'An exceptional degree of uncertainty': Mercedes-Benz abandons 2030 electric-only production target

'An exceptional degree of uncertainty': Mercedes-Benz abandons 2030 electric-only production target



Luxury car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz will no longer target 2030 as the year it will complete its transition into manufacturing electric vehicles only.

After announcing the goal in 2021, the German automaker blamed "market conditions" for a lack of EV sales and consumer demand not meeting expectations, a reality nearly every major automaker is now seeing.

The company announced in its investors outlook that rather than go all-electric by 2030, it plans to be "in a position to cater to different customer needs," which include an all-electric drivetrain or an electrified combustion engine "until well into the 2030s."

However, the brand did claim that it expects EV sales to make up half of its overall sales in the second half of the 2020s.

In addition to stating that "customers and market conditions will set the pace of the transformation," Mercedes blamed an "exceptional degree of uncertainty" in automotive markets and cited nearly every major world conflict as its reasoning.

"Middle East conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war, and other regional crises" were noted, as well as "tensions" between the United States and China, and even "political relations" between the European Union and China.

Supply chain issues and bottlenecks for critical production components were big risks the company stated, specifically for raw materials and energy. Along with inflation, nearly every conceivable factor was mentioned by Mercedes-Benz as a reason that EVs aren't selling through the roof.

The company was much more confident when it made its ambitious announcement in 2021, committing $47 billion to complete an all-electric output by 2030.

"We are convinced we can do it with strong profitability, and we believe that focus on electrical is the right way to build a successful future and to enhance the value of Mercedes-Benz," head of Mercedes-Benz Ola Källenius said at the time. Mercedes did carve out a trap door for itself in 2021, however, when it said its sale of electric vehicles would be "where market conditions allow."

Clearly that has not yet come to fruition, with the company saying its sales would "soften" and be "slightly lower" in 2024 compared to the previous year.

The company remained confident that it is ready for the "tipping point" into the "all-electric era" and that improved efficiency in terms of battery life is on the horizon.

Mercedes-Benz joins companies like Ford, Honda, and GM in its electric production slowdown, while the Biden administration has delayed requirements for restrictions on exhaust emissions ahead of the 2024 election.

Still, Mercedes-Benz has faced some rather public blowouts for its electric models, which have been seen catching fire, not unlike other electric car brands.

As reported by Breitbart, an EQB model caught fire while being charged in a Malaysian showroom on New Year's Eve 2023. The outlet also noted a Mercedes-Benz EQE350+ electric vehicle caught fire in a Florida garage, causing around $1 million in damage to the home.


At the same time, Mercedes-Benz also announced it is advancing its automated driving programs and will look to "optimize its industrial footprint" as it hopes to lower costs for electric vehicle production to bring down prices.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

United Nations report: $150 trillion needed 'to combat climate change and its impacts'



The United Nations recommended that $5.3 trillion is required annually to combat climate change and stop the warming of the Earth, according to the organization's latest report.

The U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social affairs released its report on the World Economic Situation and Prospects for 2024, reiterating its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The widely criticized goals are often used as inspiration for many Western nations' diversity, equity, and inclusion legislation, as well as policy related to climate change.

"Gender Equality," "Sustainable Cities and Communities," and "Quality Education" are among the 17 goals.

Also included are "Affordable and Clean Energy" and "Climate Action."

It is under these categories that the United Nations suggests astronomical amounts of funding in order to reach its goals.

The organization's climate action goals referred to "global climate finance," which it stated had reached a whopping $803 billion annually in 2020. This was reportedly a 12% increase compared to prior years.

However, just a few years later the global organization has decided that is nowhere near enough.

The report stated that the enormous sum "still falls short of the levels needed to limit warming" and that "fossil-fuel-related flows exceeded climate financing for adaptation and mitigation in 2020."

The full report revealed the true desired number; an estimated $150 trillion by 2050. This equates to $5.3 trillion annually to "combat climate change and its impacts," the report read. The funds are supposedly needed to transition energy and infrastructure.

The report also complained that the terms of the Paris climate agreement of 2015 have not been adhered to by participating countries. "The pledge by developed countries to provide $100 billion in climate finance annually by 2020 was never fully met, with funding totalling only $89.6 billion in 2021," the report explained.

The United Nations has also recommended other gigantic budgets to reach its sustainability goals by the infamous target date of 2030. An estimated $35-$40 billion USD was suggested to allow for universal electricity access.

The global consortium was not shy about dealing in make-believe sums of money throughout the 2024 report. The word "trillion" in relation to dollars was mentioned 52 times in the document.

Despite the never-ending climate funding, the document also noted that "conflict and climate change" caused havoc in the lives of millions, but the organization worried that it also jeopardized the U.N.'s "progress towards sustainable development."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If you want to STOP Agenda 2030, THESE are the practical steps you should take



Agenda 2030 is like a perfectly wrapped, enticing present with trash on the inside. It is presented as a humanitarian effort to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace, but what’s underneath that guise is the sinister intention to depopulate the earth and violate virtually all human rights via totalitarian control.

In order to fight back against Agenda 2030, which the Biden Administration openly supports, here are three practical things you can do, according to documentarian and Epoch Times reporter Roman Balmakov:

“When the government comes to you and says, ‘Hey, that's a nice piece of land you got there; it would be nice if we put a conservation easement on it, and we'll give you a tax break,’ you don't accept it because … what happens is you become a part of this federal nexus, and once you're accepting federal dollars, you're beholden to a lot of other rules and regulations,” Roman tells Pat Gray.

The second tip is to “watch ‘No Farmers, No Food,”’ Balmokov’s documentary that teaches people to see beyond what politicians are touting regarding Agenda 2030. While their words may “sounds nice on paper … underneath the science probably doesn't back it up, [and] it's part of this agenda to actually take over 30% of the land.”

Finally, “be extremely critical and vote accordingly to what these politicians are saying,” says Balmakov.

“And probably go to your local meetings” to understand how these initiatives are “being implemented in your local towns and counties,” adds Keith Malinak.

“It really all comes down to the same thing – more government control … of our families and our kids’ lives,” says Balmakov.


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn TEARS APART media 'fact check' on NO MEAT report



Glenn Beck has once again offended the dystopian elites.

The outrage stemmed from his commentary on a report by the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which outlined a plan for 2030 that involves limiting Americans' access to meat, dairy, clothing, private vehicles, and air travel.

The plan also identifies the 14 cities in America that plan to help you give up, as Glenn says, “meat, cars and freedom” by the year 2030.

The cities are: Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

The C40 group has an “ambitious target” to achieve these goals, which are “zero kilograms of meat consumption by everyone in their town, zero kilograms of dairy consumption, three new clothing items per year, per person, zero private vehicles owned, and a populace that only gets one short haul return flight every three years,” Glenn says.

The report is titled “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5 Celsius World.”

“You’d think that would be a major story, but it’s not. Because there’s another organization out there funded by the left called AFP Fact Check,” Glenn explains.

AFP Fact Check fact-checked one of Glenn’s videos, noting that “a video from Glenn Beck, an American conservative commentator, claims a proposal backed by the World Economic Forum would limit meat and dairy in smart cities by 2030.”

“This is false. The document cited as evidence is an independent climate analysis that makes no specific policy recommendation,” the fact-check continued.

Glenn notes that the actual fact-checker is a leftist.

“At this point, if an article or a monologue is fact-checked, that usually means there are some inconvenient facts in it. So, it’s no surprise that the fact-checker is the same guy who had to publicly apologize for botching a fact check with USA Today in 2021,” he says.

The evidence from the AFP Fact Check includes a paragraph from the original “Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5 Degree Celsius World” report, which reads, “[T]his report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities. Rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities and other actors can reflect on when considering different emission reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”

“Now, if you poke around just a little closer,” Glenn says, “you realize that this paragraph is only included in the report for liability purposes. It performs one of the left’s favorite activities: manipulating the meaning of words as a way to avoid any kind of responsibility.”

Glenn knows why they want to avoid all responsibility.

“Because what they’re proposing is totalitarianism.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Horowitz: Oklahoma Gov. Stitt touts Agenda 2030 green energy as ‘where investments are headed’



If Democrats are akin to voracious wolves seeking to turn the American sheep into a carcass, the Republicans are the vultures seeking to cash in by feasting on that carcass rather than calling in the lions to battle the wolves and protect the American sheep. Nowhere is this more evident than with Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signing on to the green energy “Agenda 2030” plan to replace cars with electric vehicles in supposedly conservative Oklahoma. Except, unlike most other Republicans, he should get points for honesty, providing us with a full understanding of why Republicans will never fight for us on an issue that matters. The reason? The money and “investments” are always on the side of tyranny.

It should now be abundantly obvious to any thinking person that the weather tyranny and green energy agenda aren’t just cute or even annoying; they will quite literally kill millions of people with starvation and lack of access to vital goods and services. They are coming for our food and fuel the same way they came for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic. Thus, any promotion of green energy, with its officious regime of government mandates and subsidies, will necessarily ease the death of energy that actually works. So we are all on the same page as conservatives that green energy must be shunned, right?

Wrong! When Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, said recently that “California is in the lead” on energy and “can show the rest of the nation how it is done,” she could have said the same thing about Oklahoma. During a confab of the Western Governors Association in Oklahoma City, Governor Stitt bragged about installing carbon-neutral green energy into the Oklahoma electricity grid and how “the number of charging stations spread out along highways can serve thousands of electric vehicles and a plan to create a new hydrogen energy hub will help the nation move away from fossil fuels,” according to the Oklahoman.

In an interview with the prominent local paper after the event, Stitt let the cat out of the bag as to why he is all in on green energy, revealing the likely culprit for why Republicans betray us on almost every other important issue. “Most Republican governors would not tackle that, but as a business person ... you're looking at where the investments are heading," said Stitt.

Points for honesty! And Stitt is not wrong. All the money is indeed with the bad guys. The money is with the Great Reset, open borders, pro-criminal policies, corporate welfare, biomedical tyranny, and green energy. Thus, if you ever wondered why Republicans refuse to hold Democrats accountable – even when their policies are so destructive and unpopular – follow the money. Or as Stitt would say, the “investments.”

At a time when we are confronted with an intractable fight for our way of life and need an opposing party to break the paradigm of the federal government working with the ESG “sustainable growth” and “Agenda 2030,” governors like Stitt believe in the old adage “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Yet the only reason we can’t beat them is because Stitt and other GOP governors have already decided to join the bad guys.

The Oklahoman explains Stitt’s feelings based on their interview as follows:

For Stitt, the growing electric car market is one he wants Oklahoma to tap into.

“The investments are heading to electric vehicle manufacturing, battery manufacturing technology, alternative (energies),” Stitt said.

Stitt has pushed for the state to spend billions of dollars in tax incentives for the electric vehicle industry, including nearly $700 million the governor got lawmakers to approve this year in hopes that Pansonic would bring an electric vehicle battery plant.

In other words, the very corporate welfare that has allowed government to artificially promote expensive and ineffective energy policies that now leave us with a crisis of our way of life is fully embraced in Oklahoma, just like in California.

Stitt will defend himself by saying that unlike in California, he still supports oil and gas alongside fake energy. But the problem with this “all of the above approach” is that given that Democrats are artificially imposing blocks on oil and gas and spurs on electric cars, wind power, and solar power, any tendentious treatment of green energy by Stitt will only help grease the skids of the “Net Zero” carbon agenda.

Perhaps if Stitt were in charge of the world, the green energy subsidies wouldn’t be as much of a threat to energy that actually works. But given that he is enabling an illusory replacement of fossil fuels, it will allow the globalists to more easily destroy the fossil fuel industry altogether, while making us reliant on wind and solar, which aren’t reliable, and electric cars, which are not only more expensive, but dependent on so many natural resources that have become scarce and expensive as a result of the Great Reset. The shortage of lithium, cobalt, and magnesium will make electric vehicles impractical, and the relative scarcity of copper and aluminum needed for the wind turbines will also make wind an expensive boondoggle for the little energy it produces. Oh, and let’s not forgot all the oil and gas needed to produce the supply chain of most of these “alternative” energy products.

Stitt brags about Oklahoma getting 35% of its electricity from wind, but the free market did not drive that outcome and never would have. Transitioning to green energy will further ease the left’s plan to destroy fossil fuels and leave us with unreliable energy. Would he celebrate a grid built upon 100% wind power? What will that look like when the air is calm, the sun goes down, but the illusion of the transition allowed the left to wipe fossil fuels off the map?

While Stitt brags about wind energy, he refuses to learn the lesson from south of his border when Texas’ grid failed thanks to that transition to “new technology,” as Stitt fondly refers to solar and wind. Rather than spending the money on energy that actually works, “red” Texas invested $66 billion in solar and wind to each compensate for each other’s failures (solar during dead wind and wind during the night). Texas became the leader of green energy long before California. Yet that did nothing for Texans during the Great Texas Blackout of February 2021, which cost billions of dollars and nearly 200 lives. This past summer, according to Bloomberg, the Texas grid had to operate “at a historic pace, often forcing them to put off maintenance to keep cranking out electricity.” Imagine if a fraction of the $66 billion had been invested in energy that actually energizes the world rather than in sources than need help from other energy to produce a fraction of the output at a higher cost.

Thus, boasting about shifting reliance from fossil fuels or nuclear energy to green energy is akin to making someone more reliant on a bike than a car for transportation. Which is exactly what they want to do. The more they use a carrot-and-stick approach to prop up fake energy, the more they box out real energy in a circuitous cycle of failure, dependency, higher prices, and scarcity of product, which feeds on itself in perpetuity.

To add insult to injury, Stitt wants to follow the California example of weakening the grid with ineffective energy sources and then further straining it buy promoting electric vehicles, which drive up the demand for electricity, thereby ensuring that the only cars on the road in his dystopian vision won’t be able to reliably run, even after paying a fortune for the purchase.

There’s a broader lesson not just in the fact that a prominent Republican governor has embraced the green energy Agenda 2030 but in the reason why he has embraced it. Stitt believes that we must “invest” in the strong players on the block. Well, the strong players on the block are not the forces of freedom that respect life, liberty, property, and the continuity of the human species in the way we understand it. The strong players are those who want us without cars, without detached homes, without abundant food and medicine, and completely reliant upon government for basic needs while eating bugs, groveling for rationed food, energy, and medicine, and having our bodies, minds, and souls constantly surveilled, if not downright controlled. This is where the money is. This is the “wave of the future.”

Kevin Stitt reflects the prevailing sentiment among nearly all GOP senators and governors. It’s not so much that all of them are inherent leftists, but that they support whatever the current corporate class does at the given time. We happen to be living in a time when the corporatists are all propped up by government manipulation and support more radical and destructive ideas than the traditional left-wing organizations of yesteryear. So, do the GOP governors ideologically support transhumanism, the biomedical security state, and “sustainable growth” in energy and food? Perhaps not, but the outcome is the same. Rather than confronting the money and power with equal and opposing force, they will seek to co-opt it, leaving us just as disenfranchised as under Democrat control.

5 Reasons Democrats Are In Trouble With Voters Until At Least 2030

The average American just isn’t behind the party of defund the police, 'democratic socialism,' and higher taxes. Who would have guessed?