Chrysler Announces Ram Leadership Changes

Bigland Hegbloom II

Ram has a new leader. Chrysler announced that Reid Bigland — head of U.S. sales and president and CEO of Chrysler Canada — will now be head of Alfa Romeo as well. The promotion means Bigland will step down from his leadership position for both Ram Truck and Ram Commercial divisions, which he's helped direct for the last two years.

Robert Hegbloom, who started with Chrysler in 1986 and has supported Ram throughout the years, will take over the Ram reins. Hegbloom previously served as director of Ram Truck Brand and was instrumental in creating, coordinating and executing the Ram Commercial side of the truck brand with the additions of the Ram Cargo Van, the Ram 4500/5500, the Ram ProMaster full-size van and the coming ProMaster City compact van. Hegbloom was also instrumental in convincing top executives that moving the three-quarter-ton Ram 2500 to coil rear springs was a good investment. After conducting our 2014 Ultimate Three-Quarter-Ton HD Challenge, we think he was right. The announcement did not say who will replace Hegbloom. Maybe most importantly, Hegbloom will become a Chrysler North American Free Trade Association board member and will be able to participate in future product plans.

There's no telling what might change in the short term at Ram, but our first opportunity to see how it handles the transition will be at the 2014 State Fair of Texas next month. Our guess is this change will be relatively seamless given how involved Hegbloom has been since the first day of Bigland's tenure as head of Ram. But we'll reserve judgment until we see the next-gen Ram 1500 or possible Colorado/Canyon fighter.

Manufacturer's image


Ram-Commercial-logo II

Ram Truck & Commercial timeline IIThis is the five-year plan for Ram Commercial as presented by Bob Hegbloom at the last year's Work Truck Show. The show is typically a good place to meet with fleet buyers who want to know what's coming so they can better plan for their business's future. 


IMG_7944a II

This is Bob Hegbloom introducing Easton Corbin at a special event in Las Vegas before the American Country Music Awards, where he got to announce to quite a few excited dealers that Ram had just sold more pickups than Chevy for the month. 


nice job Ram, looks like GM will have a lot of catching up to do.


Nothing on that roadmap for a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle. I guess I can cross this one off my list.

It was evident to me that Ram was being ran by a "truck guy" when Fred Diaz was at the helm and to some extent Bigland. So I hope for a truck fans sake this new man is of like nature.

"Well diesel truck drivers have always been competitive family. Lately some of my buddys disown my Duramax and me. I guess its because, I just kinda left them sit n. Lord I guess I'm just carrying on that Duramax tradition. Don't ask me Chase what do you think when you leave me in a cloud of smoke. Why did I have to go and buy a Power Stroke. Over and over my Duramax keeps on winning, so if you drive a Cummins you better start run n it's a Duramax tradition."

Ladies and gentlemen The Duramax song!

If Ram is serious about commercial trucks, they need to think about bringing over some Iveco models. Money spent on Alfa-Romeo is wasted. I really hope Chrysler won't be sacrificed to keep Fiat afloat, but it looks like it is starting to happen.

Bummer, I thought the light duty major update was slated for 2016.

I remember back in the day you'd be surprised to see maybe a dozen trucks on the lot. Fast forward to today, the lot is packed full with more on the way. I remember the small town dealer back home had one truck on the lot, and it was a 3/4 ton. I was good friends withe the bodyshop mgr, we joked about it being a collector item being we saw so few of them.

@Robert Hegbloom, Do you even lift, brah?

How much has Bigland contributed to FCA?

Much of the work completed by Bigland would be the finalisation of work initiated by Diaz.

It seems Fiat's control over Chrysler/Ram is evident. What new and large changes are going to come into play to 'modernise' the current pickup fleet on offer by FCA?

I do think a steel Ram is good, especially the the diesel option. But can FCA meet future mandated FE targets with their pickups?

I did see a comment regarding Iveco. Iveco trucks would be a decent addition to the US market. They can offer light and economical trucks alongside HDs.

