GM Exec Denies Global Warming, Disses Own Car

General Motors Vice Chairman of Global Product Development Bob Lutz was just on The Colbert Report blaming global warming on sunspots and dissing his own Chevrolet Volt as a weak, unattractive car. I'll post the video here as soon as it's online.

UPDATE: Here's the video. Note to Bob for future reference - if you're going to greenwash, it's best not to come right out and deny the scientific consensus on global warming with a made-up number of people who believe in a kooky denial scheme. Kind of undercuts your alleged green credentials.

We Want More Efficient Cars. Does Detroit Get It?

I've been thinking more about the Big Three's demand for big loans ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRDe8SHSGnI

If you're a YouTube user, you can subscribe to my videos here.

And if you like the shirt, head over to BustedTees.com.

Big Three to DC: Save Us From Our Mistakes

When Congress was looking to tighten fuel economy standards last fall, the Big Three automakers launched a massive push to fight the effort. We don't need more big government regulation! Let the free market decide!

But as Steven Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post, it's a different story when they need a bailout. The Big Three automakers aren't simply asking for government help -- they think they're entitled to it:

Even before top industry executives arrive in Washington later this month to lobby for their program, General Motors' vice chairman, Robert Lutz, who never misses an opportunity to put his foot in his mouth, was telling reporters in Chicago last week that the industry "deserves" government loans because of all the challenges that have been inflicted upon it. In fact, it's hard to imagine an industry less deserving of government help.

Here are three companies that for decades failed to produce cars that were well designed, well produced and exciting to look at, that fought tooth and nail against efforts to require greater fuel efficiency and, until recently, did too little to bring wages, benefits and retiree costs in line with competitive realities. And while they whined for years that it was unfair trade that put them at a disadvantage, Toyota, Honda, BMW and other foreign transplants came along to prove that it is possible to produce quality cars at affordable prices in U.S. factories while offering decent wages and benefits.

Pearlstein goes on to say that even though the Big Three couldn't be less deserving of help, they should get it anyway because the jobs and pensions of hundreds of thousands of Americans are at stake.

I agree with Pearlstein that we need to do what we can to make sure workers and retirees aren't punished for the mistakes of auto industry executives. But the utter incompetence of those executives is just breathtaking, isn't it? They staked the industry's entire future on never-ending cheap gas. Did any reasonable person ever think $2 a gallon gas was a permanent fixture?

Expensive petroleum is here to stay. The only way alternative is to use less petroleum with more fuel efficient cars, plug-in hybrids, and eventually fully electric cars. Cheaper driving, cleaner air, less global warming pollution, and secure American jobs.

So what's taking us so long to get there?

Car Talk Guys to GM: "Why Do You Make Such Shit?"

I was catching up on old podcasts of NPR's Car Talk and heard the Magliozzi brothers mention a recent appearance on PBS. The program NOVA sent Click and Clack in search of the Car of the Future. The whole show is worth checking out, especially if you're new to phenomenal concepts like plug-in hybrids and questionable concepts like biofuels and hydrogen cars.

But this exchange in segment 6 really sums up the program. A GM rep is walking the guys through a car show, trying to show off the Chevy Volt:

RAY MAGLIOZZI: It's right next to the Ford Mustang with 550 horsepower.

BETH LOWERY: Yes. And the Camaro convertible. Isn't that great?

RAY MAGLIOZZI: Yeah.

BETH LOWERY: America is all about choice. If you want a Camaro, buy a Camaro.

RAY MAGLIOZZI: But if we're about hugging trees ...

TOM MAGLIOZZI: With 500 horsepower? Who the hell needs 500 horsepower?

BETH LOWERY: Obviously not you.

TOM MAGLIOZZI: Why do you make such shit? I mean it's ridiculous!

BETH LOWERY: You mean these popular vehicles that are on the floor?

TOM MAGLIOZZI: Yeah, these popular vehicles. Five hundred horsepower ... jeez!

BETH LOWERY: It creates a little excitement, doesn't it?

RAY MAGLIOZZI: You're good, Beth.

TOM MAGLIOZZI: Thanks a million.

RAY MAGLIOZZI: Thanks for your time.

BETH LOWERY: Thanks.

RAY MAGLIOZZI: Sorry for giving you a hard time.

BETH LOWERY: That's okay. I'm used to it.

Despite all their commercials with green trees and blue skies and cheery kids, GM makes clear that all that good corporate citizenship stuff is just greenwashing. They have only one goal -- making as much money as possible.

So the Tappett Brothers come to the conclusion that if we want to cut our gas bills, increase our energy security, and curb the worst effects of global warming, we need government incentives. All the futuristic cars in the world won't matter unless we have the right carrots and sticks to prompt the car industry to make them and consumers to buy them.

Genuine or Greenwashing: GM's Chevy Volt

General Motors has been relentlessly flogging its Chevrolet Volt "concept car," recently hosting a lavish event at DC's ritzy Georgetown waterfront to promote it.

There's only one problem. The Volt isn't much of a step forward from the EV1 of Who Killed the Electric Car? fame.

And GM's own research and development chief admitted as much, while simultaneously making a vague Giambi-esque admission that GM was, in fact, responsible for the EV1's murder:

According to the March 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns ... now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.

So why resurrect it now? From last week's Detroit News:

Plug-in hybrids will be on center stage in Washington today as the Chevy Volt makes an appearance on Capitol Hill as part of General Motors Corp.'s effort to convince Congress to pass a more palatable fuel efficiency increase.

GM's No. 3 official, Troy Clarke -- head of North American operations -- is returning to the Hill today to meet with a about a dozen mostly undecided lawmakers. He also will show off a GM concept car, the Chevy Volt, in trying to explain why the company believes the long-term answer to energy independence is through biofuels and the electrification of the automobile, rather than spending tens of billions of dollars to meet 4 percent annual corporate average fuel efficiency. (emphasis added)

And there you have it.

A Democratic Congress is rapidly accelerating towards tightening fuel economy standards for the first time in 17 years, and this is GM's way of trying to divert attention. We know we've ignored fuel economy for 17 years, giving you SUVs, ever-larger pickups, and the Hummer along the way. But we don't need regulation! See this Volt? It's proof we've learned the error of our ways!

Don't buy it. The argument, not the car. (You can't buy the car -- it's just a concept that won't be on the market until at least 2010).) GM foolishly passed on the chance to be a pioneer in the electric car sector, with the explicit endorsement of President Bush:

"As soon as George Bush got elected, the U.S. car companies walked away from the partnership and didn't continue developing hybrids," [Clinton administration Energy Dept. official Joseph] Romm said. "And the Japanese did. As a result, they ended up the leaders."

Now they're trying to suppress tough fuel economy standards by greenwashing themselves with the Volt. But what happens if a Republican president is elected in '08 and the Senate swings a vote or two back to the GOP column?

Who's to say GM wouldn't kill yet another electric car?

(cross-posted from RaisingKaine.com)