General Motors Executive Doesn't Recognize Global Warming as Fact -- He Should Be Fired

Originally posted at The Seminal.

The Green Miles has the scoop:

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.

Adam Siegel debunks Lutz' bullshit:

Lutz is simply a global warming denier, seizing on truthiness and propaganda to fit his weltaunschuang rather than dealing with facts and giving some respect to actual science.  Let us be clear:  1:  Solar radiation is NOT a driver of Global Warming, the numbers just don't work.   2.  The "32,000? is absurdity (to be polite, with the (vast) majority of signers only having bachelor's degrees and no advanced studies. (On the "petition" that Lutz is referring to, see: here, here, here, etc ...

On their website, GM claims to be concerned about the environment. They even specifically address their greenhouse gas emissions:

There is no question that our products and manufacturing facilities have an impact on the environment. Not only do internal combustion engines produce emissions and greenhouse gases, but in the process of building millions of vehicles per year, our manufacturing facilities emit CO2 and greenhouse gases as well. The good news is that GM is hard at work trying to reduce our impact on the environment.

Miles has some advice for Lutz:

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.

Remember, this is the same asshole who called global warming a total crock of shit earlier this year.

So why is such a high level executive publicly denouncing corporate policy? If GM really cared about global warming and the environment they would get rid of this denier immediately.

Unfortunately, their political contributions indicate that their green talk on their website is nothing more than lip service. For decades they have been lining the pockets of politicians who actively work against fuel efficiency standards and investments in clean fuels. Here are their contributions to federal candidates over the past several cycles:

2000: $323,950, 72% to Republicans and 28% to Democrats.
2002: $271,750, 60% to Republicans and 40% to Democrats.
2004: $518,570, 76% to Republicans and 24% to Democrats.
2006: $626,330, 74% to Republicans and 26% to Democrats.

It is far beyond time for General Motors to put or or shut up when it comes to their commitment to environmentally sustainable automobiles.

Comments

[Josh Nelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for responding Tom. I'll respond with a full post as soon as I get a chance.

[fumes]

say, the volt doesn't come with solar panels in the roof why?

[TomWilkinsonatGM]

Increased energy efficiency and reduced petroleum use are desirable for a lot of reasons. There is no reason a three-dimensional human being (like Bob Lutz) can't be skeptical about global warming orthodoxy and still be wildly passionate about more efficient vehicles. Which he is, by the way.

As for GM policy, it is set by a board of directors and a senior leadership group, not by one individual. And you might be surprised to find that dissenting voices are welcome within GM. In fact, they are encouraged.

A few of these comments also ring of age discrimination -- not so good...

GM is as transparent as any company about what it is and isn't doing in the environmental area. So if you are interested in looking beyond your biases, please visit our media site: http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/.

[lb310]

Tom, I'm just curious, but in addition to encouraging dissent, does GM also encourage the stereotyping of women? It is bad enough he is up there denying science, but to imply that women who care about environment and energy efficiency more than they care about speed or flash are somehow not as attractive is obnoxious, innacurate and the kind of not so subtle sexism that ought not be tolerated.

[TRYKER]

Whoooo, last night's interview with the GM CEO was dizzifying! Who is that man? Why is he running a major corp? God gawd Gertie, this guy was off the wall.
He had that same half-smirk Cheney has, while spouting nonsense that was typical right-wing climate-denier. Now his wife and kids have to hide their faces everywhere they go, they're so embarrassed that dad is another numb-nut republican without conscience that bared it all on national TV...on Colbert yet! Thanks Stephen, you're too good.
Do you get the idea that GM hated the idea they had to manufacture a non-guzzler?
Now, is this genius going to beg US to bail out his company next? Probably.

[Calinative]

I read about the Volt and how Lutz was behind getting GM to finally figure out it was time for an electric car. I pictured him as young and innovative. I couldn't have been more wrong. He's an old stodgy businessman who is surprised to hear the youngsters are concerned about global warming.
No wonder GM has been behind the curve for so long, now on the edge of bankruptcy and begging for a bailout. It's a dinosaur of a company, run by old geezers.

[Rope-A-Dope]

I can't believe we are still arguing about global warming and the impact on climate change by man. I have to admit it is pretty discouraging.

[JonathanDS2U]

The Colbert "interview" of Lutz was another painful reminder that in America's fast-flow-of-stupid-false-information, whenever someone says something on TV and there's no one present then and there who knows exactly how to contradict them, the statement stands - is even reinforced by others passing on the chance to contradict. The Republicans seem to have learned this well, and whenever they're given the chance, we see them contradicting any non-Republican statement in any way, just to create the appearance of a rubuttal.