Iveco's would be attractive to governments and fleet operators. A more basic and cheaper to operate working truck.

Also, not much is mentioned about Jeep offering a small Renegade pickup. That would definitely have a niche market.

But I do think FCA should produce a midsize full chassis pickup for the global market. But then again the global pickup market is more competitive than the US full size pickup market.

FCA has been more cautious than many other manufacturers. They seem to be counting their beans more closely, with little or less risk.

There are rumours that Reid Bigland is being groomed to be the heir to the FCA throne.

If he can turn around Alfa Romeo he will be well positioned to lead FCA.

I got my toes in the water, ass in the sand
Not a worry in the world, a cold beer in my hand
Guts, Glory, Ram!

What to see what the 2017 light duty and 2018 heavy duty FCA Ram trucks will look like? just watch this 32 second video LOL!!

Foreign built p.o.s.

I do think a steel Ram is good, especially the the diesel option. But can FCA meet future mandated FE targets with their pickups?

Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Aug 19, 2014 4:11:04 PM

@Big Al from Oz
You speak of the Ram as if it's a relic, calling it a "steel Ram".

Since most vehicles are still made out of steel, there is no need to use the word "steel" as an adjective to describe something, that sounds silly.

Would you refer to a Honda Accord as a "steel Accord"?

Both GM and Ram have a redesign coming around the same time, so I would expect both to make use of aluminum and other composite material at that time.

The current GM pickups are in the same boat and since they aren't using a diesel, they are going to have the hardest time meeting FE standards until their redesign takes place.

Previewing your Comment

The current GM pickups are in the same boat and since they aren't using a diesel, they are going to have the hardest time meeting FE standards until their redesign takes place.








@HEMI MONSTER - Chrysler as a whole does not have a very good Corporate Average Fuel Economy number.

GM has hybrids that pump up their CAFE numbers. Those hybrids aren't cost effective to build but do give them breathing room. GM also has an advantage due to their trucks already being the lightest with current technology.

Toyota for example has an extremely good CAFE average. They could get away with selling 4 mpg Tundra's with V12 engines. They also can sell their surplus Emissions credits for cash.

Reid Bigland lifts, brahs.

I don't think my comment inferred that the Ram is old.

The reality is Ram is continuing with the steel truck, whilst it's main competitors are reverting to aluminium.

A Colorado, SUV or even a van is more likely to be in competition to the Ram than an Accord.

I also don't think the next Titan and Tundra will be in direct competition either. They will compete but will be as much competition as a midsizer.

Toyota for example has an extremely good CAFE average. They could get away with selling 4 mpg Tundra's with V12 engines. They also can sell their surplus Emissions credits for cash.


I make reference to your remarks about FE and regulation:

In fact it's a perfect object-lesson regarding all attempts to legislate commerce and corporate behavior.

Selling emissions credits for cash defeats the purpose, instead gives breathing room to out-of-compliance automakers so they can buy time. Ugh.

We differ on the role of government, but the above is a crystal clear example of regulation failing in its objectives, while simultaneously warping the product marketplace to suit the whims of bureaucrats and legislators instead of yielding to the demands of the marketplace.

@papa jim - Agreed. Buying and selling emissions credits shows that there is something seriously wrong with how governments are run not just locally but globally.

Carbon credits = just another tax.

Agreed but in the meantime the regulations are not going away. At least buying credits gives the manufacturers more time to comply. It is not realistic to remove government regulations from the equation because they are like death and taxes they are here to stay (like it or not).

At least buying credits gives the manufacturers more time to comply.

@Jeff S

Do you sit around dreaming of sh*t to piss me off?

If the manufacturer accused of something awful and he is at fault, he should be stopped pronto! No delays.

If on the other hand, the FE and climate regulations are nothing more than obstacles that Detroit eventually overcomes at the expense of our nation's truck buyers, and the automaker's shareholders--then the regulations are worthless, even are destructive--why perpetuate something like that Jeff?

BAFO Says:

The reality is Ram is continuing with the steel truck, whilst it's main competitors are reverting to aluminium.


