Dear Mr. Glenn Hurowitz and Meg Imholt,

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!!!

GM has their very own trolls!

grist.org

2222

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.

Interesting blog thread. I just got done reading an excellent article in the Washington Post (Mufson, 'Car of the Future but at What Cost?, Washington Post, November 25, 2008). None of the plug-in hybrids are profitable to sell and rumor is that Toyota loses money on each Prius sold. All car makers want bailout, supports, mandates, and subsidies to make it work. The reason:  commercial batteries and drive trains are too expensive, too heavy, and don't last.

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

I've been skeptical of hybrids for a long time now.  Why is Toyota not ramping up faster?  They've had the Prius for years now -- and I bet if you looked at it, they probably ramped up their SUV Tundra faster.  Then I read where they were having problems with ramping up battery production -- as if anybody with half a brain couldn't figure out that you need more batteries with an electrified car.

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

Which is trollish, posting some facts (that can be checked if you doubt them) or posting an attack on someone without backing up your position?

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.

The batteries in the Prius are long-lasting.

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.

Dear GM,
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.

Hey!  Great idea!!!

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....

Ms. Rita Pappas,

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....