|
||
General Motors Responds, Defends Global Warming Denier Bob Lutz
I wrote yesterday about the fact that a top executive at General Motors doesn't accept the role humans play in global warming. To be clear, man made global warming is established science. Anyone who says otherwise cannot be taken seriously.
Incredibly, General Motors dispatched Tom Wilkinson, Director of News Relations, to defend both Mr. Lutz and the company's environmental policies. He did so by commenting on my piece on Huffington Post. He wrote:
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/.
"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." To be fair, on the surface, that is accurate. It is also fair for us to expect some consistency from General Motors though. GM's Vice Chairman of Global Product Development should not be going on popular television shows to mock established science. Big auto has a long history of using attacks on the science of global warming in order to resist researching alternative fuels and increasing fuel efficiency. Mr Lutz' comments also fly in the face of the company's corporate policy on the environment.
Wilkinson continues: "You might be surprised to find that dissenting voices are welcome within GM. In fact, they are encouraged." The organization's lack of conviction with regard to the science of climate change is on full display here. "Dissenting voices" implies that there is a legitimate scientific debate about the merits of climate science. This is simply not the case. Would you encourage a dissenting voice who denied gravity? No, you wouldn't. If General Motors accepts climate science as fact they should not allow Bob Lutz to speak for them. If they think there is a legitimate debate in which "dissenting voices" deserve to be heard, they should make that clear.
Wilkinson writes: "A few of these comments also ring of age discrimination -- not so good..." One of the comments called Lutz an "old stodgy businessman" and said the company was "run by old geezers". This is not relevant whatsoever, and I'm not sure why Wilkinson brought it up. Trying to deflect the legitimate criticisms perhaps?
Wilkinson finishes his comment a bit defensively: "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/."
I am interested in looking beyond my biases and learning more. So, Tom (or anyone at GM), here is my question:
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 established science?
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 established science?
I have corresponded with Tom Wilkinson today via email. I have just emailed him a link to this post, and offered him the opportunity to respond on The Seminal. I sincerely hope he takes me up on this offer.
Follow Josh Nelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/josh_nelson
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Note to GM: Please stay out of culture war issues. Focus om making good, reliable, safe, and energy efficient cars. I am not interested in the position of GM on warming science. It has adopted a very backward position. Even the Bush administration now admits that warming is caused by man. If GM wants to get on the side of the fundamentalists in society, it has certainly lost me as a customer. It is very arrogant of GM to take sides on an established scientific consensus without having strong scientific arguments to back it. This arrogance is probably why the company has failed so miserably over the last several decades.
The question I have about GM's hybrid is can we trust them to make a good one?
Their response in defending Lutz is rather condescending (in fact, almost juvenile) and indicates to me that they may be looking at the Volt as more of a pro forma token gesture than any real commitment to environmentalism. The statement also reminds me of tobacco company executives insisting cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Consequently, given the nature of their response and GM's past history, I have little confidence that the Volt will match the quality, both in terms of fit and finish and engineering, of the Japanese. I just don't see their hearts being in it.
Let's play a little engineering game, shall we?
So we know the Volt is a series hybrid. We also know that the car should be able to achieve 100mpg when running on gasoline. Let's assume that's possible at 60mph. Then we can calculate a fuel consumption of 0.6 gallons per hour. 0.6 gallons of gasoline contain 0.6gallons*130MJ/gallon=78MJ of energy. Assuming that the engine is as good as the one in the Toyota Prius, the efficiency will be around 30% and it follows that 0.3*78MJ=23.4MJ will be available as mechanical energy. Dividing by 3600s/hour we find that's equivalent of 6.5kW or 8.7hp power output. In other words, the Volt will need an engine with less than 10hp average power output. Usually such an engine looks like this:
http://www.brushchippers.net/10_hp_chipper.htm
I do not endorse this particular brand of chipper, by the way. I am simply trying to demonstrate to Volt aficionados what the engine of a properly designed full series hybrid with 100mpg efficiency will look like. In reality they will probably have to make it a lot bigger to minimize the wear and tear on their batteries, get the efficiency up and the car will not get anywhere close to 100mpg, but that's a different story.
My response to GM leadership's denial of the scientific consensus on human contribution to climate change was simple. I sold the Chev and bought a Honda. As a consumer, company philosophy is important.
I have read that the VOLT will not be released until 2010, because the lithium-ion batteries are not yet ready. GM is hoping to get about 40 miles in an all-electric mode when the batteries are ready, and then the electric motor will be powered by a 1.6 liter fuel-efficient, gasoline engine, correct?