I guess you missed that Ram already uses aluminum hoods on the Ram trucks, they also use aluminum front suspension parts. You act like Ram has not even begun to utilize aluminum at all.

Ram has targeted other areas to reduce weight in the Ram trucks as well. Ram has already stated that they can ramp up full aluminum bodied Ram trucks in short order but they do not see the need to do so at this time.

@Ram Big Horn 1500/zvirus
You almost forgot the heat shield around the exhaust is an aluminium alloy on the Fiat Ram.

Really. If you can't comprehend why and what I wrote you will possibly have problems attaining your drivers license when you leave school in a few years.

I don't support carbon credits at all.

If there is a regulation stipulating certain FE requirements, then it should be based on a model to model basis.

Even down to the point of model types, ie, 2WD, 4x4, Single or dual cab.

If the 'footprint' of a vehicle is supposed to return a minimum of fuel usage then the vehicle should be able to achieve that.

Even to the point if you bling your vehicle and increase it's weight.

Or, just use the simpler global method of weight vs FE. This allows the manufacturers more flexibility in how and what they design.

FE and emissions targets are probably one of the best instruments that has led to a more rapid development of the motor vehicle.

Even if you do or don't believe in Climate Change it has had either no impact or an improvement on the quality of the air we breath. But it has definitely had a positive impact overall on the vehicles we drive in power and FE.

What I don't like is the differences countries use in regulations to impede imports and trade. That then makes it a protectionist technical barrier, sort of like an import tax similar to the chicken tax, etc.

The odd thing is, many on this site will argue which of their favourite manufacturers produces the best FE, then whine about the emissions and FE regulations that has created those changes.

I am on the other side of the fence on carbon credits. Let me start off by saying that I am by no means a tree hugging environMENTAL nut job. However as an avid hunter, a person that goes fishing regularly, and one who loves the great outdoors I believe we should be good stewards of what we have so many generations down the road can enjoy it as much as I do. Although I would like to point out the even the environMENTAList nut jobs hate carbon credits as well because the see it as a green light to pollute.

What a lot of people don't know is that vehicle manufacturers don't have to just buy carbon credits from other vehicle manufacturers. They can buy them from anyone who has earned carbon credits from any industry. This does three things that benefit most of the people here.

1. It shifts the financial burden of cleaner air and energy research from the taxpayers through risky government loans and grants to those who actually buy things that pollute the air. There are many companies and institutions that are researching ways to clean the air and our waters. Currently their funds mostly come from taxpayer Federal loans or grants. With carbon credits, it will come from those that buy things that pollute more.

Say a company develops a machine that cleans carbon or other emissions in the surrounding air as an example. Who would buy such a machine? What profit is their to be made cleaning the air? If their is not profit in it then why would a company do it? With carbon credits there would be a profit to be made. Said company can develop these machines and use them to clean surrounding air this gaining carbon credits. They can then sell their carbon credits to other companies thus financing their research instead of the taxpayers. Remember Solyndra's bankruptcy in 2011? That loan cost US taxpayers $500 million dollars.

2. It makes it to where we as consumers will not take that much of a hit in vehicles power all at once. Anyone here remember what happened to the once glorious and powerful muscle cars in the 70's after the very strict CAFE regulations? Those 400+ hp engines turned into less than 200 hp engines just about overnight. The Corvette of all things was only producing a mere 190hp by 1981. I for one would not want to trade my off my 420 hp for 240 hp overnight even if it meant I got 25 mpgs. I want auto makers to at least keep current power numbers while still gaining fuel economy or offer both sides of the spectrum so people can choose. I don't mind paying more for more power just as I am sure some might not mind getting less power for paying less.

