Ever since it was a prime suspect in the death of the electric car, GM has been accused of greenwashing - claiming it supports climate action and alternative energy while being late to adopt hybrid technology and opposing higher fuel economy standards.
But a GM executive may be setting a new standard in underestimating your intelligence. Even though he's called global warming a "total crock of s---," Bob Lutz says in a new blog post you should think his opinions don't matter.
First, Bob Lutz implies either his words weren't chosen carefully or misconstrued. He refers to it as an "offhand comment," telling us to, "Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it."
But in the very next sentence, Lutz not only owns up to the comment in full, he asks us to believe his positions have no impact on the company:
My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really.
So there you have it. Pay no attention to the global warming denier behind the curtain! Look over there, at that shiny new electric car that you can't actually buy!
But this is what I want. http://www.teslamotors.com/
Electric makes more sense to me as someone who LOVES a good fast car or truck. The performance to efficiency curve is much better than a combustion engine. But getting the juice for that into a battery small and safe enough has been a problem. Lets get that fixed.
Show me a car, much like the Tesla, that kicks ass with power and speed and I will show you a car that will sell. We just really need to solve that battery problem.
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."
How long did Detroit fight, first, seat belts, and later air bags, claiming they were too costly and consumers would not pay? How long and how much money did they spend trying to stop mileage guidelines?
Fine, so over time, capitalism worked, and Toyota, Honda, et al., ended up eating their lunch.
The question is, how many live were needlessly lost, how many people needlessly paralyzed and how many children maimed by these bad business decisions? And yet, how much did the executives who made these decisions walk away with in severance and options when their time came.
Yeah, some market.
Well, now we're talking about the entire planet, and we can't afford to wait until free markets work their magic to counter these jokers.
I'm pretty much as capitalistic as they come without being libertarian (though some who know me would not agree with that characterization), but this market-based argument is the one that ignores reality, IMHO.
I agree 100% with your statement about altering the landscape with "standard tools" - which does mean government action because the free market (whether driven by CEOs, BODs, stockholders, consumers, or anyone else) will not put the necessary constraints on the overall system in order to change the dynamic in the short time frame in which we must act.