A couple weeks back, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, at a roundtable with reporters, casually mentioned that he thinks global warming is a "crock of shit." (His point was that it makes sense to develop an all-electric vehicle either way.)
Lots and lots of people, mainly bloggers, got in a huge uproar about it.
Yesterday, Lutz wrote a defiant post on GM's blog addressing the controversy. His point is that it doesn't matter a bit what his personal beliefs are; what matters is what he does, and what GM does. And he claims GM is on the ball:
General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don't: So am I! It's the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that -- and we're going to keep working on it -- via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.
...
We're going forward with these programs because it makes good sense to do so -- common sense. If it's doable, why wouldn't we do it? It would lead to nothing but good things: energy independence, lower emissions, and better air. Isn't that what we all want?
I guess as an "environmental blogger" (ugh) I'm supposed to have my ass on my shoulders about this, but I gotta say ... I'm with Lutz. Who cares what he thinks?
I'm not in the Thought Police business. It's not my place to demand loyalty oaths or try to enforce my own sort of orthodoxy. If he wants to be a dimwit on climate science, happy trails to him.
All that matters is what GM does. That's a perfectly legitimate subject for debate. But what's in Lutz's heart? I really don't care. He's not my friend, or my debate partner.
The new Senate global warming deniers
Do as Heartland says, not as it does
Slideshow: The plug-ins and electric vehicles of 2009
Comments View as Flat
Adam Stein Posted 8:48 am
22 Feb 2008
I'm mostly inclined to agree, but...
...I couldn't help seeing unintentional irony in this bit of spin from Lutz:
Hasn't that kind of the been the problem these past few decades?
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
PJD Posted 9:12 am
22 Feb 2008
On the other hand.
If I were a shareholder or employee at GM I might be concerned about a company so dependent on technology development being run by someone without a grasp of science... or someone that doesn't realize stating that it's a "crock of shit" and then characterizing one's stance as being "a skeptic, not a denier" in the same talk seems bumbling at best. Saying certain scientific conclusions are a "crock of shit" is rejecting them in about the strongest terms possible. If he doesn't realize that, he's got a poor grasp of communication... not good for corporate leadership.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 12:22 pm
22 Feb 2008
Clueless leadership
If I were a shareholder or employee at GM I might be concerned about a company so dependent on technology development being run by someone without a grasp of science.
Uh, yeah, that. And further demonstrating that Lutz is not a member of the reality-based contingent, he says General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. as if a non-gas-burning car is somehow environmentally neutral.
Memo to clue-boy: Moving mass takes energy, no matter how you slice it, and that's an environmental issue. Even renewable energy systems have ecological consequences. And building roads, and cars, and maintaining them, takes materials, energy, and land.
Is he really that stupid, or is he pulling a clever sleight-of-concept (i.e. redirecting attention away from where he doesn't want it to be)?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:24 pm
22 Feb 2008
Bwwaaack..
On the GM blog huh? Lutz is chicken, hehey.
Come and get it Lutz, you got some good old fashioned bloggerel ass kicking coming.
Vinod chickened out too. Are we being lead by wimps? It appears so.
"E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile."
No mention of plugin hybrids, what a know-nothing blowhard. He doesn't even know the difference is my guess.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ViridianSeattle Posted 3:27 pm
22 Feb 2008
Lutz has a history of being irresponsible
Read Bradsher's High and Mighty
http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=1586481231
for some of the back story behind Lutz's profiteering at other Americans' expense. Whether it was increasing highway fatalities by scaring American's out of safer sedans into unsafe SUV's, or increasing the risk of catastrophic climate change by decreasing fleet efficiency, or putting the future of entire American auto industry at risk by ignoring the end of cheap oil, if there was a way to make money at his country's expense, you can bet that Bob Lutz would find it.
Bob Lutz. When you absolutely, positively need to destroy a major industrial sector of your economy (over two decades) :-)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:35 pm
22 Feb 2008
I'm bad
I issued Lutz a challenge, over on the GM blog, hehey:
Come on Lutz, confess. Your crackpot faithbased hatred of climatology has set GM in exactly the wrong direction.