I know most environmental nut job critics will say it will it will slow down the development of better emissions technology. Whether a company is earning money by selling carbon credits or loosing money by having to buy carbon credits, nothing motivates a company more than the potential to gain or loose money especially huge amounts of it. Take Tesla as an example, without it selling it's carbon credits it would have went under years ago because its vehicle sales are not enough to offset costs. Yes carbon credits will make it a more gradual process, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

3. It will incentivize cleaning air when there is no current incentives to do so. Without carbon credits, companies would have to pay fines. While this will motivate companies to reduce emissions and gain more fuel economy, it will not motivate anyone to actually develop technology to clean up current emissions or pollutants. Currently, there is nothing being done about the mess we have already made. By making a market from making a profit out of cleaning air, it will further advance us to being able to maybe reverse current emissions instead of just reducing what we currently put out.

I think those that hear the word carbon credit automatically think "enviro nut job", but you have to remember that those that are real "enviro nut jobs" don't necessarily like carbon credits because they think it is not enough. While I don't think the whole carbon credit thing is perfect. I do think it is a good start instead of the alternative which is just to kill industries from overly strict regulations forcing them to either go out of business, pay huge fines that their consumers would have to pay, or meet the regulations by making their vehicles substantially less powerful while still placing the cost burden on the consumers.

@All1--Exactly, the burden is shifted to industry and not the taxpayers. The funny thing is that this was an idea that Republicans first came up with. Carbon credits are not a permanent solution nor should they be permanent but a stop gap measure to give manufacturers more time to comply. I would rather as a taxpayer give Fiat Chrysler a chance at rebuilding themselves and not be destroyed by not meeting the new mileage standards that are coming. The laws and regulations are not going away and with carbon credits it buys corporations like Fiat Chrysler the time they need to develop a more efficient fleet. People like Papa Jim do not see that these regulations are not going away and that emotions and viewpoints are not going to change what is going to happen. Corporations that have to pay plenty for these credits and will be motivated to comply but at least they will have more time.

@All1 - great post. Food for thought.

@Papa Jim--You are always pissed off. Hostility is a contributor to major disease and health issues. I am not going to let what the government does destroy my sanity and health. Just like the prayer states "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Dealing with governmental entities in my work I choose not to get anymore upset than I have in the past.

It looks like Ram is going to try and catch up with GM. Good luck because you have better odds winning the lottery.

1. It shifts the financial burden of cleaner air and energy research from the taxpayers through risky government loans and grants to those who actually buy things that pollute the air. There are many companies and institutions that are researching ways to clean the air and our waters. Currently their funds mostly come from taxpayer Federal loans or grants. With carbon credits, it will come from those that buy things that pollute more.

@All 1

There is a hidden cost in all of this crap!

Whenever investment capital is diverted from its best utilization--by silly over regulation--those many millions of dollars in capital miss their target.

Instead of investing in pipe dreams, we could be investing in the next generation of medical advancement, or better ways to grow and harvest food.

The fact that a positive by-product of these silly government schemes might result in better vehicles or cleaner powerful engines is nice to have, but it's a huge waste of capital resources to lose so much potential investment chasing some bureaucrats dreams.

@Papa Jim--The same argument can be made for US military intervention globally. Billions of dollars that has been spent on weapons, supplies, and rebuilding countries like Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent on medical advancement and better ways to grow and harvest food. Having cleaner air is a matter of health as well. If you don't want cleaner air and water you could always go to China.

@ Papa Jim

"There is a hidden cost in all of this crap! "

What is that hidden cost? Is it more that the $18 billion that air pollution control equipment alone generated for the US with $3 billion of that being exported? The environmental technologies and services industry is a huge revenue maker for the US across the world.

"Whenever investment capital is diverted from its best utilization--by silly over regulation--those many millions of dollars in capital miss their target.

Instead of investing in pipe dreams, we could be investing in the next generation of medical advancement, or better ways to grow and harvest food. "

The costs of carbon credits are coming from the consumers who buy these products since manufacturers pass along any costs making a product. The only way that investment capital would be diverted to medical advancement or better ways to harvest food is if those consumers spend money in those industries.

I don't think you have to worry about US government funds being diverted because

1. The US government has proven that it will spend money that it does not have since its inception so saying spending in one area will keep them from spending in another is frivolous.