Here is a question for anyone from GM, please: If, as I have heard, the electric motor and the batteries will be run and charged by an on-board internal combustion engine (ICE), then, why is it not feasible to run early versions of the VOLT on the same batteries that Toyota has been using for years now? Even if using less efficient, cheaper batteries meant that the first models could only get about 13 kilometers in EV mode, as Toyota is planning for its first PHEV test models, would not the car's fuel economy still be a very signifigant improvement over what most of the cars currently on the road are capable of?
Another reason for using less powerful batteries, in the beginning, besides their ready availability, is their signifigant cost savings. Perhaps it really would be possible to sell the car for $30,000 or less, if GM used cheaper batteries.
A PHEV that could get about 7 miles in EV, and then got good fuel economy with its ICE driven electric drivetrain, would be practical for me, if the price were low enough.
A hybrid or electric vehicle has to be designed as a system, with the batteries, control electronics, motors and the vehicle itself designed as a whole. To engineer the Volt with nickel metal hydride batteries, then re-do it shortly afterward with lithium ion, would be wasteful and cost more that GM can afford. We do have a plug in version of the Saturn Vue hybrid under development, and that will be a good alternative for someone who doesn't need the extended electric range of the Volt.
On this topic, how much longer can GM afford to be a loss leader in the field?
As an observer of your company's financial problems I have to wonder if it is really relevant to watch the development process of the Volt? It is not obvious to me that it will survive what looks like GM's financial trajectory towards bankruptcy. And I would certainly say that the market does not see this much different as the constant decline of your stock price shows:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/gm-stock-price-june08.gif
Even if Volt development were to go on beyond the horizon of the current GM, which I believe will emerge as a much smaller corporation after the bankruptcy, given the current time lines of Volt development and the typical time scale for the acceptance of a new technology in the automobile market (one might cite Toyota's decade long effort to sell the Prius which is still a relatively low selling model), can the Volt realistically be expected to make any money for GM before 2015?
I don't see that as a possibility, but I would be glad to to hear GM's position on the matter.
Thank you for responding!
I went and looked up the Saturn Vue PHEV, scheduled for release in 2010. A low-speed electric only range of about 10 miles, uses lithium batteries, and will have a 3.6L V-6 engine. It is airodynamic, and looks like it has plenty of interior room.
Not much more info than that yet. It looks like there will be a market niche for it, if the price is kept reasonable. No mention if it will be available with a smaller engine.
How much will the new VUE PHEV cost, and will GM be coming out with a PHEV smaller and cheaper than the Saturn Vue PHEV?
As a retiree, I try to watch my pennies. I want a personal vehicle that is economical both to buy and to use, but still practical and safe. The car we have costs less than $20k and gets about 27mpg-combined with its 1.8L engine. We want something that is greener and yet thrifty, when we have to replace it.
Back on the subject of the VOLT's electric drivetrain; I hope that someday GM will apply this technology to something that is considerably smaller and cheaper, even if, like the VUE, it goes a shorter distance than the VOLT before the ICE has to kick in. I find the technology very exciting, even if I am leary about some of the particulars of the business model.
A lot is riding on GM getting this right!
I believe that Mr. Lutz should be commended for having the courage to go and meet with Mr. Colbert. I too groaned a little when I heard Mr. Lutz's comments about global warming, but that doesn't change the fact that he went on TV to help his company pitch a controversial, green, car. It was also very refreshing to see that he has a sense of humor.
I believe that Mr. Wilkinson, also, should be commended for taking the time to post here on Huffpo. He must know that there will be skeptics here, and yet he tries to make his point.
I express strong thanks to these two individuals for having the courage to come out in public to discuss what GM is doing, and I encourage them to continue to do so whereever a forum exists that will allow them to present their points of view.
These are times when chances for genuine discussion should be prized and seized. Personally, I don't care if the Boards of Directors of GM, Ford, and Chrysler all pass unanimous resolutions proclaiming that they deny that global warming is probable, as long as they react to the high price of oil and the world wide chase for scarce resources by committing to developing cars that use less or no oil. As in the case of T. Boone Pickens, much of what they are now trying to do is a distinct improvement over the way that they have done things in the past.
This doesn't surprise me at all. GM is not a forward looking company by choice. They are trying to stay competitive with other makers while having this anchor around their neck called the "GM executive dept".
To find that a senior executive is in step with the Bush administration on Global Warming sort of says the whole story. Look around you at the people who buy GM products. Older generation "American only" car buyers and "Bubbas" in pick-up trucks. Frankly ... I'll be glad when they are gone.
Please have Mr. Lutz personally ask the government for their bailout, and let us see how the decider handles it.
Tom,
what we know today will clearly not be the same forever, but shouldn't we act on what we do know today instead of hoping that knowledge will be proven wrong? The Catholic church waited 400 years to pardon Galileo, probably hoping all the while the earth was really flat.
The point is that there is a pattern of distain for technological change - like the time GM and the other automakers sued the State of California so they wouldn't have to sell electric vehicles, and put all those EV1s in the crusher. The people of California just wanted cleaner air. Nobody needed a good "Philosophy of Science course" to see the smog in Los Angeles looked like Beijing does today. Unfortunately that lawsuit was successful and electric cars were put on the shelf for another few years.
With due respect, I hope the Volt is a great success, for many reasons. I also expect GM to stick by its "major global commitment to developing advanced propulsion technologies". I'd like to walk into a dealership in 20 or 30 years for the new model year Volt, which shouldn't even be a car anymore, but a clean-burning personal jetpack, powered by cold fusion.
In defense of GM, there was really no way they could have made the EV-1 work with the technology they had. What they should have done back then was to explain why they had to stop making it. They might have done so by simply offering a limited number of them at the real cost. And than add a battery pack replacement to the price list with a warning that customers would have to replace the thing every 30,000 miles to assure uninterrupted operation.
That would have been the smart thing to do. It would have been the right thing to do. Moreover, it would have been the SMOOTH thing to do and it would have damaged the brand way less than what they did (to scrap their own product and thus image).
But back then (and as we can tell even today) the management of GM is not quite up to the task of making smooth corporate moves. Maybe in the future. Maybe.
For the benefit of Huffington readers, here was my response:
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.
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.
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.
Tom... you really do work for GM! And your post about the Volt really did sound like an advertisement because it was one! Now I understand why. I am very sorry that I was doubting you the other day...
I hope it won't surprise you that my guttural response to your post was earth shaking laughter.
And please let me say that your reference to Thomas Kuhn gets exactly the same response from this physicist. If this is how far you have to split your brain to make sense of your job and the world, so be it. That is your problem. But please don't make it ours.
Tom, who in the scientific community is calling manmade global warming a paradigm? and why?
Scientists who actually step back to understand how science works know that the current theory on global warming is a paradigm. Now it happens to be a paradigm that explains a lot of what we observe. And since most scientists think this paradigm will be reasonably accurate in predicting what will happen next -- and we don't like what it predicts -- it make perfect sense to start reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, methane. etc.
It also helps that there are lots of other good reasons to reduce the use of carbon intensive fuels. Otherwise, I fear that society would never move very far on this issue. We need a coalition here, not isolated cells screaming for ideological purity.
Scientists who have a working knowledge of the philosophy of science are a minority, to be sure. Most scientist stay within what Kuhn called normal science, working day to day within the accepted paradigms. This is very important work -- the engineers and scientists developing advanced batteries and other technologies for the Chevy Volt are just such scientists. They are the men and women who make the world go around.
But science also needs renegades on the fringe, who continue to question the paradigms. A few of these become Darwins and Einsteins.
The scientists who identified the fact that warming is caused by man are the modern day Einsteins, not those who discount it. Those who deny it for ideological reasons are like the hierarchy of the church during the Inquisition.
Mr. Wilkenson, your remarks here throwing doubt on warming science given a vapid generalization that it is the orthodoxy and orthodoxies are bad, has lost me as a GM customer. Given your ideological thinking, I can see why GM is failing as a car company.
If you want to cast doubt on warming theory, do it with science. Vapid generalizations about orthodoxy are unhelpful. I am surprised that GM would take a position on such accepted science at all and for such a flailing, silly reason. You have just lost a future customer.
Bosses, such as Bob Lutz, are not correct just because they are bosses. That thinking is the ultimate orthodoxy. Again, I hope you keep writing here so you can potentially lose other customers beside me.
Mr. Wilkinson, if you are here to sell the Chevy Volt that is fine. When you speak of warning theory being a apradigm and its followers are behaving more like religious believers than scientists you completely lose me. The scientists who have proven that man is responsible for warming base their arguments on science and thus are not religious zealots. It is the people on the right who attack the science for non-scientific reasons who behave like religious fanatics. I have seen very few attacks on the science for scientific reasons and many attacks by people who do not like Al Gore or who believe that warming is some grand socialist experiment to redistribute wealth. Any scientists today who disproves that warming is the fault of man will be famous into perpetuity. Thus, the incentives are there to disprove this theory, but based on evidence and observation. Claiming it is all a cult and therefore questionable should really be beneath you. I will consider your statements the next time I want to buy a new car.
I do not like the fact that GM is apparently taking sides in the culture war and throwing its lot in with fundamentalists. GM is a business and should stay out of culture war discussions. Your position is very insulting. The theory of Natural Selection is a paradigm, are its believers cultists too? Are people who buy a GM car behaving as Jesus would behave? I suppose that will be your next argument.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