Come on over to a real environmental blog and defend yourself, if you dare.
Yeah, I'm calling you a coward and blaming you for destroying the US automotive manufacturing base. Toyota already has a plugin hybrid hypercar. With over 150 mpg.
Meet us on gristmill...
Bring your posse no problem.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 10:53 pm
22 Feb 2008
Yes, but
I agree with David's general point, but want to call attention to a specific point in the post. When Lutz says that:
I think he is spot on, not just for himself, but for the whole automotive industry. And we ought to be just a bit cautious about that. A part of the reason hydrogen is so attractive to the auto industry is not because it is cleaner per se (as Joe Romm and others have made clear), but because it gets the environmental compliance monkey off the auto makers back. Ditto for electric vehicles.
Thus, whether these fuel types are cleaner or dirtier on a well-to-wheels basis is separate from the motivation driving the auto companies - there is simply the reality that if they can get to a vehicle where the emissions are produced elsewhere, they suddenly get a huge cost savings and potential marketing coup. This is not a judgment on the auto industries, but is a real driver nonetheless - and urges caution as we evaluate which "clean fuel" vehicles get the most support from the industry.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:26 pm
22 Feb 2008
Wow
The gutlessness. I guess you guys are used to puckering up to power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Yellowcat Posted 7:10 am
23 Feb 2008
He's no chicken, he's an ostrich...
So...you're insinuating that the head of a major U.S. automotive has his head up his behind? We're shocked, simply shocked. Let's see; last time I checked, G.M.'s stock was down nealy 1% for the day's trading, 31% for the past 12 months, and 53% from 5 years ago. Hmmm...do we see any correlation between the idiotic, ostrich-position thinking that people like Bob Lutz exhibit and the gasping decline of the American automotive industry? Of course we do. Mr. Lutz and his ilk have their fingers firmly in their ears (not easy to do when one's thumb is so busily engaged elsewhere) while they stomp their tiny feet and turn red in the face while screaming at the top of their lungs that climate change, `Is not is not is not is not is not.....'
Of course, none of this addresses the real keystone problem, which is overpopulation. Until someone is willing to bell THAT cat, every other measure is just a half-step.
Feed your head . . . but watch out for junk food!
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 10:36 am
23 Feb 2008
Vice President Lutz
I've been promoting the idea of having John McCain have Bob Lutz be his running mate. I think it would be the perfect compliment to have a Conservative Rationalist running with a Moderate on the Republican side.
Permalink
HKenig Posted 11:32 am
23 Feb 2008
If you knew Bob....
Easy to shoot at an enemy you can't see. Know Lutz, you'll get his position.
I've closely watched him, and understand how the pragmatism you hate works at the helm of his massive industry. It's not coming from unsophistication, blindness or stubborness, but an evidence-based view that eschews ready-fire-aim... maybe something learned as a fighter jock.
Where he sits (by choice, being late-70s) Lutz is planning GM's market position 10 years hence and beyond... deciding which vehicles and what strategies serve the broad base it takes to sell several million cars and trucks a year, long after he's gone. Be glad the Volt is his personal favorite.
As carbon arguments coalesce in the big picture, you can bet Lutz will get it faster than anybody else likely to head a car company, anytime soon.
Ironically -- knowing the big-auto cheeses, these days -- a smart, no BS engineer like Bob Lutz is likely the environment's best friend among them.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:08 pm
23 Feb 2008
Umm, no...
...HKenig, if Lutz is thinkin' 'bout fuel-efficient and eco-friendly vehicles for ten years in the future, then he is VERY far behind. The Japanese and Korean car companies were way ahead of him...more than 20 years ago. And are even more so now. Gm has been strugglin' to catch up for awhile now, but they can't, and their bottom line has finally started to reflect their inadequacy in that respect.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 4:31 am
24 Feb 2008
GM stealing Green @ Tinseltown
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetail ...