2. The US government spends billions on environmental research through loans or grants already. It has been this way for decades. The carbon credit approach will actually keep the US from having to pour money into the research of these areas by making it it's own sustainable industry. Thus making the financial resources come from within the industries and not from the government, and it is always a goof thing when you take the government out of the equation.

All 1

Thanks for your reply, but you've been drinking the koolaid. Government cannot "create" anything.

When the government forces compliance with regulations (or fees) on the citizens and corporations, it redirects capital--pure and simple. When companies modify their strategies in order to comply with regulations that becomes a lost opportunity that might have been better suited to the company's own goals.

The funds that government compels a company or person to spend to comply with laws or payment of taxes are resources that might be better used elsewhere.

What part of that's hard to grasp? You sound like you have a lot of faith in public officials.

@papa jim

Don't get me wrong, I don't like many of the regulations any more than you do. I just think it is better we are better off with the regulations and carbon credits than with the regulations and no carbon credits. The regulations will be there for some time until we can vote someone in to make the policy changes needed to change the regulations. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

@Papa Jim

"When the government forces compliance with regulations (or fees) on the citizens and corporations, it redirects capital--pure and simple. When companies modify their strategies in order to comply with regulations that becomes a lost opportunity that might have been better suited to the company's own goals. "

And who is to say where those companies or citizens would have spent that capital? How can one say it is a lost opportunity or not because one does not know how each would spend it without regulations. What is a lost opportunity to one may not be a lost opportunity to another.

This debate reminds me of the power generator in any hospital that has life support regulation when I was at Cummins. Cummins themselves makes millions off this regulation through power generation sales ans service. There are those that say it is a bad regulation while most say it is a good one. There is also a regulation saying that building taller than 4 stories with an elevator has to have a back up power generator. Cummins makes millions off of that regulation too. That is debatable as well if it is "money well spent" or not too.

@papajim - free markets also come with freedom to exploit.

I've always said that government's job is to ensure a safe and orderly society and to protect its citizens from internal or external dangers. (Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

Unfortunately regulations tend to be made and enforced to serve the elites. That is to be expected in a political system that thinks it is okay to spend a billion dollars per candidate to try to get elected President.

People need to strive for "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" but most are too lazy to get involved. We are lucky to see 50% voter turn out.

It isn't government of the corporations, by corporations, for corporations. You can replace the 0.1%'ers for corporations. It all ends up the same.

As long as the "left" or "right" think that their way is the only way or "libertarians" think their way is the only way, we will continue to see crappy governments.

Decisions based primarily on profits and best profit outcomes work as long as you don't bother with ethics.

Ever wonder what would happen in Health Care if medical decisions were based on profits alone?

Your comment regarding your views on carbon credits is quite naïve.

What you haven't stated is the government money (tax dollars) that have made these schemes viable. How far would Tesla be without all of the handouts and subisidies?

What about all of the government money given to alternative energy. Even CNG is given generous handouts.

Carbon credits are only viable through generous handouts somewhere.

This can't be sustained. Sooner or later people will have to pay for these 'greener' ideals.

I do think we must look at what current technologies are available and maximize them. The US has vast amounts of cheap natural gas and what is occurring? Money is given to wind farms, EVs/Hybrids, subsidising inefficient auto manufacturers producing inefficient vehicles.

This money could have been used to build infrastructure that could of have been around for your grand kids, like natural gas to more homes etc. This would have had a bigger impact on emissions than the current regime of propping up industry and Washington lobbyist.

In the perfect world what you describe would work. But as you can see it's just more and more welfare to the wrong people.

Why is it that the rich are the ones subsidised more than other in alternate energies? The poor pay taxes for the middle class.

I just don't believe the US is managing itself in energy very well. It will cost massive money in borrowing supporting these feel good ideals.

If an ideal can't be supported without a handout or subisidy then is it worth while?

What is best is standards are set. If the standards aren't met, then the product can't be sold, like electrical good, food, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Why is this any different?

