn't require EVs... hydrogen is fine for CARB, you can even get a partial credit for natural gas.

California gave hydrogen funding in order to give them a fair shot. No fair declaring after the fact that it was a waste.

FWIW the physics of trying to store and transport H seemed plainly absurd on the face of it, to me at the time and I haven’t seen any breakthroughs since then.

Your surmise is correct in re he EU law. I was responding to a comment saying “if you want EVs, fund EVs” which was an unwarranted assumption.

> local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.

Tesla is also subject to EU regulation. The emission regulations concern cars sold in Europe, no matter whether the company selling them is headquartered in Europe or not. It's just that in this case they're more compliant with the regulation than Fiat.

One of the other things those CO2 regulations did is push companies towards producing and selling diesel cars that emitted less CO2 but more other pollutants like NO2 and particulates that caused direct and immediate harm. Which lead to dieselgate and then this: "Compliance has gotten harder for automakers as consumers have shifted toward gasoline cars, which emit comparatively more CO2, following Volkswagen AG’s diesel-emissions scandal that first erupted in 2015."

So I guess this isn't so much a footgun moment as a whole series of them.

It all depends on if, as a European, you see the goal of reducing CO2 justified by the fact that you may be kneecapping local industries in favor of a foreign one.

I wouldn't call it a foot gun moment but it does feel somewhat like a faustian bargain.

For me preventing climate change is pretty non-negotiable. I’m rather a fan of having a liveable planet, and as some that lives in London, I’m acutely aware of what sea level rise will do to my home.

In this specific case a small foreign company (and Tesla is tiny compared to the likes of VW) gets a leg up. I don’t think it have much impact of EU automotive industry in the long run.

Tesla's German plant will be a part of the EU automotive industry, right?

Absolutely true. Although I’m assuming some people will take offence to the idea of it being run by an American owned company.

> (and Tesla is tiny compared to the likes of VW)

Check the market cap.

Or don't, because that's entirely irrelevant

In 2018 Tesla made 87,000 vehicles, VW made 10.5 million.

> Ultimately the regulation achieves its goal, reducing CO2.

Does it though?

Instead of Fiat reducing their product's CO2 emissions, isn't it actually the case that they've just done some fancy accounting and now say their emissions are lower because the paperwork now says Tesla is part of their fleet?

Tesla were going to make those cars anyway, so really Tesla gain the free money from Fiat, and Fiat keeps making polluting cars, and we all get to suffer the consequences of no actual reduction of CO2 because ultimately nothing has changed apart from some paperwork that follows the letter of the law rather than the spirit?

Doesn't seem that great to me.

It’s an economic disincentive for Fiat to continue producing them. Sure Fiat could continue to sell those cars, but being on the hook for shoveling Tesla $2bn every few years isn’t a winning long term strategy. Hurts Fiat, helps a company that’s got much better CO2 performance. CO2 will be reduced because it will now be in Fiats financial interest to produce EVs. It certainly won’t happen overnight but the incentives are clear for Fiat.

No, the standards keep going up, so Fiat still has to change. It already knows this, and its problem is it is not yet really to start manufacturing a lot of ev's. This gives them another year or two to get ready.

Sure, you could definitely argue that the EU’s strict environmental regulations make European auto manufacturers less competitive. On the other hand, these regulations are designed to promote social good, not the wellbeing of the manufacturers, and I think the laws are pretty much working in that regard by allowing Tesla to expand more quickly and forcing other automakers to take EV production more seriously. To be fair though, EU lawmakers probably didn’t foresee how long it would take for European automakers to jump on the EV bandwagon, and how much these regulations would help foreign competitors gain a foothold on their continent.

It depends on the timelines on which you are measuring success. If these regulations get all-electric car ubiquity to arrive 5 years earlier, but in the process causes many domestic firms to shutdown, consolidate, etc. we may be sacrificing the competitiveness and innovation in this industry 25-50 years down the road.

It may be that this is a valid trade off to make, but it warrants thought at the very least.

A trade off, generating lots of low hanging election fruits for as long as disgruntled voters are reminded they voted for something else, than said trade off.

> On the other hand, these regulations are designed to promote social good, not the wellbeing of the manufacturers, and I think the laws are pretty much working in that regard by allowing Tesla to expand more quickly and forcing other automakers to take EV production more seriously.

Great. I look forward to my unemployed well being when the largest EU industry collapses.

The seeds for unemployment are germinating as we speak. Expect the apparent fact that e-cars have a huge advantage in manufacturing simplicity wihc grants huge automation based speed of production. Some will specialize in making 'skates' - this is a 4 wheeled battery with motor, wheel, brakes and computer/dashboard package that is called a skate. On which a unibody is bolted.m This unibody is similarly highly favorable to automation. Some say only 20% of the work force will be needed - as we see with Tesla's admittedly low volume the number per car is a lot lower and as automation improves, will decline,.. Will these workers go quietly? Now, never in a minute, esp the French, they will want fat wages for life, etc etc and agitate for that, even as they are laid off. The death of Italian and german auto sectors staffing looms over the next 20 years.

Well if you're anywhere in western EU, thanks to the social system, it shouldn't be destructive to you. Not that I support it, but I frequently hear support of it from the automotive industry people (especially VW and Skoda) - you should use it then.

I don’t think wellfare will work when half the country is unemployed.

That sounds like a good opportunity to build new companies.

For the loser now will be later to win

For the times they are a-changin'

20-40% unemployment in Southern Europe...

It's their fault. They haven't build an electric Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Ram Trucks or Ferrari.

Electric Wrangler/Gladiator with a smaller cross-over version would sell like hot cakes.

Would it? Seems like a lot of Wrangler owners are either people who strap extra gas canisters to their vehicle for extra range in adventure scenarios OR people that at least want to think they have the option to do so (not meant as an insult).

Most wranglers don't see proper off-roading, none of the crossovers. But even though, you have the whole front trunk where you can add a range extender (similar to BMW i3). You can strap extra canisters - range is not an issue.

What you've got is a superior off-roading machine. With 4 electric motors you can apply torque with extreme precision. Increasing ground clearance is not an issue since you don't need a drive shaft and diffs.

the infrastructure in Europe for electric car was disfunctional until a couple years ago, with few recharge point mostly around large cities having incomplete coverage of ports.

this has been changing fast last year, so everyone around Europe is getting their designs off the shelves and into the dealership

have been saying this for years, they aren't competing with Tesla, they aren't going to work with the same low volumes because their margins are completely different, and they are not falling behind, they are acting on traditional business cases, not being startups.

Ferrari was spun off from Fiat in 2016.

They could still build an electric super card and pool with fiat.

Being able to skirt emission laws by paying a foreign company loophole is over regulation?

The purpose of the emission regulations is to reduce emissions. The regulation does not force manufacturers to pool with foreign companies, nor would such pooling be detrimental to the regulation's goals. By allowing pooling, electric manufacturers are given an advantage, which in turn leads to reduced emissions. Perhaps the problem is that you are misinterpreting the purpose of the law?

Is there more to this argument than thinly veiled nationalism/xenophobia to this argument?

If someone builds industry in Europe, in European jurisdiction, which achieves something with less CO2 output, even if he is from Papa Guinea or whatever, what is lost here, beside the ego of some backwards thinking people?

Why is this a “foot gun?” If it improves competition and pricing for the consumer isn’t it a good thing?

Plus it keeps fiat viable while they work on improving their fleet emissions. Nor fiat squanders the opportunity in which it’s a good idea for them to go bust.

Tesla is building an EU factory to employ EU citizens...

Damn Europeans prioritizing long term ecological/global goals over short term money!