General Motors Continues to Send Mixed Messages on Global Warming

I have been participating in a dialogue with Tom Wilkinson of GM for the past several days. Here is my response to Tom's most recent comment, from Friday evening.

Tom wrote:

First, I don't think it is entirely fair to imply that Bob Lutz went on the Colbert show to mock established science. He went on the show to promote the Chevy Volt. Which is the product of established science. Steven brought up global warming. It made for good shtik.

Regardless of what his intentions were (and his intentions are questionable), the result was the same. A General Motors corporate executive with a history of denying global warming went on a widely watched television show and pushed a thoroughly discredited theory on the science of climate change. For a company with a supposedly firm commitment to being environmentally responsible, this is not acceptable. I am not the only one who feels this way, see this, this, and this.

Tom wrote:

Second, I perceive a critical misunderstanding here of what "established science" is. Yes, the theory that human activity contributes to climate change is widely accepted by the scientific community -- and by many at GM. However, as Thomas Kuhn notes in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," this theory is only a paradigm. Even within science, paradigms need to be challenged, and they are, every day. When an environmentalist (or anyone else) assumes that what we know today will be the same forever, they show a high-school-level understanding of science. In fact, they are behaving more like religious believers than scientists. They could benefit from a good Philosophy of Science course.

The condescension is not helpful and does not add anything to this conversation. This is not about my (or anyone else's) understanding of the philosophy of science. This is about General Motors' apparent inability to put forth a consistent message with regard to your policies on climate change. When the official policy says one thing, and spokesmen for the company publicly say the opposite, there legitimate is cause for concern.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the above argument doesn't seem to hold water. Aren't you basically saying: "The nature of science is such that we can't ever know anything for sure. Since that is the case, we shouldn't take the consensus of the vast majority of scientists into account when we are designing cars because we may come across new information in the future that changes our assumptions." Let me know how your argument differs from the above.

Tom wrote:

Which gets back to my central point -- Policy at GM is set by a board of directors and a senior leadership group. And under this policy, GM is making a major global commitment to developing advanced propulsion technologies, which can moderate our reliance on imported oil and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. That multi-billion dollar investment is what really matters, not some shtik on a late night Comedy Central show.

By allowing Bob Lutz to publicly challenge the near-consensus on the implications of human-caused climate change, the board is impeding the above-stated commitment. I renew my call for General Motors to do the right thing and remove Bob Lutz from such a prominent and public position. At the very least he should be reprimanded for repeatedly belittling the company's stated corporate policy.

Since Tom failed to answer my question last week, and chose to instead argue about semantics and the philosophy of science, I'll rephrase the question and pose it again:

Does GM subscribe to the fact that humans have played a role in increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Do you believe that this is the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists?

If your answer is no, can you point out credible claims to the contrary?

If your answer is yes, why do you provide a platform for, and defend, someone who disagrees with an overwhelming majority of scientists?

I'm eagerly awaiting your reply, Tom.

Comments

[TomWilkinsonatGM]

I will refer you back to the EPA fuel economy website. The only 2009 vehicles that currently surpass 35 mpg combined are small vehicles with high levels of technology. And that technology costs money.

Some future vehicles, like the upcoming Chevy Cruze with its 1.4-liter turbo four, will offer signficant improvements in fuel economy for a modest cost increase. Others like the Volt will offer a bigger improvement in economy for a larger price premium. But unless someone repeals the laws of physics and economics, there is no way around these tradeoffs.

Even with the recent fuel shock, subcompact cars like the Aveo are about 4% of U.S. vehicle sales. So smaller and ligher alone doesn't look like the solution.

[KillTheMessenger]

As promised, here is a repeat of a quote by Reuters by Bob Lutz:

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1551870320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&sp=true

""We've done the research and it's going to cost us $4,000 on some vehicles and $10,000 on others, with an average of about $6,000," Bob Lutz told reporters at the North American International Auto Show.

"That cost will have to be passed on to consumers," Lutz, a long-time vocal critic of federal fuel regulations, said."

This engineer would like to ask why making smaller, lighter vehicles with less powerful engines has to be more expensive to the customer? Is one of GM's managers trying to say that they have to punish their customers for demanding vehicles which are better suited to the requirements of an age of more expensive energy?

[TomWilkinsonatGM]

GM has a well-developed position on energy and environmental issues, which we most recently recapped in a Rick Wagoner speech to the Commonwealth Club in California. I would encourage those who are interested to read it at: http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmediaspeechdetail.do?domain=4&docid=45486

Again, I would encourage skeptics to put the rhetoric aside for a moment and look as what GM is actually doing. We are investing billions in new, more efficienty vehicles and powertrains, and in advanced technologies like the Chevy Volt, at a time when business is really tough. Talk is cheap. GM is spending real money on things that will make a real difference.

As for allegation that I am a right winger, my family and coworkers will find that hilarious.

[MGhamma]

T.Ws comment on this thread is typical denierspeak. He still ignores the question posed, and then links back to a previous thread where he ignores the question posed. He's locked into a rhetorical loop and won't come out. So any discussion with him will just go around in circles and go nowhere. A waste of time.

[TomWilkinsonatGM]

This looks to me like the classic "beating of the dead horse." If you go the Josh's posting on Friday, it covers this same ground.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/general-motors-responds-d_b_127801.html

If "sending mixed messages" means I don't agree with everything Josh says, then I guess I am.

For more information, I invite you to check out gmfactsandfiction.com, which addresses a lot of these issues and includes links to more detailed GM and non-GM postings.

[KillTheMessenger]

If we are beating the dead horse, and I am afraid that I have to agree with you that we are, in your analogy that dead horse would be your own company.

One can not expect a fruitful discussion about something as complicated as science from the leadership of an economic entity that has failed to even properly diagnose the conditions of its own market.

The supply-demand realities and risks of the oil business are well documented and the necessary data is available publicly. The largest automobile manufacturer can be expected to expend at least a couple of FTEs on the analysis of the supply side realities of the fuels that power its products. Unlike climate science understanding the development of oil supply and thus prices is not rocket science.

But by looking at GM's product line one can easily conclude that you either did not spend that money or that you did not act on the warnings you were given by your own researchers. In contrast at least some of your competitors obviously have come to the correct conclusions and had the foresight to act on them well over a decade ago.

Since GM failed intellectually at market analysis (which should be part of your business process by any definition of a modern corporation), we can not expect you to do better on something that is neither your core business nor your responsibility. We can, however, call your meddling in these issues by its real name: corporate hubris.

[KillTheMessenger]

To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that Tom Wilkinson simply parrots a prefab right-wing think-tank position on climate change. He does not have the intellectual ammunition at his disposal to back it up and to have an honest discussion about the reasoning behind his argument.

By that I mean that I think he is completely bound by his position as GM's public relations guy. He might very well have a more differentiated private opinion, but there is no way he could publicly discuss that without violating his obligations to his employer. And one can be sure that GM's lawyers are watching every single word that leaves his keyboard.

So the real question is, why do we expect him to have a discussion that is more than a repetition of what can be found in dozens of right wing position papers?

Well, I for sure don't. And as one can see from his complete lack of response to my criticism of his position, I am not being disappointed in my expectations.