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 8:20 am
24 Feb 2008
amazingdrx and other ignoramuses
Your crackpot faith-based belief in anthropogenic global warming is reflective of scientific ignorance. It is clear that you are unaware that increasing warmth over the ages has been followed, by nearly a 1,000 year lag, by higher CO2 levels. It appears from history that warmer temperatures are more likely to cause higher CO2, than vice versa. The earth has had CO2 levels many, many times higher than today in the distant past, with no human activity at all! I am confident you are also ignorant of the fact that 95% of the global atmospheric greenhouse gas inventory is water vapor. CO2 accounts for less than 4% of the effect, has decreasing impact as the concentration rises, and that 96.4% of CO2 is emitted by natural sources. Only 14% of the anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 is from vehicles. If you have adequate arithmetic skills, unlike your writing skills, you too can calculate that all motor vehicle CO2 emissions contribute about .5% of annual CO2 emissions, which comprises .002% (two thousands of 1%) of the Global Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
Mr. Lutz knows that customers want fuel economy, but only after they have the capability, features, style, and cost they demand. Well over half (57%) of the vehicles sold in the U.S. last year were trucks. It is a shame that their is such ignorance of the truth. It is doubly painful to see this ignorance contribute to the demise of the domestic auto business. In case you haven't noticed, manufacturing in the U.S. is already under great duress, not because American business men are stupid, but because the economic deck is stacked against them by the power of unions and government policies. You probably just think they are all stupid unlike the wise and caring Japanese. Didn't you get the news, Toyota is against regulations that put them at odds with their customers too.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:21 am
24 Feb 2008
Remember the Stirlec: GM's first hybrid
I can hardly believe that Lutz has the nerve to cash his paycheck except when you recall the whole nation is run by crooks. The flat truth is that GM has had the ability to build a flex-fuel series hybrid since.......1969.
In 1969 GM announced that they had built the Stirlec, a series hybrid, external combustion engine powered testbed that got great mileage. Of course any 20 hp generator could have substituted for the the funny stirling engine but you get the point. The system was complete in '69.
So for the past 38 years when GM has complained that they couldn't make a more efficient vehicle they've been completely full of shit. This has been proved time and time again sometimes with all GM parts as Jonathon Goodwin does. Those Isuzu diesel pickups that were sold in the 80's are still running and a minor modification (propane boost) gives them more power, runs them quieter and reduces emissions. GM held a major share in Isuzu (surprise).
Whatever the real reason was for hiding effective technology it wasn't feasibility. I'll only be happy when the last GM office closes and the last GM board member goes behind bars for crimes against humanity. When somebody bitches about the the decline of the american automobile industry I can't help but say good riddance. Those fools have pocketed cash at our expense for too long.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 8:35 am
24 Feb 2008
Remember the Stirlec: GM's first hybrid
What ignorance! GM released the most advanced, most efficient electric vehicle- the EV1. Bad news- no one wanted it. $Billions down the drain. Hybrids have no business case unless fuel goes much, much higher than it is now. Simply put, the consumer pays more for the technology than they will recover in the life of the vehicle. Oh, what about Prius? Toyota has manipulated the weak minded to think they are so green by selling that product at a loss. All the while, they have had the greatest decline in corporate average fuel economy of any maker as they have expanded into the powerful, large, PROFITABLE vehicles that the market demands.
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 8:42 am
24 Feb 2008
Blame America First?
The real crime is the stupid opinion that ALL AMERICAN BUSINESS IS RUN BY CROOKS! What a twisted, self destructive perspective. You must be on assistance or, if even employable, work for a government agency. One thing is clear, you know nothing of which you speak, while exuding the presumptuous arrogance only a fool is capable of.
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 8:56 am
24 Feb 2008
Remember the Stirlec: GM's first hybrid
And another thing- GM has never said they couldn't make a more efficient vehicle. They know, as the market proves, that they don't sell. The vaunted Prius, accounted for a whopping 1.1% of the U.S. market last year, and you may note that Honda has dropped the Accord hybrid due to poor sales. The latest hybrids from Toyota are being marketed as performance enhancers. Meanwhile, as GM heavily subsidizes their hybrid SUV's, which save many times the fuel of the Prius compared to their non-hybrid counterparts, you look the other way.
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 10:55 am
24 Feb 2008
Green Engineer?
Are you a real engineer? If so, you cleverly hide any sign of it. Do you think everyone should just ride their bikes to work, play, vacation,etc?
It appears to me (a real engineer) that you are the stupid one. For God's sake, what more could be done to take the car out of the environmental equation than moving to electric and fuel cell vehicles? GM has and will continue to spend $billions on these initiatives. The terrifying prospect from a business perspective is that consumers are unlikely to spend the money to buy them!
Do you just want to control the lifestyles of others?It appears that you wish humans didn't exist-no roads, no vehicles, no freedom of movement. That's the end game of your argument.
I'll wager you have not calculated the tiny, tiny portion of global greenhouse gases added by motor vehicles annually -about .002% (in case you are not a real engineer, that is two thousandths of 1%). Even if you discount water vapor as the 95% factor that it is, vehicles only contribute about .5% of annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and only 14% of the anthropogenic total. Seems like a hell of a "mountain out of a mole hill". You are the one who should get a clue.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:13 am
24 Feb 2008
Kinda wound up eyh dan?
That's a real shame. Do what Lutz evidently does, go listen to some Limbaugh until you calm down.
Serial lying and insults disguised as patriotism do not a successful argument make. As we see by car salesman Lutzs' relative success in industry, bullying works in the media, boardroom, and halls of congress, but not here in blogland.
Sorry about that, but you'll have to try reason to get any respect here. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:46 am
24 Feb 2008
Detroit's problems are well documented
#1 problem: poor quality control. #2 problem: lack of fuel efficient vehicles. #3 problem: arrogance.
The same american workers when working at a Toyota or a Subaru plant seem to be able to produce perfectly fine automobiles without the quality control problems.
The same american consumers that are leaving GM products on the lots are going over to the Toyota lot to look at the Prius. The Prius has captured the majority of the hybrid market because it's a superior vehicle to anything close to it's cost in comfort and convienence.
The Prius gets better mileage than any comparable hybrid. It's HUGE inside with plenty of room for my 250 lb self in the backseat. It's quiet and it handles well in city driving. It's simply a better car. The Impala is the same size but it's noisy, a gas hog and a squeeze to get into.
Now GM, Ford and Damlier-Chrysler sell energy efficient quality vehicles....in Europe. They refuse to import those same cars into the US market.
The real test is in used trucks. Just try and find a used Toyota or Nissan truck. There's a $1000 premium for those trucks compared to comparable years, mileage and models of Detroit trucks. Ford F-150's in particular sell for almost scrap prices around here.
As far as arrogance, if the big three automakers had supported a universal health care system exactly like Canada's they would be running profits today. A two thirds reduction in health care costs may have been socialist but it would be saving their butts if they had it today.
So Detroit Dan until your arguements go beyond "merican is better 'cause it's american" you've got nothing. Even your arguement on the electrics is crap because the addition of a 10hp gas motor would have made those cars 50 state vehicles. Never mind there was a waiting list for them here in California, the nations largest car market.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 1:54 pm
24 Feb 2008
You bet I am worked up!
Good job! You are right about me being worked up!I fear for the future of my industry and my country! I am saddened and dismayed by the lack of technical validity in the arguments here. I even have to agree with the comment that product quality has been a huge part of GM's (& Ford's & Chrysler's) problem. Although I promise you that I understand the issues and causes from the plant floor to the showroom floor.
I know that I, as a 38 year experienced automotive engineer, am very unlikely to get any respect here. I know that you are extremely presumptuous that only you see the light while having little or no technical knowledge. I do guarentee that I have written no lies though. Please tell me what you think is a lie, if you can avoid bringing up Limbaugh in your rational commentary.
Permalink
Dan Detroit Posted 2:29 pm
24 Feb 2008
Detroit's problems are well documented
You may be right about #1 & #3, but if you look at the market segments where the Japanese have expanded the most, you will note that they are larger, more powerful vehicles. Camry, Tundra, all Lexus. Honda Civic is now larger than original Accord. Accord has more power than Corvettes did not that long ago.
The current quality of vehicles produced by GM & Ford rival the best (Toyota) and exceed other Japanese (Subaru per your example)quality levels as well as almost all Europeans as measured by independent J.D. Power.
The Prius captured a whopping 1.1% of the 2007 U.S. market. They do sell a lot of Camrys & some Tundras, which you may note get poorer fuel economy than GM counterparts. Honda quietly dropped the Accord Hybrid due to slow (non-existant)sales.
The real reason we don't import European models is because no one (maybe the 1% who like the Prius)will buy them, and most can not meet U.S. safety standards particularly for rear collisions. Over half (57%) of the U.S. sales in 2007 were trucks.
BTW-How could the Detroit 3 have gotten universal health car (& what makes you think they don't want it?) if they can't vote and are reviled for even hiring lobbyists to express their views?
You really have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the EVI. Waiting lines to lease are the myth here. Even though GM spent many millions to develop the car, battery technology was inadequate, not to speak of the huge loss incurred on every one. GM (and the illustrious Toyota) are banking on a breakthrough in battery technology to enable plug-ins by 2010.
These are facts, not lies, not even spin. The Detroit 3 are not led by stupid men, they are not maliciously refusing you the cars you want. They are simply business people who have to make a buck to survive.
More importantly - motor vehicles contribute only .5% (14% of total human contribution) of the annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and do not deserve the place of infamy you assign to them.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:34 pm
24 Feb 2008
So are we all
Concerned about the failing economy and climate.
Even about failing US military and industrial empire, we want it to go green, and carry a big renewable energy powered manufacturing and technology power house stick, and speak softly with the confidence of a real super power. A green super power, first in this energy revolution.
We have proposed real solutions. Guys like Lutz are still denying there is a problem.
You'll be surprised dan, but we have utility engineers who write here who get along just fine. I'm betting that if you stuck to talking about real engineering solutions for economic and eco problems, like plugin hybrids, it would be much more relaxing.
Even if you argued for gas guzzling and against them, no problem. But pointless ranting is no fun for anyone.
Especially ranting of the loony limbaugh/coulterguist brand, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amber78 Posted 12:47 am
25 Feb 2008
Cool site: in my nature
Has anyone seen this site:
www.condenet.com/promo/inmynature
It's pretty interesting to me that Toyota (along with Diane Keaton...who knew?) is taking steps to be green. Also, they're sponsoring this season of PBS' Nature series--there's a schedule on the site.
Just wanted to share :)
Permalink
thatguyoverthere Posted 12:19 pm
25 Feb 2008
My post on Lutz' blog
I too have replied on Lutz's blog. Let's see if they allow my comment to be published. Here is the text of my comment:
On July 17, 2007, Business Roundtable issued a statement on climate change.
"According to leading scientists, there is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has been warming over the last century and increases in the earth's temperature are affecting many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas. At the same time that warming has been occurring, greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere have increased due to rising worldwide emissions of GHGs. Major sources of these emissions include the combustion of fossil fuels, tropical deforestation and other land use changes.
Because the consequences of global warming for society and ecosystems are potentially serious and far-reaching, steps to address the risks of such warming are prudent now even while the science continues to evolve. Business Roundtable supports collective actions that will lead to the reduction of GHG emissions on a global basis with the goal of slowing increases in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and ultimately stabilizing them at levels that will address the risks of climate change."
http://www.businessroundtable.org/TaskForces/TaskForce/do ...
Business Roundtable is made up of CEO's from over 100 corporations, including G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., CEO of General Motors.
http://www.businessroundtable.org/aboutUs/Memberlist.aspx ...
Mr. Lutz, were you aware that your CEO has fallen for a "crock of ----?" Would you care to explain the contradiction between your position and Mr. Wagoner's?
Would you care to explain why there are over 700 scientific, academic, and corporate organizations worldwide that endorse the idea that the climate is warming, human activity is significantly contributing, and the risks of inaction are real?
Furthermore, would you care to explain why there is not one single scientific, academic, or corporate organization willing to endorse your own view on climate change as being a "crock of ----?"
Thank you for your time.
Permalink