@Big Al

Actually my comment is not naive because it is already happening. There are companies using the money from their carbon credits sold to fund their clean air research.

The argument that Tesla used tax dollars to get their start is null since this was before carbon credits. Although using that argument kind of proves my point since the only way they got funding before carbon credits was through taxpayer money. So it they will get taxpayer money even without carbon credits then how can an argument be made for them getting taxpayer money after carbon credits came to be. Essentially they are going to get taxpayer money either way, right?

What carbon credits does is essentially puts a monetary value on 1 ton of pollution. Anyway you put it with these regulations companies will have to pay for that 1 ton of pollution either through fine or now through carbon credits. If they pay for that 1 ton through fines then it will go back to the US government to more then likely pay for some form of entitlement bill. If they pay for that 1 ton of pollution through carbon credits then that money is going to another company that is working on either reducing emissions or actually cleaning current emissions.

Just up and saying to either meet regulations or go out of business would kill the economy and put many out of work. This is a narrow minded way of looking at it, and not looking at the big picture. How can you pay for the research for technology to reduce or clean emissions if you aren't producing goods to make the money needed for research and development?

As I said before, carbon credits make it to where there is a profitable market for cleaner emissions since it puts a monetary value on pollution. This in turn takes the government out of the equation since it is the private sector that trades these credits for monetary value by their own acts of either cleaning the air to sell their credits or polluting it and having to buy credits. Any time there is a profit to be made then businesses are sure to follow to let capitalism take its course.

BTW, Tesla made $80 million selling their credits in 2013. That is $80 million that can go to doing more research for better technology to reduce emissions creating more jobs instead of going to the government so it can be used to bribe its own people with their own money through entitlements.

I would much rather that money go back into the economy to create more jobs that actually help the environment than back to the government through regulation fines.

The naivety isn't about what's already occurring, it's about the sustainability of what is occurring. It just isn't sustainable and self driven. It requires lots of tax dollars.

My view is like the food and drug, aviation, electrical, etc. industries if a vehicle is supposed to make 25mpg and it makes 24mpg, then it should be allowed to be sold.

If FE targests are real then the offsets with carbon credits wouldn't be necessary.

Imagine having an operation and you have a dud doctor and he screws up. But his response is, "That's okay because another hospital offsets our stats by being better".

The piss poor hospital will be shut down, a vehicle manufacturers or for that matter any manufacturer should be able to meet standards. Standards are standards and should be met by all.

I don't believe in subsidising by the sale of carbon credits to offset sub par performance, sort of like protection. This method of managing has caused a lot of issues in the OECD economies already.

The idea that someone has to be compelled by the government to behave in a benign or even a positive way is beyond my comprehension.

Every year millions of American workers and investors are required to file various Income Tax documents. They bear 100 percent of that compliance cost in the form of giving hours of accounting work to the govm't for free. If you hire a tax professional to help, it's on YOUR dime.

In effect we are required to work without pay to fulfill a legal requirement. If Walmart execs demanded something like that from their workforce you'd see federal agents frog-marching the Walmart "suits" off to jail in handcuffs.

The IRS execs? No problem--they'll just take early retirement and plead the Fifth Amendment if asked about it.

@papa jim - human nature is such that the path of least resistance is the preferred choice. Most people will act in a dishonest way if they think they can get away with it. Getting incorrect change back at a cashier is a prime example.

As society has grown in size so has the complexity of interactions. When people lived in small tribal groups it was easy to follow the norms of the group. In a society of millions anonymity is assured.

Another prime example and you can research it if you don't believe me:
A person is much more likely to be seriously assaulted without intervention if a large crowd is watching. If there are only a few spectators intervention is much more likely.

@Big Al

"It just isn't sustainable and self driven. It requires lots of tax dollars."

These two sentences makes me believe you do not fully understand how the carbon credits work. They are not tradeable for tax breaks or tax money. They are only sold to other privet sector companies.

Basically, it works like this. Each credit is a permit to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide or and an equivalent gas. These credits are bought and sold on carbon markets. It basically makes pollution like a commodity. Just like any commodity, there are makers and there are users.

The makers of these credits are companies like Tesla that make product that emit less than their industry is regulated to or none at all. For every vehicle they produce with less CO2 emissions than what is regulated, then they get one carbon credit. There are also other companies or institutions like Carbon Engineering that develops and technologies to remove CO2 from the air. These companies get one carbon credit for every tonne of carbon their technologies remove. These credits can only be sold to the users which in turn funds the company for more research and development that used to mostly come from government grants. They cannot be traded for tax credits or tax breaks.

The users are companies that pollute more than what is allowed by regulation in their industry. Let's just stick with a name you know like Mazda, and I will use made up prices and amounts. Lets says Mazda's vehicles that it produces did not meet regulation for that year and went over by 50 tonnes of CO2 which is 50 carbon credits. Mazda can either shut down with a lot of people loosing their jobs, pay the fine of say $100,000 dollars for each tonne over, or it can go on the carbon market and buy 50 carbon credits for $75,000 each. Buying carbon credits would save them money versus having to pay he fine while funding carbon removal or reducing technologies.

This makes cleaning air pollution a profitable business where there was no one cleaning the air or working to reduce emissions in the first place because there was not a profit to be made in it. Where there is profit to be made then Capitalism will take over.

So you see, there is no requirement of lots of tax dollars like you say. It would also be very sustainable until the day all companies comply with regulations and do not have to buy credits anymore which is a long way off. I don't quite think your hospital analogy fits here, and regulations are not standards. They are different.

I do understand how carbon credits work.

The credits are mainly gained by highly subisidised industry.

Remove the subsidisation and handouts to companies like Tesla, Big Three, wind generation, CNG pickups/buses and on and on, then there will be little 'carbon' to trade.

It's this that makes carbon trading viable.

If you look at most countries you will find layers of red tape, protection, etc. What happens is a simple tax like the chicken tax comes out. Then the ramifications from that tax distorts, then other measures are used again to balance things out.

That's why there's a quagmire of protection, tariffs, handouts and on and on. To balance poor decision making.

The US (and Australia and others) now have created massively complex systems to manage all of these inefficiencies.

That's why I don't believe in poor regulation as opposed to positive regulation.

Regulation is like a hammer. A hammer can be used to build a house. Which creates growth and jobs.

A hammer can also be used to smash windows. This only creates jobs at a loss with no growth. That how the chicken tax works and green feel good handouts work.

They are not positive for our society.

Standards and regulations could have done all of this without handouts, subisdiese, protection, etc. Carbon credits will increase the cost of 'managing' carbon. It's unnecessary.

Drugs are a problem, do drug dealers buy 'drug' credits from people who sell non drugs? Stupid isn't it, how can you achieve?

@Big Al

No, I don't think you understand how carbon credits work based on what you just said. The whole premise of carbon credits is to make a viable market for cleaning emissions without or with less subsidies.

Currently it is almost pure subsidies that carry these companies since there is no profit in cleaning emissions. By making cleaning emissions profitable, it makes the need for subsidies to sustain the industry less, pure and simple.

Taking the "comply or go out of business" approach is what is not sustainable. What if no manufacturer can meet the requirements as from what I have read that almost all don't since it takes time to research and develop these technologies. What will you do then? Kill a whole industry putting hundreds of thousands out of work just for not meeting emissions regulations? How does that promote a sustainable economy?

I also do not see anything wrong with things like the chicken tax or a country using their own laws and foreign policies to "protect" their economy. So what if they do? All countries do it. I am actually glad the chicken tax went into place, and that it is still in place.

The problem is the companies that gain the carbon credits are mainly subsidised, protected, more or less spoon fed by the tax payer.

They are selling credits that wouldn't not have been viable.

Our country has changed it's stance on this issue and now the 'green' energy generators are complaining that no one will buy their carbon credits.

The green energy people can't survive without substantial handouts. Without this there is not carbon credit market.

Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: