Even as it begs for a big taxpayer bailout, GM is still spending billions on marketing, peddling its giant gas-guzzlers to Americans who want them less and less.
It has even got the cash to try and enlist college students in its efforts to greenwash. My intern, Meg Imholt, is also the president of EcoSense, American University's environmental group, and happened to be the target of GM's latest cynical marketing attempt, which she chronicled on Greenpeace's StopGreenwash.org blog:
Usually filled with listserv emails, notes from Mom, and reminders from professors, rarely anything stirring appears in my Inbox. However, Saturday brought the urgent subject heading: "PLEASE REPLY -- Fuel Cell Car."
Like any eco-minded undergrad, bringing a fuel cell car to campus is the stuff of my dreams. As a member of American University's environmental club, EcoSense, this could be the eye-catching, consumer-educating event I've always imagined sponsoring.
Then, I read the email.
General Motors was using the campus to run its "gas-friendly to gas-free" greenwashing campaign with "Representatives on hand to give tips on how to achieve better fuel economy, info on GM's alternative fuel offerings, and hybrid technology etc."
GM was looking for student sponsors, in this case: EcoSense's green stamp of approval.
Hosting a hybrid and fuel cell car show may be the event of a student environmentalist's dreams, but promoting GM is far from eco-friendly.
As I write this, GM is feverishly lobbying Congress for $25B that it was supposed to get in exchange for fuel economy increases. The company wants the money now, but without the efficiency strings attached. Do a few hybrid and fuel cell cars compensate for such destructive policies? Do they make up for GM's opposition to stricter CAFE standards? Or the corporation's lawsuits against states for limiting car emissions?
Now, GM is asking students to greenwash?
I didn't take the bait, and neither did the rest of EcoSense. Citing GM's culture of corporate irresponsibility, we refused to endorse the auto makers latest greenwashing scheme.
For GM, it seems that "green" is not a movement, but a marketing strategy. If GM wants to profit off a green economy, it needs a green business -- one that puts efficient cars in showrooms and endorses, rather than interferes with, greener standards.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Threaded
2222 Posted 5:02 am
25 Nov 2008
I found your post here to be way off the mark and felt compelled to answer you directly. Your unabashed vile aimed at General Motors is not only incorrect, venomous and completely off the mark. How about updating your facts before you rant. GM CURRENTLY makes some of the highest fuel efficient vehicles. They have more models that get over 30 mpg than any other manufacturer. They have 7 segment leading fuel economy models (most are vehicles introduced in the last 3 years). GM also has the ONLY LEED certified auto manufacturing plant in the US and has more plants that contribute zero landfill refuse than any other manufacturer. To be clear GM has spent a billion dollars to get the fuel cell technology ready for production asap. Also take a look at the October issue of Consumer Reports where they rank return on investment for hybrids. GM has 3 of the top 6. GM is a very green company and truly cares about the environment and its employees. Stop bashing the home team!!!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:09 am
25 Nov 2008
grist.org
Permalink
racc Posted 5:50 am
25 Nov 2008
GM has fought tooth and nail against higher fuel efficiency standards destroying not only the environment but the US economy as well. You are right though. GM is well on its way to becoming a very green company by going out of business. Hopefully the government has the courage to not bail GM out.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:58 am
25 Nov 2008
Ugh-oh.
I don't know Mr. Mufson and his "Green News about the Environment" but I suspect he would be all for such new innovative motor vehicles. But he does lay out the case that converting GM to only selling the Volt wouldn't work as a "rescue" package, even with a promised $7,500 tax credit from the Fed.
And if you think GM is on the skids (many are making funeral plans already), smaller, more nimble companies such as Tesla are doing that great either - their electric sports car costs over $100,000. Wow, that $7,500 tax credit doesn't mean chit to a Tesla, does it? I'm not being a naysayer or green-washer, but it is evident that as long as the auto manufacturing economics are upside down and the price of gas trends low, it will be until sometime after 2010 or 2011 when things might get better.
Shame, would have been nice for a product roll-out right away!
sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:11 am
25 Nov 2008
Here's my hypothesis: it's impossible to affordably propel a heavy, fast, long-range car with anything other than a magical substance, that is, oil. It's been a magic pony for 100 years now, and the magic is running out.
Electric cars make sense if they are light, which means they don't go fast, and if they are short-range -- in other words, city driving. Which should be fine for most driving, no? So maybe GM/ford/chrysler should be looking into those -- and daimler/chrsyler used to own GEM cars, I don't know if they still do. OK, end of rant, it's all sammie's fault
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:20 am
25 Nov 2008
Now, I don't know if everything in the post about GM is true, but I did compare the 2008 Toyota Camry against the 2008 Chevy Impala a couple of days ago. Both 6 cylinder automatics.
The Camry got one mpg better in city driving, the Impala got one mpg better on the highway. And the Impala is a bit larger and heavier.
That tells me that it might be worth checking out the claims.
Calling stuff FUD when it is true is, in fact, trollish.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:40 am
25 Nov 2008
Toyota has stated that battery failure has been a rare event, that they have needed to replace fewer battery packs than they anticipated.
And there are Priuses/Priusii with close to 300,000 miles on the odometer and the original set of batteries.
Batteries are expensive. One can make a BEV car that is fast and goes ~240 miles per charge but a good hunk of the $100,000 price tag goes to the batteries.
That price will decrease with volume manufacturing. Initially car companies might not be able to make a profit due to battery price, but as manufacturing scales up, costs will drop.
Startup technologies often require support to get to a profitable state.
In order to bring down the price of computers the government made millions of dollars available to universities to purchase very expensive early models.
Wind turbines required lots of tax credit support before people would invest money for the first wind farms.
And cheap gas, don't count on that being a long term luxury. Right now I suspect we're getting a huge price break because production was ramped up by $140+ a barrel prices. Old wells that weren't worth the effort for $50 oil we put back on line. Any old rusty tanker that could carry more gallons than it burned was put back to sea.
Refineries locked down "affordable" oil at $130 and now are getting that stuff delivered. Their tanks are full so they have to cut prices drastically to move some product in a slow market.
This bubble shall pass.
Production will slow, is slowing now. Oil producers realize that oil is not forever and they can do the math that tells them that selling less at $100 is better than selling more at $50.
Permalink
Chris McMasters Posted 12:55 pm
25 Nov 2008
http://www.fiberforge.com/
GM may have a LEED certified plant but Subaru has a zero-waste facility that is also a certified wildlife habitat:
http://www.subaru.com/sub/misc/environment/index.html
However, Subaru has a ways to go with mpg...
Since big oil continues to rake in record profits, maybe they should bailout the big three... I read recently that Exxon Mobil is sitting on 37 billion... What was that number the big three wanted? Perhaps the automakers should be panhandling BP instead of US...
I think algae biofuel has the best promise of short-term success although it's been out of the news lately. It won't interfere with our food system and doesn't require nearly as much land as ethanol or soy biodiesel.
http://www.solixbiofuels.com/
And don't forget the main reason GM has not progressed (or anyone else for that matter) is because big oil frigging owns our government. There are a lot of people out there who simply don't want change for the common good. Alternative fuels and cars will not help big oil maintain their dominance.
In time, hopefully before we run out of oil, we'll have invested enough into batteries and fuel cells to prevent potentially disastrous climate change.
Chris McMasters
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:20 pm
25 Nov 2008
A series hybrid only has to go 20 miles or so on plug-in power to put most of the average daily mileage on the grid instead of the gas tank. Double that to 40 miles and these cars will rarely even get their motor-generators warm except on computer controlled service intervals to move the oil. That doesn't require lithium batteries; nickel-metal hydride batteries would work just fine.
The number of mistakes that US automakers is just too numerous to mention but the fact that my window handles kept falling off in my old Chevy S-10 isn't helping. Quality control in Detroit just wasn't comparable and is reflected in the used car prices of their products vs. Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
I could allow a bailout only with the firing of upper-echelon management and some serious concessions from Detroit. Otherwise bye-bye.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
ritapapas Posted 12:04 am
26 Nov 2008
You are off the mark, not Glenn or Meg. Yes, you build more models that get over 30mpg than any other manufacturer, but you also build more gas-guzzlers than any other manufacturer. Meanwhile, you spent millions lobbying against CAFE increases for over two decades (and thankfully, finally lost that fight last year). You're suing California for setting its own, greener, emissions standards. And you designed a good hybrid system, but have so far only put it in some of the biggest, most expensive SUVs on the road. That doesn't qualifying you as a "green" company in my book. Apparently, you still don't understand what being "green" is all about.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:18 am
26 Nov 2008
Let's punish every company that doesn't get it 100% green-correct 100% of the time.
Let's give no credit for starting to turn things around and starting to do good stuff.
You screwed up in the past? Sorry, you get no chance to change.
Let's learn from the far right.
Our way or the highway!!!!
Oh, how I love the Purity Police....
Permalink
2222 Posted 5:43 am
26 Nov 2008
Please go to the EPA web site and check your facts. The Toyota Sequoia, Tundra, Nissan Titan, Land Rover SUV and others get similar or worse fuel economy than comparable GM or Ford models. Toyota, Honda and several German manufacturers also were involved in dialogue about emissions, fuel economy standards, timing and individual states ability to make 50 separate sets of standards. Do you really mean to tell me that you want to abolish open dialogue about the impact of 50 states making up their own standards? What a nightmare for any manufacturer. GM tested their hybrid system out on busses and has over a 1000 on the road, saving millions of gallons of fuel. I believe they are in the process of scaling that down to fit into a Saturn Vibe as we speak. To announce the car today they had to have been working in it for over 3 years (normal development cycle), long before the fuel prices shot up. I agree with Bob Wallace. Lets judge them by what they are doing today and the strides they are making, not take the low road and grind a very old ax. They do employee your friends and neighbors you know....
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:43 pm
26 Nov 2008
All the wailing and whining at GM about "can't make economical vehicles" are pure sheep dip. They could roll off the same bodies they have now and install power systems later.
Freed from the constraint of dead-weight executive offices I'm sure the workers at GM could come up with production prototypes in months, not years while they continue to produce bodies.
How 'bout giving the workers at GM six months to fight for their working lives? Give us plug-in's in six months or hit the bread lines.
I think they could do it.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink