GM FastLane Blog

GMBlogs.com

Talk About a Crock…

By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman

It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to “catch on” out there.

An offhand comment I made recently about the concept of global warming seems to have a lot of people heated, and it’s spreading through the Internet like ragweed. But I think that the people making a big deal out of it are missing the real point. My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours. But among my strongest beliefs is that my job is to do what makes the most business sense for GM.


Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. 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. The point is not why and how did we get where we are, it’s what are we going to do to get where we’re going.

And I think that many of the people who’ve been spewing their virtual vitriol in my direction in the past week are guilty of taking the easy way out.

Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is – and will continue to be – hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.

General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that – and we’re going to keep working on it — via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.

The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch, because I — and others in senior management — believe in it. I fully expect that it will revolutionize the automotive industry, and I’m committed to seeing it successfully developed and in showrooms.

We’re going forward with these programs because it makes good sense to do so – common sense. If it’s doable, why wouldn’t we do it? It would lead to nothing but good things: energy independence, lower emissions, and better air. Isn’t that what we all want?

As long as I am in this position at this company, GM will continue to take these initiatives and others that lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile. And that’s what people ought to be focusing on.

474 Comments

  • Bob  Burke
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr Lutz,
    You are right on the money! Global Warming is a crock. It is a money transfer scam plain and simple. The UN has been trying by different means and methods for decades to introduce their “rob the productive to support the unproductive” program. They have finally found something that has caught the imagination of the citizenry and actually has many of these brain-dead idiots screaming for carbon credits. “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and “Apocalypse? NO!” completely dismantle this politically driven agenda.
    You are also right about saying that going green is the right thing to do whether Global Warming is a fraud or not. If any good comes from this linacy it will be that we do have to treat this planet better.
    So what are people criticizing?
    Get a life and do some actual research to see the reality between the JUNK SCIENCE that is fueling the global warming hysteria.

  • Noel Park
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    337 comments on the spinning of global warming, LOL.

    Where is the insider information on new products that was supposed to be the reason for this blog?

    While I’m not getting into the GW arguments, I was struck by the question from “Non-Anthropomorphic Global Warming Believer” at 8:06 AM, 2/26:

    “Now why the heck can’t I get a small, 3-or-4 cylinder turbodiesel Saturn Astra in the US when very good 1.3-1.6 liter turbo-diesels are available in many Opel products in Europe and Austrailia?”

    I know the answer, “It’s too hard to make them meet US air quality standards.” Even so, how about “good 1.3-1.6 liter turbo, or non-turbo come to that, gas engines available in many Opel products in Europe and Australia?” Plus, Honda, Subaru, et al will be here in 2009 with diesel cars. Supposedly the Subaru Forester/Legacy will get 49 mpg on diesel, per this week’s Autoweek.

    When GM builds a car that gets mileage equal to a Prius, I will buy one. Until then, the old 95 Impala just keeps chugging along.

  • Doris Bartlett
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Global warming is a crock. It is nice to hear other opinions, good for you Mr Lutz. It is funny how no one is allowed an opinion unless it agrees with these liberal goons.There are more people and scientist who don’t believe in this global warming than do. I wonder what happened to the ice age of the 50’s oh we are in it now I think. The scientist were wrong before and they are wrong again.It is a Global, political and finacial program to scare these people into power

  • Ralph
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I just want to drop a note in support of Mr. Luntz’s comment that global warming is a crock and the biggest hoax ever.

  • Tim Thompson
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Three cheers for Bob Lutz! My opinion is that global warming is crock as well. If not that then certainly man-made global warming is. But the reason so many people are upset at Mr. Lutz’s opinion is because global warming has become their religion. Remember the reaction to the Mohammad cartoons? It’s the same thing. Dis someone’s deeply held religious beliefs and they usually come unglued. BTW, I’m *very* interested in the Volt — not because it could “save the planet” (if it does, that’s just icing on the cake) — but because it might play a role in lessening our dependence on oil from terrorist sponsoring nations and it might just save me some green in the process! Now if we could just do something about those damned labor unions so GM could build it cheaper than Toyota…

  • jOHN
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Rick : You should have fired Bob after making a negative campaign. Wonder why GM will loose more market share in coming years. This is pathatic and insulting the scientist communities all across the world. Shame on you & shame on GM board of directors & decision makers….

  • Capitalism
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I love the appeal to “capitalism.” The number of people enriched by the activities of Bob Lutz…is Bob Lutz. The stock price is what, a quarter of what it used to be?

    Oh, feel free to punish the liberals by buying a Chevy. Toyota (and Honda and Nissan and Volkswagen and Hyundai…) will continue to enjoy our better performing, slower depreciating, more fuel efficient and much more reliable cars.

    Oh, and the premium you pay for a Prius? Happily for them, they quickly make it up on the fast depreciation on competing GM vehicles. My neighbor could probably get 75% of his purchase price on his year old Prius. How much could you sell your year old Aveo for?

  • TC
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    New numbers are in! The earth is getting cooler, not hotter.
    Bod was right on by making that statement.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

    So if the earth is getting colder does that mean that we should be producing more CO2’s so the earth get warmer??
    Using the same junk science that Global Warming alarmists use, that would be the only conclusion one could possibly come to.

  • Loren Holmes
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr. Lutz,
    You certainly have a right to say whatever you want. But quess what. We also have a right to not buy your cars – ever again. Words matter.

  • John Stanley
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Global Warming is a scientific fact, despite a whole lot of popular denial and despite Bob Lutz’s ill-informed, absurd personal views. As for Lutz and GM, Americans need to ask what mentality cancelled an electric car that was already ready for prime time in 2000. The same mentality that pretends that getting to 35mpg by 2030 is progress, while GMs own European subsidiaries are marketing first class family saloons in Europe that alreadt get 50+mpg. The same mentality that just made one of the biggest annual losses in US corporate history, measured again in the tens of billions of dollars. The same senior management mentality that Bob Lutz let drop to journalists. What a loser! The future belongs to those who take their head out of the sand and see whats happening… not to cowards who pretend Global Warming doesnt even exist. If GM is serious Lutz has to go.

  • Hoax Buster
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    It’s not a hoax that Toyota and Honda are cleaning up when it comes to new car sales.

    It’s not a hoax that CO2 level are rising.

    It’s not a hoax that GM used to be #1.

    It’s not an hoax that the world is running out of oil.

    It’s not a hoax that Bob Lutz needs to be better informed.

    So where’s the hoax?

  • cars-r-coffins
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The only crock of sh*t I see mentioned here is the domestic auto industry. Really, when was the last time you all put out a reliable car?

  • rdekleer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Both sides of the climate change discussion would do well to review the following website:

    http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

    While our collective opinions make for a fun blog, let’s deal with the facts.

  • Purcell429
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The fact that someone who obviously doesn’t even understand basic science could be in charge of GM says a lot about the position that your company is in right now, don’t you think?

  • John Kempler
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Misleading argument 1: The Earth’s climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
    Misleading argument 2: Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
    Misleading argument 3: Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
    Misleading argument 4: Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
    Misleading argument 5: Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
    Misleading argument 6: It’s all to do with the Sun – for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
    Misleading argument 7: The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
    Misleading argument 8: The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.

    Source: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

  • HP
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I am truly amazed at the number of supporting comments submitted with regard to Mr. Lutz’s “crock of **** remarks. They decry those with opposing beliefs and accuse them of blindingly buying into the hype. There are ample amounts of hype on both sides of this issue and it appears that his supporters are also buying into hype as well albeit an opposing version. There is science to support both sides of the argument and only time will truly reveal the truth. In the meantime I will be reminded of Mr. Lutz’s comments every time a GM commercial runs espousing it’s commitment to developing, marketing and selling greener, fuel efficient vehicles. Way to go John Wayne, ooops I mean Mr. Lutz you’ve made quite an impression on my family members, and me.

  • Eric Planey
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    For all of you that said things like “when was the last time you guys had a winning design” or “start building good cars and I will switch from Honda to Chevy”, go buy the last 2 months of Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile, Road & Track, etc. Watch Motorweek. Look up Chevy Malibu, Buick Enclave, Cadillac CTS, Pontiac G8, GMC Yukon hybrid, Saturn Astra. And see how the reviews have been. Talk is cheap, research and educated opinions are more expensive.

  • Adam Rogers
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Wow! This is an awsome blog guys!! I just love candid honesty about situations which affect the entire future of life on Earth. Anyway, few questions…

    1. I am very interested in this view that global warming is a “Crock of Shit”. I would love to hear the basis for your view on this matter as it seems to conflict with most of those silly scientists who are supposedly experts in this field. Please inform me what you have had the pleasure to learn in your studies of global environmental, social, and economic issues know that those crackpot “scientists” have not.

    2. I also would like your opinion of exactly how business does or does not rely on nature. Do businesses really need things like clean air, clean water, functioning ecosystems, stable atmosphere, like those weird global warming enthusiasts say we do?

    3. Please inform me why I should consider buying a car from your company. I would also like you to phrase the answer in terms of how you as a person represents GM and how your company with your and your own personal beliefs will benefit my children in creating a cleaner, healthier and brighter future.

    4. Most importantly. I would love to hear your opinion of the book the “Ecology of Commerce” by Paul Hawkins. If you have not read it, I feel that you may not be qualified to be leading a major company in this century.

    I look forward to hearing your response. Thank you so much for your time, in responding to my questions. I will certainly take your answers into account when I consider buying my next car.

  • A. Dias
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bob: A crock it is! This is the 80/20 rule – the 80% of the idiots out there have nothing positive to do other than attacking the good the other 20% actually do for them. Wait until the wave turns, and soon the Global Warming crusade becomes the Global Cooling mission… I wonder what targets they will pick. I bet the usual ones and a few more at random.

  • Lisa
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr Lutz certainly has the courage to speak his mind.
    However, this doesn’t mean that man-made climate change isn’t happening.

    It would be great if this discussion was based on facts and not along the lines of:
    1. Left vs Right
    2. facts vs opinions
    3. American vs Japanese
    4. emotional vs logical
    5. gay vs red neck
    6. angry vs calm

  • NASA
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    …recently both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News reported that last year was so much cooler than previous years that it contravenes any evidence of Global Warming (or Climate Change, if you prefer.)

    Except that’s expressly not true.

    As reported by Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy:

    “The latest round was brought to my attention from DarkSyde, a science blogger at DailyKos. In an article he put up last night, he notes that an online mag called Daily Tech has a blogger who is claiming that last year was cooler than average… which contradicts a study by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies that shows that last year was among the hottest on record.”

    Which one is right? Duh. NASA.

    The Daily Tech columnist evidently confused a below-average January temperature for an entire year’s worth.

  • shawn
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The bottom line is that people want it now. This includes performance, appeal, and even environmental improvements. The “want it now” philosophy is in every aspect of our culture. The facts are that the technology to accomplish these things is not yet available. People need to learn to also look at the practical viewpoint as well. What good would bankrupting the industry to meet environmental standards do? The industry needs to be healthy to be able to spend those R&D dollars which in turn change technology.
    I believe in what you’re doing at GM. I follow many of your projects. I bought a GTO and loved it. That car actually saved my life.
    Like anything else the media can spin it and destroy it before it has a chance. Keep up the good work and bring us performance, environmentalism and economy in the future.

  • Joe D.
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I really don’t care if it’s too hot or too old. Those of you who wish to fall into a further state of depresion in your life by worrying about things far beyond your control, go right ahead.

    I’ll continue to live my life how I want. If I want to open my windows and run the furnace or air conditioner in my house, I’ll do it. If I want to drive a gas hog, I’ll do it. Cause in the end, you can’t take your money with you, and you don’t know the difference whatever the earth is doing when you’re six feet under.

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

    If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death.

    http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html

  • Richard Pender
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Is http://www.newsmax.com a hoax website or something? They have strong opinions and no facts.

    NASA’s data shows that the polar ice caps are melting.

    Who would you rather trust, newsmax or NASA? (This is not a trick question.)

    - http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html

    NASA and Columbia University Earth Institute research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.

  • Greg
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr Lutz,
    Of course you have a right to your own opinion – as uneducated as it may be. It is a shame you are in a position of influence in the automotive sector. Your industry needs leaders who recognize the transition to a sustainable business model is already underway. Fossil fuels are finite and already in decline and our planet is warming faster than at any point in human history – this is fact, not liberal rhetoric or a “crock”. If you want more financial results like the latest ones, keep producing all them trucks!
    Greg

  • Buck
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Joe D
    Unfortunately people concerned with how poorly the environment is being treated do tend to “fall into a state of depression”. They get on their soap boxes and preach doom and gloom which regrettably pushes people like you to “…open the windows and run the furnace..” You’re right; you and your actions may very well be insignificant in the big environmental picture but someone like Bob Lutz is anything but insignificant.

    GW is a hot button and for a person in Bob Lutz’s position to press it just amps up the Joe D’s of the world to say “Hell yeah man, F’ it I’m goin’ balls out ’till I drop” making it that much harder to educate the public on sensible behaviors and simple conservation. You don’t have to be a visionary or environmentalist wacko to understand that accepting the fact that if we lower our consumption of internal combustion we will be in a much stronger position to maintain our unbelievably high standard of living for a very long time.

    It’s not asking for political correctness that he not speak his opinion on GW; it’s asking him to understand that to achieve the goal of a cleaner environment and energy independence, making those comments slows the cause. On second thought, he does understand this, and chooses to do it anyway.

  • Rick
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    You (most of you) need to get out more. Go visit northern Canada, alps, southern South America if you doubt global warming exists. Those denying/fighting the need for better MPG/CAFE #s are the same fools who said requiring seat belts, padded dashboards, 5 mph bumpers, air bags, emissions standards was going to kill the car biz. It is the lack of foresight and judgement that killed the USA car biz. Same as what has been happening in Washington DC the last 7 years. Bankrupt policies leads to bankruptcy.

  • Kerry Lutz(No Relation)
    Reply to this comment On March 1, 2008 at 11:10 pm Kerry Lutz(No Relation) said:
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Dear Bob

    Thanks so much for speaking your mind. In a world of pc sugar coated bs, you speak truth to power. I am sick of the junk science behind global warming/climate change. The past winter has been one of the coldest on record. Tell the people in China or Milwaukee or Detroit about the global warming they have suffered this year.

    This issue is way too important to just cave into these environmental wackos.

    Keep up the good work.

  • J. Mays
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    This just in…

    Climate Skeptics Seize on Cold Spell
    By ANDREW C. REVKIN,The New York Times
    Posted: 2008-03-01 23:04:49
    Filed Under: Science News
    (March 1) – The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China, and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature.

    So maybe Bob is just offering his personal crock pot opinion, but what if he’s right? GM, keep them trucks comin. Bob, it’s time to turn back on the rear wheel drive Impala. Put some money back IN the product and give Bo a one way ticket to WalMart since he loves it there so much.

  • knappster
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    It’s a good thing that the Earth is flat.  That allows us to grow forever, drive forever, and consume ever greater amounts of resources.  Accepting limits – or the PC “theory” that the Earth is spherical – would be bad for business.  That’s why it’s good to have leaders like Mr. Lutz who are members of the Flat Earth Society.

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

    Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

  • RBS
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr. Lutz,

    You say:

    “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.”

    That’s exactly the problem.

    Your job, you say, is to do what’s best for GM’s business.

    But in this case, your idea of what’s best for GM’s business appears to have been to fight higher mileage standards. And that, of course, is why GM is doing so well today.

    Had you been concerned about global warming — which is happening, is human-caused, and is the result of the normal use of your products — you would have been spending money on R&D toward developing models that are more efficient, rather than on buying politicians (George Bush, for one) who will fight any increase in fuel economy tooth and nail, then perhaps the Japanese wouldn’t be beating the pants off of your once-proud American company, and you wouldn’t be laying off American workers in the tens of thousands.

    You spent, what, twenty years (at least), convincing your wokers that environmentalists were their enemy. When in fact, it is doing business like a Lutz, with willful disregard for the fate of humanity, that has thrown American jobs in the toilet.

    Talk about a crock of shit.

  • mike
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    one less gm customer for you.

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I am impressed by the sound logical agreements but this Global Warming now Climate change issue but it is Politicized and will increase taxes on all hydrocarbons and everything that uses oil be prepared for higher taxes!. Both State and Federal.

  • Charflie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bill Zimmer,

    I can find no such claim at the Hadley Centre (”steep drop over the last year”).

    FYI, this is what NASA has found for the most recent full year:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

    “The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2¬∞C above the prior record with the help of the “El Ni√±o of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Ni√±o-La Ni√±a cycle.”

  • jerry m
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    has anyone read the Michael Criton (is this the correct spelling) book State of Fear? While his focus is not totally on Global Warming, it is talked around. The point the book makes is that for some reason, Americans need something to be afraid of, something that the government can rescue us from through legislation,taxation and the like. Communism, nuclear distruction, in the 70’s, global cooling (by the way with the same data used to support global warming today)were all things to fear. Since many of he old threats have beem minimized or eliminated, we need something new to be protected from,or rescued from, and who better to do it than our universities and politicians. Seems that as long as we fear something, we can be subject to manipulation. While I don’t entirely subscribe to the notion in the book, it does provide in interesting perspective.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    GLOBAL WARMING FACT… Really.

    After all the coverage of the global warming conference in warm and Sunny Bali, were all flew in private jets and then had to park them At a near by island. I would like to know why we see no coverage of the conference of scientists this week in New York who have the opposite position of the “so called” consensus.

  • rdekleer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Who should we trust: NASA data or Mr Lutz’s opinion?

    “Global warming stopped in 1998,” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Ni√±o of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

    Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n oel-sheppard/2007/11/12/global-temperature-chart-not-gore-s-movie
    The earth was warmer 1100 B.C. and again 1300 A.D.

  • jimmieg
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Sorry Mr.Lutz,but Charlie H.just hit the nail on the head !

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Are the world’s ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?
    Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
    Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
    The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his “Inconvenient Truth” lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
    Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.
    As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.
    As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception – Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.
    Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.
    Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.
    AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.
    Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.
    An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam’s northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.
    In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company’s efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.
    Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.
    Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.
    More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.
    If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death.

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I would like to know why we see no coverage of the conference of scientists this week in New York who have the opposite position of the “so called” consensus.

    Posted by: Lou DiStefano on March 4, 2008 12:30 PM

    Right Lou, Same question I wondered about, the media, right across the street and zero coverage of 500 scientists? Just report the news as they see it.

  • apackof2
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Right on Mr. Lutz!

    I am a GM retiree and its about time that someone has the guts to say out loud what a lot are thinking but are too afraid to voice.

    Man-made Global Warming is a crock that the gulliable and those who are too lazy to do their own reserach have swallowed hook, line and sinker. Those who have perpetuated the myth are the ones selling carbon credits and making the $$$ off the ignorant and fearful.

    Unfortuntely those of us who are rational and don’t fall for junk science will be punished also by dacronican laws aimed at reducing something that doesn’t exist!

    Keep speaking the truth Mr. Lutz and by your example others will be embolden to do the same

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bill Zimmer, it got ignored because less than two dozen scientists showed up, some of them known to be in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

    The popular parts of the program were the sessions devoted to bashing Al Gore.

    They also had a “movie track” which included screening of the fairly well discredited movie, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”

    The Heartland Institute and their fellows talk, often, about “thousands” of scientists who think anthropogenic climate change is just nonsens… but they can barely scrape together two dozen scientists to pretend to legitimize the program (even paying $1,000 speaking fees, which doesn’t happen at the real science conferences).

    In other words, there was nothing to cover.

    As for the ice returning… how thick is it? That’s the key. As soon as the temps go low enough for it to freeze, the Arctic will skim back over. The pond across the street does that pretty quickly. But next summer, you’ll see a melt similar to this years’ record because the ice isn’t being sustained, year to year.

    As for the current cold snap, that’s true enough, it got cold last month. Winter is like that. Patrick Michaels, speaking at the Heartland Institute conference (one of the less than two dozen real scientists on the program) cautioned his audience not to make too much out of that. Patrick Michaels is actually in broad agreement with the IPCC report and is looking at the long-term trends.

    I earlier posted – and you appear to have ignored – the temperature record results for last year… second warmest since instrumented readings, tied with 1998. This comes at a time when the solar irradiance is at a minimum and we’re in the “cool” phase of the El Nino/La Nina cycle. 2007 should have been a cooler than average year… but it wasn’t.

    By the way, Bill Zimmer, unless your real name is “Phil Brennan,” your March 5, 2008 2:08AM post is something scientists would refer to as “plagiarism.”

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr Lutz,

    Your a great man have done what is needed to get people talking about the CROCK that is global Warming. I think it’s Time to set up a blog for comments on the CROCK. 400 comments on this blog is huge and needs it’s own site.

    Lou

  • JLH
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr. Lutz
    You can and do have a right to express your beliefs as do I. I however can put my opinions to use in how I choose to spend my money and it won’t be on a GM product for two important reasons: 1)my interest in fuel efficiency and reducing CO2 and the decreasing US dependence on foreign oil 2) the fact that you stated your beliefs and those beliefs will influence the direction of GM under your leadership. If GM doesn’t care about the environment or leads with a public persona of not caring about Global Warming and the causation of such warming you will loose customers. With your attitude and willingness to “express your beliefs” in such an arrogant manner it doesn’t matter if there is any validity to your statement. It is the method of your message. Good luck in continuing to compete in a tough market that is consumer driven.
    JLH

  • Scott
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I currently drive a Mazda 3 and am getting 32 MPG. My lease is up within the month of March, and I have been trying since December to get on a waiting list for a Saturn Vue hybrid and a Chevy Malibu hybrid. I figured that 3 months is plenty of lead time, right? Wrong. Seems that the hybrids are all slated for California, with a few going to other states.

    Why?

    My guess is that it is not profitable to make smaller, fuel-efficient cars. Instead, the 20th century thinking prevails that big SUVs with high profit margins is a “winning” strategy.

    Like it or not, the world’s climate is in jeopardy. GM may be the whipping boy of the day, but the majority of auto makers that sell their cars in the US simply do not offer many cars that achieve 30 MPG or better. Go to Europe and drivers there DO purchase cars that are more fuel efficient. I suspect people there understand what’s at stake. When will Americans wake up (probably when it is too late)?

    Personally, I feel that GM employs some of the brightest and most innovative engineers and designers in the world. As of today, GM has a handful of small cars that get better than 30 MPG, but seem to be holding back the hybrids.

    As I said, my lease is up before the end of the month, and I really want a hybrid. Unfortunately, it will not be a GM because I cannot get one. I will be buying a Honda Civic hybrid.

    Sorry Bob, but you need to catch up with the 60% or more Americans that believe we must get off of petroleum or at least reduce the current rate of consumption. This is not a “politicall correct” concept, as some have stated. This is reality, which traditionally has a liberal bias.

  • Scott
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    CharlieH -

    What’s the matter with you? Quoting scientific information that shows warming? Don’t you know that there are at least 500 scientists that are employees of oil & coal companies that can refute these facts with their own “findings?”

    LOL!

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Scott,

    So all scientists who don’t hold the opinion that man is causing global warming, work for “Big Oil”? Talk about a crock. Do the scientists who do beleive work for the battery company, do they for some Government agency or the UN who is going to try and tax us for our Carbon Footprint? Who do they work for in your mind, the battery company killing the planet in Canada or the Government agency that pays them and wants to control all of your life.

    Charlie H

    the planet has not warmed or cooled since 1998 and we have record, yes record, snow fall this year. t

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Scott

    Maybe you should know that Oil is used in so many products the WORLD depends on and it is traded on the world market. If those little Hybrids you like so much are so popular, why isn’t one of them the best selling car? the top 2 sellers are trucks. until we find a cheaper way to move our economy oil is it. NOT CORN. Have you seen the price of food since we now get gas with 10% ethanol. In the short term we need the oil people like you won’t let us go and get, like of the coast of florida. If China can Drill 90 miles away in Cuba America needs to drill too so we are not dependent on others for our oil. BUILD a refinery and with those two prices will drop.

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Educate your self:
    Al Gore has D+ in science so I am sure you may understand.

    http://www.inteliorg.com/co2_climate_change.html

    http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

  • Scott
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou -

    It is called advertising. The goal is to get you to buy something that you may not necessarily need. Watch any sporting event and you will see a parade of truck commercials …

    Oil doesn’t have to come out of the ground. There are many other sources, but it may require us to scale back our out-of-control consumption.

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bill Zimmer,

    Thank you. I often do so.

    Today, on your kind invitation, I clicked through the inteliorg link you provided and I came to a Senate site maintained by Marc Morano. I have occasionally perused Marc Morano’s “contributions” in the past.

    Today, I picked one of our friend Morano’s links (from a page he titled, “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears”), and settled down to read a genuine peer-reviewed paper from Journal of Geophysical Research submitted by Stephen Schwartz of the Brookhaven National Lab.

    Morano quoted someone as saying that this new “peer-reviewed study overturned ‘in one fell swoop’ the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.” I was very impressed with the importance of this new peer-reviewed study.

    At the end of his paper (which involved the use of lots of greek letters, symbols that require extensions to MS-Word and math that I do struggle to remember from my days in Honors Calculus), Schwartz says that warming since preindustrial times attributable to green house gas emissions is .7degK.

    Which is very close to the number I infer from this chart:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

    Or, in other words, Schwartz is right in there with the Anthropogenic Climate Change crew and aligns nicely with Al Gore’s movie.

    So, Bill, excuse me… but what was your point? If your point was that the Earth is warming and that it’s mostly or entirely anthropogenic… then you have certainly supplied ammunition to defend that point of view.

    If that’s not your point, I suggest you get some new links. Or, better, get a new point.

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bill Zimmer,

    Always searching for Truth and grateful to you for the opportunity to further pursue it, I clicked another inteliorg link, with the compelling title:

    “U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007″

    And I am led to this (again on one of Marc Morano’s pages – why am I not surprised?):

    “Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against ‘Futile’ Climate Control Efforts”

    Goodness! 300 prominent scientists have suddenly and mysteriously disappeared!

    This is a tragedy of epic proportions! How could this go unnoticed by the mainstream press? Why is there no hue and cry? Why is there no global manhunt for these unfortunate missing 300 prominent scientists? Why has no one been called to account for their sudden and mysterious mass disappearance? Who will console the bereaved wives and husbands of these missing 300 souls?

    I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

  • Bradley
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Way to go Mr. Lutz, I totally agree with your assesment of global warming. No one seems to want to stand up against the tide of global warming propaganda and you have. GM is coming back and I am gladdened. The only bad news about GM holding the number one position is that it was only by 3,000 vehicles. I wish the government would not kill off our performance cars. I was at the Chicago autoshow loved the Camaro. Long live the V8.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Scott

    Not only do you not understand the climate of the planet. You don’t understand marketing and advertising. People who watch football are not going out to buy some little car. ALL car companies, including Toyota advertise trucks during football. It’s were the customers are. The fight is over which truck they will buy. Nascar fans are the same advertising the aveo during most sports events would be stupid for Chevy. Those type ads are for Opra or the today show. First rule is to know your customer and what they want. once you know what they want you market and advertise your product to get them to buy your product instead of the competitors. It’s called CAPITALISM.

    Lou

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou DiStefano,

    Right now, it’s a fight over a declining customer base. Truck sales have been falling steadily. The Tundra makes a tiny percentage of Toyota’s fleet by unit volume. It may have a disproportionate impact on sales and gross profits but Toyota has been profitable with small vehicles for a while.

    GM has got to adapt to that model in order to survive $4/gallon gas prices. Higher gas prices are going to drive truck sales into the tank.

    If GM’s two-mode was available on a broader price range of trucks and SUVs… that might help GM stem the tide in big pickup and SUV sales.

    But they’re still going to need solid small car sales that are profitable.

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Posted by: Charlie H on March 6, 2008 5:10 PM

    Charlie,
    Global Warming/Climate Change terror Has Nothing To Do With The Environment. It’s pure political proselytizing! NOT science.
    Fixing Earths Weather, Going Green for many countries of the world (mostly EU countries) has nothing to do with the environment; it has everything to do with energy independence from the oil producing countries and for others the entrenchment of socialism (Collectivism). Thus, the propaganda reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), all the members of this panel are not scientists, the panel contains political hacks, please check out their bios yourself, and then investigate the facts. The environmental activists don’t realize they have been duped by propaganda.
    I invite you to examine the facts and to do your own homework.

    http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

  • Bill Zimmer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    You are either in the bag for AWG or you have not done your home work. The failure to reduce climate co2 by the EU has failed as well as by Canada. It makes no since to spend billions and reduce GDP in the USA so the EU and the other failing countries bring down the USA. Spend an evening here.http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
    Scroll down the page and read all the sub titles before you pick the one you want to believe. There are a dozen Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of “Man-Made” Global Warming:

    Co2 is an important fertilizer for plants to take the carbon and expel the oxygen. Global warming is not even a scientific theory, if it was it could be repeated and proven. Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas.

    UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)

    Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore’s ‘alarmist’ climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)

    Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)

    British Schools Ordered to Offer ‘Balance’ When Showing Al Gore’s Global Warming Film (FOXNews)

    A Skeptical View of Climate Models (Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal
    Netherlands Meteorological Institute)

    Many States needing tax dollars are instituting “carbon taxes” without any scientific proof of man made Global warming. They have politicized “Global warming” now called “Climate Change” and have chosen the auto to fund their new religion, PLUS annual estimate in Washington state estimates a mere 2.16 Billion Dollars each year for the power generators, we are 45% hydro powered. The auto emissions are in question since the congress has changed the minimum mileage for auto to 35 miles per gallon average for the whole fleet of a manufacturer so EPA has not limit carbon from the auto yet!

    I have noticed that congress has a energy bill that adds a 50 cent per gallon gas tax,

    Have a good weekend!

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bill Zimmer,

    Regarding z4.invisionfree.com/whatever…

    Yeah, right. I see there’s a video there from that prominent climatologist George Carlin. I’m going to rush over and view that.

    Don’t the skeptics have ONE serious site that isn’t loaded down with junk? No John Stossels, no Phil Brennans, no oil company CEOs? No half-baked videos?

    The skeptic event of the millenium just came and went… the Heartland Institute sponsored a Global Warming Conference, all about the science. Sadly, they got hardly any scientists to show up – less than two dozen participated and some of them agree that AGW is REAL (they differ on whether or not to take action).

    That’s it… the skeptic’s big moment. Twenty scientists.

    While it is true that no one “votes” in science for what is “right”, FIVE THOUSAND qualified people participated in the IPCC report. Compare that to the twenty skeptic scientists that can be pulled together.

    Thanks, I’ll take the IPCC report.

    As for whether or not this is “political,” the science has a long history and follows from several simple fundamentals:

    1. CO2 traps heat. KNOWN.
    2. CO2 has increased sharply and the temperature has risen sharply. KNOWN.
    3. Isotopic analysis reliably tells us the source of the additional CO2 is people digging up and burning fossil fuels. KNOWN.

    These items are covered in the IPCC report section, “The Physical Science Basis.” You can look it up. It’s also stuff that can be covered in fairly fundamental college physics and chemistry classes. The observations to support these KNOWN things are simple, easy to reproduce and reliable. Nobody argues about this end of it at all.

    Now… what happens beyond that is an interesting question and is subject to some debate. But, given the KNOWN items, the answer is not “nothing.” SOMETHING will happen.

    And the science got its start and some considered development before any politician found out about it. This prospect has been considered by researchers for well over two decades. I remember discussions of it from the very early ’80’s and I wasn’t in research (I’m merely alert).

    The foundation for the science is not politics, it’s science.

    By the way, where DO you get your talking points? CO2 is not “fertilizer.”

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    CHARLIE

    The problem is that the global warming crowd is causing all of us more money and taking choice in cars from Americans. Higher food prices, carbon taxes, reduced use of oil and gas, Government Regs are not going to do anything. when the founder of the weather channel says it’s a crock and would like to sue all who want to tax carbon output, is just another example of the many sounding the alarm of the hoax being played on the world. You may want to drive some little shoe box but what we want is people like you to not take our choice to drive a larger car away. We don’t support the global warming hoax and to not go get the oil we know is in the gulf or Alaska and to not build refineries or Nuclear plants for power are costing us to much. Even with your new CAFE standards gas use will not go down. The world is growing and the demand will need to be met with more supply. AS I keep saying if you find a cheaper product and can deliver it to america the market will adjust. We don’t accept that oil, man, gas and Carbon have anything to do with temperature change. You have science theory but no fact. our side has so much past history on our side to show temperature changes back millions of years before the SUV.

    GM’s profit loss in North America is not from sales. it’s from to much regulation and to many Benefits for current and past employees.

    Lou

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    “GM’s profit loss in North America is not from sales, it’s from too much regulation and too many benefits for current and past mployees” – Lou

    Uh, Lou, the regulation aspect of your charge certainly doesn’t explain why Toyota, Honda and others are willing to sell cars here. If regulations prohibited profitable sales, the other manufacturers would just go away, rather than sell cars at a loss.

    You might “choose” to drive a larger car but the fact is, it emits CO2, which [I firmly believe and science supports me] has an impact on my future.

    Do you want me to choose to do an activity that you believe harms you?

    Unfortunately, the atmosphere is one of those necessarily shared things… we don’t each get a private one to keep clean or pollute as we choose.

    We each have a right to restrict the actions of neighbors which affect us.

    We do not know exactly what will happen as CO2 increases but it is anthropogenic and there will be changes.

  • Paul
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    This is going to be my last comment on Fastlane. (Yeah yeah, I know sheth, “good riddance.”)

    Since I heard Bob said this, every time I’ve thought about commenting about something on Fastlane, I think “What does it matter? GM isn’t going to change.”

    So good luck to GM and I hope Bob isn’t indicative of the attitude of the rest of you. Because if that’s so, you won’t last long in the 21st century.

  • Riley
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bob -

    There’s no way to find out which of my local dealers has a Pontiac G8 for me to look at.

    The Pontiac “locate a vehicle” doesn’t list the G8 as an choice! All other vehicles are represented.

    Please get someone to fix this. It’s sad to see thousands of $ spent on advertising, but then a roadblock on getting to the dealer.

    Thanks,
    Riley

  • Elliott
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Talk about crap! Are you asking us to believe your own personal beliefs do not shape your decisions at GM? Are you further implying you have no personal responsibility for the day-to-day decisions you make? OK, reasonable people may debate the extent of global warming, appropriate methods to reduce the environmental impact of automobiles, etc. but if you are suggesting amoral behavior is good for business well, indeed, that reveals a whole lot about you and your General Motors.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Charlie

    Maybe you don’t understand Regulations. ALL!! Auto makers are subject to regulations. In this global economy the larger companies see some countries are cheaper to produce a car. Japanese car makers now see that to build cars for the largest market (USA), it’s cheaper to make them here. Japan has the highest Corporate tax, started kyoto treaty, and the population is getting older and not having enough children to replace it’s workers. Even in the USA it is cheaper to build in different states. That is why Japanese car makers chose low tax states instead of Detroit. OSHA, EPA, Taxes, Benefits all make it more expensive. you want to bring jobs back to America, than eliminate Corporate taxes, and cut all the regulations.

    Not only do I chose to drive a large car and a truck and a V8 sports car but my huge Chevy Express 2500 12 passenger Van gets my 7 kids around. that van is a need. The others I want.

    Your CO2 science is ONLY a theory and more are coming out against it because you have theory not fact and history of the planet is on our side. If CO2 harms you should We all stop breathing?

    The planet currently has 38 Carbon molecules per 100,000!, and the temp did go up less than 1 degree in 100 years. That was wiped out with the recent 12 month period with a 1 degree drop. (source John Coleman). NOAA also has said this is the coldest winter since 2001 and some area’s are getting Record snow fall.

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou, Where do people get the idea that several decades of increasing warmth are “wiped out” with a single cool – and not extraordinarily cool – winter? “Coldest since 2001?” That’s hardly record-breaking country.

    Last year, as a whole, tied for second warmest on record, in spite of the cool winter tacked on at the end. We are at a solar irradiance minimum and we still had the second warmest year. What does that suggest?

    CO2 concentration is 385ppmv. Yep, that doesn’t seem like a lot, except the norm for the past few millenia is something like 280ppmv. The last time we had this much CO2 in the air was on the order of a million years ago… and the climate was radically different. We’ve added third onto an important greenhouse gas and you absolutely can not guarantee that this will have either no or a beneficial effect.

    Making a change without knowledge of the effects is a really bad plan.

  • Martin Bennett
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    What General Motors needs to realise is that their Australian subsidiary ‘Holden’ is doing a fantastic job over there, and are possibly the best brand (obviously not in terms of commercial success, but in terms of how good their cars are) under GM. GM is finally waking up to them, and importing the G8 and G8 ute. Please oh please, Bob Lutz, let the Holden Coupe production plan go ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Charlie

    Thank you, you just made my point.(and it’s 38 not 385) 1 million years ago the carbon was higher. How did that happen without the SUV or Humans? How was the planet radically different? you keep making the point by talking, the planet has changed on it’s own so many times without the car, so to think we are changing the climate is a crock. Thank you for making my point have a nice Day.

    Lou

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou,

    It’s 385ppmv (that’s parts per million in volume). And it’s not “carbon,” it’s “Carbon dioxide” or “CO2″.

    Second, what part of… “and the climate was radically different” is confusing to you? If we drive the temps up, as we are doing, and there’s no reason to think at this point that we’ll hold atmospheric CO2 to any particular concentration, exactly where will we be able to grow food? Kansas will certainly be different. Will wheat grow there? Will we have a net loss in arable land? A change in rainfall patterns that eliminates or reduces key crops? Will we see extinctions that are important?

    Adaptation has given us a very comfortable United States. I’d prefer not to play chicken with global warming and possibly ruin something important.

    You can not guarantee that the changes will be either mild or beneficial. No one can. The course of prudence is to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce the threat.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    charlie

    Got your point on the million still shows how small it is. I do understand radically different, the point is That you can not blame it on the car. why was it so different?

    NO ONE can tell you what the planet is going to be like in 1000 years, But you and many others who think carbon (carbon dioxide co2) is changing the planet and man is the cause always admit that the planet was different long ago. Nothing can be done by man to make the planet warmer or colder the planet always does it on it’s own. Today the global warming crowd is now costing us more money.

  • Laura
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr. Lutz,
    Thank you so much for not being afraid to share your opinion on global warming. I believe that we have a reponsibility to take care of creation in the best way we can, but I think man is arrogant to think that he can control the climate.

  • Chris B
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Hello Bob,

    I am a chemical engineer, my entire career has been in the industrial sector, and I have the background to understand the science of climate change. There is no debate in the scientific community as to whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions (among other GHGs) have and are increasing the average temperature of the planet.

    The greenhouse phenomena is a part of basic science, and carbon dioxide’s role in this has been understood for well over a century. If you want to call the idea of climate change to be a crock, I would suggest first boning up on the basic science instead of spouting off about something that you clearly know nothing about. I have personally discussed the situation with well known climate skeptics to make sure there isn’t something that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is overlooking. The only debate that exists among accredited scientists today – including those that are skeptics – is how much the climate will change, not whether it will change.

    I also disagree with your statement that your opinions don’t matter. Of course they do. The opinions of senior leadership in a corporation always set the tone for how the entire operation runs. If you try to tackle the problem without understanding the basic science, you could end up shooting yourself in the foot. It also makes a huge difference when it comes to recruitment and retention of qualified engineers. We all want to work where our efforts are valued, and the message that you send is that you trust your own opinion on scientific matters more than the people who study the issue. When I evaluate new career opportunities, I look at the entire package, would definitely take your position on the matter as a negative element towards taking a job at GM right now.

  • Chris B
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Laura:

    Actually, if we could control the climate, no one would be concerned.

    People used to say that it was arrogant to think that man could wipe out another species, but it turns out that we have been able to do that both often and easily.

    We are supposed to act as shepherds and caretakers for God’s creation, which is a large aspect of what the discussion on climate change is all about.

  • AlGor
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    “The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch, because I — and others in senior management — believe in it. I fully expect that it will revolutionize the automotive industry, and I’m committed to seeing it successfully developed and in showrooms.”

    here ya go Bob:
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/volt-birth-watch-34-lutz-gives-up-on-a-30k-volt/

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou,

    Certainly, the climate WAS different long ago. But the key phrase is “long ago.” The increase in CO2 is forcing a pace in temperature change that is unprecedented. Plants and animals need time to adapt.

    The multi-millenial scale of natural change permits this. We are squeezing millenia of changes into a few decades.

    As for the amount of CO2 being miniscule… It is what it is and it has a readily measurable effect, whether you like it or not.

    For comparison purposes, the atmosphere is .0385% CO2. At a blood alcohol content of .0385%, you’re going to feel the buzz. It doesn’t take much LSD to provoke an effect, either, a FAR smaller percent by volume than .0385%. Small is not the same as unimportant.

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Back to the original topic, which is Maximum Bob’s deportment on the subject of climate.

    Bob, I see that you saw fit to carry on your remarks on climate at the New York Auto Show, saying “the planet will heal itself.”

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion but while you are at the New York Auto Show, on GM’s nickel and not on vacation, you represent GM at the executive level and your words may be taken as expressions of opinion from GM.

    I repeat my earlier question, slightly differently… If you piss off the Greenies, doesn’t that limit your market for the Volt? Wouldn’t it be better just to keep quiet on climate issues until you’re well away from the office, off expense account and on vacation?

  • Tim Holland
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Science will tell the truth people… don’t let the hype mislead you, focus on the data. IMO, the current data supports Mr. Lutz.

    If you care about the planet and your fellow man, you need to consider an independant review of the data previously collected by the UN sponsored IPPC report on climate.

    http://tinyurl.com/327vkg

    The conclusion of this independant review by well respected scientist is that the data does not support man-made global warming as a significant climate driver. Furthermore, it indicates a clear attempt of deception by the IPPC.

    Ask yourself this simple question: Which is more likely to be the primary driver of earth’s climate: the sun, the very source of heat for our solar system, or man’s relatively insignificant emmisions of a nuturally occuring greenhouse gas?

  • ab hansen
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The E85 pollutes much more than its gasoline equivalent because it takes about 150% more energy to produce ethanol than the energy the E85 contains.
    That raises the CO2 output 1.5 times of course, in a country where CO2 is now, finally, listed by the EPA as an industrial pollutant.
    Ethanol production also pollutes water, esp. the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico from US production. Hydrogen fuel cells are uneconomical… GM had the EV1; admit your earlier mistake and build another 100%EV, maybe an EV Volt, not another transitional hybrid. EVs are at least 50% cleaner than gasoline fueled cars when thinking about power sources even in coal burning states. Solar panels on our houses, and other non-polluting alternatives, will likely soon take care of all our electrical needs.

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Tim,

    If it’s the “science that will tell the truth,” why are you directing us to a report sponsored by a political organization?

    Now, you can “win” any “argument” you like, if you phrase the key questions correctly. If you ask, for example, “Which is the primary driver…?” Clearly, the Sun. But, in fact, everybody agrees to this. Look at the Physical Science basis part of the last IPCC report – the big input to climate is, surprise!, the Sun. Nobody disputes this.

    The controversy is over whether or not man’s contribution to GHGs upsets the balance and drives a warming that is likely to cause problems.

    If you’ve been surfing web sites that are putting the question that way (Sun vs Man), then I think it likely that they have an agenda. You might want to branch out your inquiries a bit.

    Now, I’m not going to go through all of that report you linked but I will take a minute to address the very first bone of contention… the “Hockey Stick,” which is the result of a paper on paleoclimate reconstruction by Michael Mann and a few others in 1998 or so.

    In fact, although Singer dismisses the Hockey Stick, alleging that Wegmann and McIntyre and McKitrick disposed of it, this is not the case. The National Academy of Sciences’ own panel, reviewed Mann, et al, and found it to be perfectly satisfactory. Still others reviewed McIntyre and McKitrick and found errors in their work. Mann has been tested and has been duplicated with different programming (Wahl and Ammann did this a couple years ago) and survives.

    But, we needn’t rely on Mann, et al, of 1998 for a Hockey Stick chart. First, temperatures continue to rise since 1998. Second, if you check the IPCC Report, the Physical Science Basis, page 467 or thereabouts, there’s a chart there with Mann’s hockey stick curve on it AND ELEVEN MORE hockey sticks from other studies. Even if Mann, et atl, could be rejected, the IPCC report doesn’t fall apart because 11 other teams also arrived at the same result: “Unprecedented warmth for at least the last millennium.” But Singer doesn’t mention these 11 other studies, he expects you to dismiss Mann on the say-so of a few and would prefer not to expand the scope of discussion to include all the other studies that agree with Mann.

    If you look at that chapter of the IPCC report, you also find that the instrumental record goes back further than climatologists normally discuss. The usual take off point for what’s called “the instrumental record” is 1870 or so. However there are also 4 good recording stations in Europe that take the record back well into the 1600s. They confirm Global Warming. More good stations phase in over the next two hundred years. That data does have a Euro-centric or North American bias, so no one relies on it alone. But it does provide a check and extension to the instrumental record and a nice bridge to the paleoclimate reconstructions of Mann, etc. and it is in agreement. How odd that Singer does not mention this. But if he wants to take down Mann, he also has to explain these away, too. And he doesn’t.

    In other words, Singer’s very first argument is not only wrong (it fails on technical merit, or at least McIntyre, etc, didn’t conclusively prove anything) but a complete misdirection. He’d like you to believe that tearing down Mann is a piece of conclusive proof that the IPCC report is flawed but that’s just not the case, because Mann is so well supported otherwise.

    Now, any reputable climate scientist would know this. So why did Singer write his paper this way? The only conclusion I can reach is that Singer is not writing this paper for other climatologists, he’s writing it to persuade the public or to provide cover to political organizations trying to persuade the public. Consequently, it’s not a science paper at all, it’s a political argument or the pretend foundation for one.

    If Singer had something going on in the science, he’d be digging something up that would reject all 12 Hockey Stick studies wholesale… but he can’t.

    If you are seriously going to support those who attack the conclusions of the IPCC report (which involves thousands of contributors) and the supporting science (thousands of tested papers), then you really should sit down with the IPCC report and study if for a good long while. There’s a lot in there and you should read the entire thing so that you will appeciate that chipping away at the contributions of Mann, etc, even if successful to some degree, will hardly make a dent in the overall weight of the evidence.

  • Don E.
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Dear Bob, It is amazing how desperation leads us to our best creative thinking. Imagine a new internal combustion engine completely off the charts, delivers high torque at 0 RPM’s but can spin off the tack dial, requires very little oil, runs at 800F, small, light weight, uses twice as much water as fuel, requires no transmission, and gets 100MPG at highway speeds in today’s full size car. Here are a few ideas for you. Lets design a rotor on a shaft. The rotor contains internal vanes similar to the cross section of a sea shell spiraling outward from very small to large. Down the shaft we inject pre-compressed air from storage tanks in very low volumes and high pressure to the rotor center. We inject fuel and ignite it. Tremendous heat and expansion of gases expands outward creating a torque force as it expands through the spiraling vanes. The tremendous heat is cooled by injecting a small amount of water which instantly become super heated steam further driving the rotor and preventing a melt down. The mixture of hot gases and steam exits the rotor where it is cooled and water is re-condensed. Hold on to your hat Bob, out of our way Vett!
    Fun to dream isn’t it.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Charlie

    It’s amazing how the world turns. the planet was different long ago and man had nothing to do with it, CO2 has been higher in the past also. But to you that doesn’t matter. to others it means the planet changes on it’s own. In the 70’s the next ice age was coming, in the 80’s plastic bags were the answer to save trees (even though trees are our greatest resource)90’s started global warming, and now we have ethanol. ALL have been shown to be a joke. Planet temps are not hurt by man, plastic bags are now being banned in towns across America and now ethanol is under attack by environmental groups as worse than oil. and ethanol cost to much to make and is causing world wide food shortages and high prices.please spend more time trying to find a product we can use that makes it cheaper to live, but until then stop with the hoax that CO2 is killing us and cars are destroying the planet. DRILL,DRILL & DRILL. THAN REFINE, REFINE & REFINE.

    Lou

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou,

    Sure, the planet was different. But it’s the cause and the pace that differentiate the change today. Global Mean Surface Temperature and climate are things that usually change over centuries. This gives animals and plants time to adapt to the change.

    The pace of CO2 driven change isn’t like that. We’ve got centuries of heating compressed into a few dozen years.

    If Mother Nature chooses to change the climate – there’s not much we can do about that except suck it up and adapt. However, life in the US is pretty good. We grow plenty of food and have much arable land. It’s unreasonable to expect “change” will be an “improvement.” It is unlikely that deserts will begin to bloom in response to change as fast as currently arable land can be destroyed by those same changes.

    As for “in the 70’s – ice age.” Yes, there was some serious science that suggested this. Further review shot that down pretty quick. The principal drivers for this were aerosols, dust and other aspects of pollution. Some of those things are under control. However, the underlying science that dealt with aerosols, etc, was advanced, in part by looking at the possibility of an upcoming ice age and this learning is integrated into the IPCC report and other climate models.

    It is unwise to presume that we can change the environment negligently and the earth will shield us from any unfortunate change.

  • Buck
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou
    This might be outlandish to say, but I think that overall everyone in this forum has similar goals; it is just a matter of how quickly we get there. You said “The problem is that the global warming crowd is causing (costing?) all of us more money and taking choice in cars from Americans”. I wouldn’t disagree with you, but I might ask you, having grown up in a country with the highest standard of living on the planet, how much do you need? What are you willing to forgo today to make sure your dozens of great grandchildren will breathe clean air and live in a country that is energy independent?
    You also said, “Until another source of fuel comes along that is cheaper and can be delivered to ALL Americans oil is what drives America”. It all comes back to timing. When will it be convenient for us to start steering the ship in a smarter direction? Five years ago we could have “chosen” to invest $60 Billion on alternative energy incentives and developing an energy policy that focuses on reducing consumption and developing alternative sources of energy. Instead, we chose to go fight for oil we pay retail for, to the tune of $600 Billion and counting.
    Even if you don’t believe in GW, you have to agree that the steps needed to address it will in the long run make our country and the planet a cleaner healthier place.

  • rdekleer
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    ‘Carbon tariff’ could bring jobs back from China: Rubin

    DAVID EBNER
    11:45 EST Thursday, Mar 27, 2008

    CALGARY – Manufacturers that have relocated to China may soon be coming home if the Western world imposes a “carbon tariff” on countries that spew greenhouse gas emissions, according to Jeff Rubin, chief strategist and economist at CIBC World Markets.

    Mr. Rubin, in a report issued on Thursday morning, said it is clear Western countries are moving quickly to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and he highlighted that China’s estimated emissions in 2007 supplanted the United States after rising rapidly through this decade.

    Given the increasing emissions imbalance between the developed world and countries such as China, Mr. Rubin said the “only leverage is through trade access,” specifically a “carbon tariff.” Mr. Rubin predicted such a tariff, based on $45 per tonne of carbon dioxide or equivalent, would be $55-billion annually, a 17-per cent levy on all Chinese imports to the U.S. – almost six times greater than the effective current import tariffs.

    The main impact of such a scenario would be on companies that have moved their factories to China – and consumers in North America. In a world where carbon emissions cost nothing, moving to China, with its cheap labour, made perfect sense, Mr. Rubin said. That situation is unlikely to last, he added.

    “For many industries that joined the exodus to the cheap labour markets of East Asia, imposing a carbon tariff means coming home,” Mr. Rubin said in his report entitled “Coming Home,” co-authored with economist Benjamin Tal.

    “Without such a tariff, the earnest efforts of [developed] countries to decarbonize their own economies would become absurdly quixotic in the face of the avalanche of emissions that will come from the rest of the world.”

    Companies – because of their high carbon output – that are mostly likely to re-relocate are makers of chemical products, as well as makers of non-metallic mineral products such as cement, glass and lime, according to Mr. Rubin. Printing, primary metals makers and machinery manufacturing are also exposed.

    For North American consumers, such a tariff of course would mean imported products would become more expensive. At a carbon cost of $45 a tonne, Mr. Rubin projected the U.S. inflation rate would be increased by about 0.6 percentage points, roughly a 25-per-cent increase from the current core U.S. inflation rate of 2.5 per cent.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Buck

    I’m not willing to give up any of the cars I own because they are not causing the planet to warm. companies and the Government are spending money to find alternatives oil, if you like it or not does drive the world economy. Oil is responsible for some many products not just gas. I do care about my children and what they breathe. I have 7 children and CO2 is not the problem. Ethanol is not the answer to a non-problem. And the use of food to make ethanol is costing more at the Supermarket.

    Charlie

    You said that serious science was behind the 70’s ice-age,It was wrong. serious science is behind global warming too and it’s wrong.You have no FACTS to say CO2 from man or cars are doing anything that’s why it has always been known as a theory.we grow lots of food but we are using lots of it to make ethanol increasing the cost of all food, we are for the first time in US history importing wheat. You can gow all the food you want but when you take a large percentage of that product off the market it hurts the supply and increases the cost of it.

    Oil is it we need to have an energy policy to go get more here in the USA and Refine it here. The world needs an increase in supply to lower prices. CO2 is not changing the planet temp. And yes when another product comes along that is cheaper and able to get to all americans that is when it will take the place of oil. Supply and Demand is what all world economies depend on. Oil and food supplies are low and that means everything is high in cost.

  • davidjames
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The previous postings don’t say “stop using oil” they say “use less oil” and “use oil in a way that doesn’t add to the CO2 load in our atmosphere”.

    A PHEV will still use oil, just a lot less.

    A previous posting had a link to NASA’s website, that in my mind clearly shows less ice (and thinner ice).

    - http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html

    - You need to scroll down a bit to see the interesting stuff.

    If you disagree that global warming is real, please provide a link to a source that is at least as credible as NASA.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    David

    I have no problem using less oil. But if you are reading all that is said,oil consumption will not go down world demand is rising and the current ethanol push is shown to be a non-solution. I’m not playing the web site game with you. not all beleive in global warming is caused by man. You all want to forget the history of the planet. Al Gore is making Millions from this hoax, He donated his “nobel winning prize” to his own company. The weather channel has people threatening Meteorologists who don’t believe in global warming with a threat of stripping them of AMA certification. The web site game doesn’t play with me. You find me a web site that shows the DATA that the Car or OIL or even man was the cause of the planet changes thousands of years ago. Tell me how was Niagara Falls created? Look it UP. Lake Ontario is smaller than in past history and that created it. My Parents home sits in what was once the bed of Lake ontario. Please Tell me how this is. Look up Ridge Road in the town of Greece, NY. It’s called that because that is the former shoreline. That shoreline is about 5 miles from the current one.

    Lou

  • davidjames
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou, your ranting leaves me uninspired to believe that you are a source of credible discussion on this serious matter.

    You are entitled to your opinions; I form my opinions from sources such as NASA and The Royal Society.

  • Buck
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lou

    Like davidjames said, my point is that for us to maintain our standard of living we need to take a serious look at our consumption habits. I realize the topic here is the validity of GW but it’s clear you are not buying into the “hoax”; so I’m simply pointing out that as a nation we are grappling with obesity at all levels and need to tighten our belts and start “eating” smarter. When you say “I’m not willing to give up any of the cars I own because they are not causing the planet to warm” it sounds like someone in the 70’s saying, “I’m not buying unleaded gas because it makes my Hemi ping”. Often, strides in technology designed to improve the environment in the long run, negatively impact performance in the short term.

    What we need is an energy cabinet that can bring all parties together; Energy, Manufacturing, EPA, Agriculture etc and lay it all on the table. Then topics like ethanol will be weighted and shown to be a bad idea. And while they’re at it, anything with internal combustion at the vehicle level probably won’t look like a good long term solution either. An energy cabinet is not much different than a department of defense; in order to ensure our freedom, we need energy independence. Moving more quickly down the path of alternative energy, will no doubt increase the price of energy but at least we will be in control of how big of a hit we take.

    I’m here because I want to keep talking with those that think opening windows and running the furnace is their birth right or believe we are arrogant to think we can destroy the planet.

  • Charlie H
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Al Gore is a forward-thinking guy. He sees opportunity in green tech. Opportunity that will pass us by if we don’t take advantage of it.

    The principal outcome of going green for America could be jobs and a better balance of trade. Or we can “go green” by doing business as usual until the oil dries up and the lights go out and then we sit in the dark. With Florida underwater.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    David

    I didn’t know that talking about the facts of the planet was Ranting. Sorry the facts got in the way.

    Buck

    Alternative fuels will take over when one is able to take the place of oil. and Ethanol is not it. we will never be able to use ethanol in the long term. Cost is a huge factor for this country and many others. The debate her is whether CO2 from cars is changing the planet, and it’s not. I work in the “climate” everyday in Florida. I cut grass and look for many ways to save money.(ie: I use 4stroke handheld tools and a Diesel lawnmower). I’m not worried about my house being under water anytime soon. Some gobal warming so called experts also say we are running out of water. So wich is it, are we going to dry up or flood. Roy Spencer, former NASA for you Dave,Doesn’t support the theory. not everyone at nasa supports the theory.

    Please click on my name below for the link

  • davidjames
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    New York Times
    April 6, 2008

    A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming

    By ANDREW C. REVKIN

    The charged and complex debate over how to slow down global warming has become a lot more complicated.

    Most of the focus in the last few years has centered on imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to prod energy users to conserve or switch to nonpolluting technologies.

    Leaders of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change – the scientists awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year with former Vice President Al Gore – have emphasized that market-based approach. All three presidential candidates are behind it. And it has framed international talks over a new climate treaty and debate within the United States over climate legislation.

    But now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.

    The economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, stated the case bluntly in a recent article in Scientific American: “Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people.”

    What is needed, Mr. Sachs and others say, is the development of radically advanced low-carbon technologies, which they say will only come about with greatly increased spending by determined governments on what has so far been an anemic commitment to research and development. A Manhattan-like Project, so to speak.

    And time is critical, they say, as China, India and other developing nations march headlong into the modern world of cars and electric consumption on their way to becoming the dominant producer of greenhouse gases for decades to come. Indeed, China is building, on average, one large coal-burning power plant a week.

    In an article in the journal Nature last week, researchers concerned with the economics, politics, and science of climate also argued that technology policy, not emissions policy, must dominate.

    “There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary – it is,” said the authors, Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado; Tom Wigley, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Christopher Green, an economist at McGill University. “The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation?”

    Proponents of treaties and legislation that would cap emissions don’t disagree with this call to arms for new, low-carbon technologies. But they say the cap approach should not be ignored, either.

    One of them is Joseph Romm, a blogger on climate and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit group pushing for federal legislation to restrict greenhouse gases.

    “Of course we need aggressive investments in R. and D. – I for one have been arguing that for two decades,” Mr. Romm wrote in a post to his blog, climateprogress.org. “But if we don’t start aggressively deploying the technologies we have now for the next quarter century, then all the new technologies in the world won’t avert catastrophe.”

    Another expert who has emphasized the importance of capping emissions, Adil Najam of Boston University, said he hoped this emerging debate would not distract from doing whatever is possible now to curb emissions.

    “You can do a tremendous lot with available technology,” said Professor Najam, one of the authors of the intergovernmental panel’s report on policy options. “It is true that this will not be enough to lick the problem, but it will be a very significant and probably necessary difference.”

    But Professor Pielke and his co-authors say that a recent rise in emissions – particularly in fast-growing emerging powers – points to the need for government to push aggressively for technological advances instead of waiting for the market to force reductions in emissions.

    Mr. Sachs pointed to several promising technologies – capturing and burying carbon dioxide, plug-in hybrid cars and solar-thermal electric plants. “Each will require a combination of factors to succeed: more applied scientific research, important regulatory changes, appropriate infrastructure, public acceptance and early high-cost investments,” he said. “A failure on one or more of these points could kill the technologies.”

    In short, what is needed, he said, is a “major overhaul of energy technology” financed by “large-scale public funding of research, development and demonstration projects.”

    At the same time, China and India continue to insist that economic growth is both their priority and right. They argue that the established economic powers should be responsible for spearheading the research to reduce carbon emissions. After all, the United States and Europe spent more than a century growing wealthy by burning fossil fuels.

    Developing countries repeatedly made that point last week in Bangkok in the latest round of United Nations talks over the shape of a new climate agreement. But the United States rejected a proposal from China that 0.5 percent of the gross domestic product of industrialized countries be used to disseminate nonpolluting energy technologies.

    As if to underscore the energy and emissions trajectories in Asia’s emerging powerhouses –and the priority placed on growth there and among important international institutions – the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank is planning to vote on Monday on helping to finance a four-billion-watt complex of coal-burning power plants, the “Ultra Mega” complex, in Gujarat State in India.

  • Joe, Cleveland OH
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Wow.

    It’s really sad to see people carry on about polution and Bob’s comments as if it really has an affect on their personal lives.

    Seems as if it’s more important than whether your kids are doing well in school and your family is taken care of….. you know, the things that really matter in life.

    The comments of one VP from a giant business should not upset anyone, nor should things beyond your control take control over you.

    Do the right thing for yourself and your family, and let everything else you have no control over go.

    Life is short. Enjoy it.

    Drive a Camaro! :)

  • davidjames
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    To Joe Cleveland,

    You seem to subscribe to the “short-term gain at the expense of long-term pain” view of life.

    It’s precisely because people care about their families that they should be concerned about climate change.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    David

    Maybe you don’t understand what Joe is saying.

    He is telling you to do what YOU feel is right but don’t force others to do the same if they don’t believe in what you are doing.

    The problem is that the stats keep coming out that we are, as a planet, putting out more CO2 and the planet for the last 10 years has not changed and in the last 13 months it has cooled. were I live in Florida we just had record low temp on April 15. How ironic that is Tax day and a record low. Oil and CO2 are not changing the temp of the planet but if you think it is than work to replace all that the product (oil) does. The reality of the global warming hoax is that it’s now costing everyone in the world more and some countries are having riots because of a shortage or high prices. The only long term pain we are having is higher prices on everything not just gas. “Splash and dash” with biodiesel is now costing us money for fuel we don’t even use, or sometimes re-import. Government involvement in paying credits to companies to offset the higher cost of making ethanol or biodiesel is to high a price. You want to replace oil, fine, But we still don’t have the product to do that at a price we all can afford.

    Please click on my name below to see the article to explain “splash and dash”

    Lou

  • Bret
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    In hinor of Earth Day, let me thank you Mr. Lutz for expressing quite succinctly what the majority of us feel….its all a crock.

    Also, thanks for building our terrific Tahoe, which, if it ever falls apart, we will replace with a new Suburban (not a hybrid Tahoe)

  • Bret
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Eeeeeeck…

    The temperature has risen 5 degrees since earlier this morning.

    Quick, raise my taxes and take away my Tahoe, it must be climate change.

  • Buck
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    “But we still don’t have the product to do that at a price we all can afford”. Lou, define “afford”. Ten years ago Europe’s gas prices were what we are paying today. We just spent $600 BILLION fighting to hang on to the old product.

    While the rest of the world buys into the climate change “hoax” and is throwing money hand over fist to develop cleaner sustainable energy technologies we have a president that thinks getting our automobile fleet up to 35mpg by the year 2020 is a bold move. This is an arms race and we’re trying to pump more air into our Daisy. We do agree on one thing, bio-fuels are not the answer.

    We are pretty much done here with the scientific angle; the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on our impact on global warming and there will always be a minority dissenting opinion. But when Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich agree on something, that doesn’t leave much wiggle room.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    What Is “afford”?

    Affordable is a product that does not change the entire world market of every single product you buy. Stop all Government subsidies and stop with all the regulations that other governments don’t have. Until you do have that product you must increase the supply by drilling here and to build more refineries. When your Mystery product comes along than you have a winner and it will take oil’s place.

    I do not accept your premise that most of science believes in global warming, nor that Newt and Nancy agree. Newt released a statement today explaining that he is doing this to make sure both sides a represented in the argument. The problem with most, including Al Gore, is they don’t want to debate the fact’s of the past and are going on a theory and in Al’s case lie. It came out a couple of Days ago that parts of his movie were computer animated and never happened.(Came from the movie ” Day after Tomorrow “) Facts and the past of the planet are getting in the way of the theory. Brazil just found a huge oil field we have huge amounts all over this country. I really don’t care what other countries do there is no country on this planet I wish to follow. Europe is paying $10 a gallon,high unemployment, huge taxes, and a Health care system falling apart. Which country do you wish to follow? Do you really want to drive a 900 pound car?
    you keep bringing up europe and the $600 Billion. Do you Have a product to replace Oil? Leaders from NASA who support the hoax are now sounding the alarm that is ethanol. The use of corn as a fuel is a total failure and needs to be stopped.

  • Joe
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Is this for real, and if so why is no one actually pursuing it? It is a fuel cell technology that is making outlandish promises but has receieve very little press. If anyone there at GM is listening please let us know. This is pretty incredible if is indeed real.

    http://www.waterforgas.tv/?gclid=CPyDjaztgZMCFSOkiQodlyptwg

    Joe

  • Rum Doodle
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    “Is this for real, and if so why is no one actually pursuing it?”

    If this was for real, the price of oil would be in freefall.

    When it comes to energy issue always remember, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” The Second Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    How the world turns. Scientist now say that the world is going to take a “break” from its warming for a natural cooling for the next 10 to 15 years, and now 31,000 scientists have signed a petition to warn the USA not to sign any treaty on global warming and that CO2 is a benefit and that man is not warming the planet. Please Mr. Gore lets Debate.

    Call me

  • Norman
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Thanks Bob, We need more prominent people like you to say what anyone with half a brain knows. Our elected and appointed “Royalty” could give a crap about this country and it’s people. They brainwash the chidren with this trash and try to scare and control us by making us feel guilty for having achieved the unrivaled place in history as the greatest most generous country that has ever existed. Keep speaking your mind Bob. Thanks again

  • Michael A. Pendleton
    Reply to this comment On May 26, 2008 at 9:15 am Michael A. Pendleton said:
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    God bless you, Bob Lutz! With just one casual sentence, one beautiful sentence, you have interrupted the disturbing dance between enviro-huckster and enviro-drone.

    And your refusal to back down when confronted by the angry face of the apology-driven media only confirms your integrity. A corporate VP with integrity . . . who would have thought?

    Bob Lutz, you are my hero.

  • sylvie
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    This comment is for Lisa Adams, written on February 22/08. Lisa, you state that once someone switches from an American car to a Toyota or a Honda, they almost never go back. Where did you get your information? Did you do a study on this, or are you just basing this on a few of your friends????

  • Lisa Adam
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Dear Sylvie,

    1. The US market share of GM/Ford/Chrysler has been going down every year for many, many years.

    2. The US market share of Toyota/Honda has been going up every year for many, many years.

    3. The vast majority of cars purchased in the US are by individuals that already have a car.

    4. Therefore, GM/Ford/Chrysler have a declining % of the US market because individuals who switch to Toyota/Honda almost never switch back to GM/Ford/Chrysler.

  • Syllvie
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Dear Lisa:
    In response to your comment, “the US market share of GM/Ford/Chrysler has being going up for many many years” etc… is just again a general statement. You really haven’t proven anything. I did some research on the internet and found that GM reported an increase in sales among the majors in 2007. It is reported that Toyota sales declined in Jan/07. Also, Toyota posts bigger drops than GM in June/08. Just check out some sites on the internet regarding stats for sales of GM verses Toyota and Honda. You will therefore get the proper facts.

  • Lou DiStefano
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    in june of 2008 GM sales were down 18%, Toyota was down 22%. Gm is still the #1 aoutmaker in the world even though all the so called experts have been saying since december of 2006 that Toyota was going to jump past GM. We GM lovers are still waiting.

  • Steve
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr. Lutz,
    I agree with your views about Global Warming being a crock. However, not everyone does. What is important is continued advancement. You have to take the good with the bad. If gasoline engines were never designed then no one would have gasoline engines. Basically, if the technology possibilities are there then the advancement possibilities are there. So, if nobody created new things then the interest in it would cease.

  • Barna
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Dear Bob,

    ‘Global warming is a crock of s***t?’ That sounds to me like a man, who dares to say, what he thinks, who does go with the head against the wall if necessary. And this is a man, with power in his hands. So that raises a question to me.

    Your employees are just now starting to think about questions like what needs to be changed on the electric grids, to accommodate the Chevy Volt, or who should pay for the recharge at work. The answers are nothing, and nobody. Sell Chevy Volt together with a solar power generator, in a bundle.

    ‘Solar generator?? What kind of s**t is this one talking about?’ – you might ask. Well, how many start up and well established enterprises do you think will just do the same? Selling solar, wind, water, or whatever generators to the happy Chevy buyers? Because the technology is out there. One, two, a dozen, hundreds? Stealing your business. But if GM is offering an all round solution, isn’t that a sales advantage?

    ‘Yeah, generators, the price tags couldn’t fit the windscreen…’ Well, prices go down with volume. And the generator is also filling up your next car. Or the coffee machine. It’s up to you.
    ‘What volume??’ – you might ask.
    Well, would you be willing to pay, for never ever paying again?
    ‘Buy a Prius, and pay less at the gas station.’ Sounds good. ‘Buy a Volt bundle, and all miles are for free!’
    Or you want to sell fleet? Sell it with a wind turbine.
    ‘Dear employees, our cafeteria system has a new element: energy. Filling up your car at working hours is now for free. Best regards, Google HR.’ You think they wouldn’t do it? They are just now experimenting on an electric sports car.

    If you’re a man, who likes to go with the head against the wall, than this one is for you. The wall being the complete oil industry, as we know it, and at stake is the most lucrative business model of the new century. And you are the chief of product development at the largest automaker of the world. You can revolutionize the transportation industry. So, my question is: will you go for it?

    Best regards,
    Barnabás

    Ps.: ice caps do melt, and a deep fresh breathe of air at inner city New York would be nice. Thanks.

  • Rhonda R.
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I am sorry that I have just now read your comments here, but kudos to you in trying to do the right thing for GM and for us. My husband and I are very much GM fans (Chevy in particular) and in 30+ years of being married, have never owned anything else. My husband builds racing engines, and as such, he always looks for the sportier looking vehicles with the most horsepower, within our buying budget. We currently own a 2007 Monte Carlo SS and a 2005 Colorado pickup. We love the V8 with displacement on demand in the Monte Carlo. It has power and fuel economy.

    We are getting ready to think about replacing the Colorado and we are kind of at a loss of what to do. The one we have has been horrible on power, shifting several times going up hills and racing the engine to the sky each time, and mileage has been 20 mpg at best. For the loss in power, the mpg hasn’t been that good.

    We are looking at the new Colorados and found they are being offered with a V8, but not with fuel economy such as the displacement on demand like my car and the Silverados have. At a time when we need fuel economy, why would you not offer a V8 with displacement on demand for the Colorados as well? The power of the V8 will upgrade the Colorados tremendously and make them more fun to drive, but we are unwilling to give up the 20 mpg we get with our 2005. Hence, our quandary of not knowing what to replace it with. Is there any possibility that you will offer the displacement on demand V8 in the 2009 Colorados?

    Again, thanks for all you are trying to do.

  • camaro
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Lutz is why capitalism is dead

  • Henry J.
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    General Motors is slowing careening into destiny’s fate: the graveyard.

    Why? Consider that:

    A) GM was the absolute first major car maker in history to make an electric car commercial. Then it recalled every one of them, sent the majority to an Arizona desert graveyard, and destroyed them. A couple still exist in auto museums.

    B) GM has struggled since then to produce cars that provide over the CAFE standard.

    C) Certainly the Hummer H3 gets 13 mpg. Unfortunately, that is in an environment in which many foreign autos get beyond 20 mpg. The >20 mpg isn’t necessarily something to write home about, yet it is still above what the H3 provides. And besides, even if the H3 does get better mpg than the Toyota Tundra et al, that’s even missing the point. The point is, the bigger picture is, that all consumer, non-commercial vehicles should be meeting or exceeding CAFE standards.

    D) Providing 0% consumer financing for 5-7 years is not a sustainable strategy. No, it’s not.

    E) While we complain or attempt to reframe that Toyota has a lower mpg vehicle than ours, we have nothing to compete with the Prius, the Insight or any of the other hybrid vehicles out there. And relying on FlexFuel vehicles still means that we are relying on some sort of expensive-to-the-environment fuel.

    Throughout my time in the GM family, I must say I’m severely disappointed in Mr. Lutz judgment. Perhaps he should go fly his Saab. He’s better with his head in the clouds than dealing with the battleground issues that we’re all fighting for.

  • Ytsur
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Bob,

    Saw your interview on 60 minutes. I don’t know if they intentionally did a ‘hatchet’ job on you, or whether you were represented fairly….. Nevertheless, I was surprised and dissapointed at your apparent level of arrogance. I think such levels of arrogance and hubris from our so-called corporate and political elites is the cause of where we find ourselves today. To my way of thinkin’ there is a lot of ’splainin to do.

    Thanks,

    Ytsur

  • mixpix
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    If Mr. Lutz is so opposed to accepting of global warming as an issue that should be attempted to curtail then why would he want the Chevy Volt to be a success when there are surly “big oil” stockholders in GM’s board room? They certainly wouldn’t like to see the electric vehicle replace the internal combustion engine now would they?

    I know a lot of people who were born with lung disease (myself included); why would a big auto company care about maintaining a healthy Earth/ air environment when it’s their profits that are more important to them? The only way I could see loaning GM money is for a reasonable return on an insured taxpayer investment & Mr. Lutz replaced by a “greener” thinking individual who wants to see a new frontier of automobile conquered by American ingenuity & not just looking out for the stockholders.

  • Lisa Adam
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    RIP GM :-(

    I wish it wasn’t so.

    Mr Lutz and his cronies should be forced to repay their huge bonuses if GM gets bailed-out.

  • R Brown
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    A quote from the NY Times “…[F]ailure to sell cars like the Toyota Prius, which was built only as a hybrid — a vehicle that G.M.’s vice chairman, Robert A. Lutz, dismissed early on as a public relations move.”

  • mixpix
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    “Lutz and his cronies should be forced to repay their huge bonuses if GM gets bailed-out.”
    -Lisa Adam.

    I would add that if they plan on revising the SUV then they should be sent out the door. I really think they’re just posturing for money for their pockets before their archaic ways bury them once & for all.

    It doesn’t bother me they flew into DC on their individual corporate jets. It may be a condition of their personal insurance that they travel in such a mode? I was more disturbed by their arogance that global warming isn’t a product of pollution or at least exacerbated by it. The status quo of these American auto makers is to keep the buying public consuming oil. There is no regard to future generations in their selfish atitudes that have came to take them down. Good riddance to them if bankruptcy forces the companies to trim the waste.

    I feel for the auto worker in that they have such selfish single minded people heading their companies. If I were any of these workers, I would look towards the those companies that are looking to produce electric vehicles. That probably won’t be Detroit so it will be an upgrade if you have to move.

    Good luck people, hang in there. There is another frontier to conquer & it doesn’t involve oil.

  • Disenchanted Customer
    Reply to this comment On November 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm Disenchanted Customer said:
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    I don’t agree with the bailout that is happening! At all! Will you refund to the tax payers your profits, since you were not willing to change your business model in the last 20 years to sell more eco friendly cars, instead of higher margin SUVs and trucks?

    I think it is a crock that you folks can run your business irresponsibly and make huge profits for a while, and then expect a hand out from the American “public” not government, since we are actually going to foot the bill. You probably will continue to shove SUVs down our throats because you make more money on them.

  • Lisa Adam
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    If there is an auto industry bail-out, the unions should be compelled to reduce hourly wages to the industry averages for similar jobs. GM’s current wage rates put the company at a competative disadvantage.

    Now that I’m thinking about it, even without a bail-out the unions need to adjust wage rates to keep GM competative.

  • Lisa Adam
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Well done GM!

    I mean it; this is a step in the right direction. Arrogance and denial doesn’t have to be your middle name.

    Monday, Dec 08, 2008

    DETROIT — — General Motors Corp. [GM-N]on Monday unveiled an unusually frank advertisement acknowledging it had “disappointed” and sometimes even “betrayed” American consumers as it lobbies to clinch the federal aid it needs to stay afloat into next month.

  • Albert Colangelo
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Mr. Lutz,

    GM has already lost the race to market of the electric car through mismanagement and insight. Why not beat the pack with the with a fuel cell vehicle?

    Not all HAT and no cattle nonsense but a real fuel cell vehicle in the SHOW ROOM that people can buy before the competition gets there first.

    Al Colangelo

  • J. Chase
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    If GM had continued building and improving on the Electric Car(which,as everyone knows,they took back and destroyed.),they would not be in this mess.They would have been far ahead of all the others.This is just one of MANY examples of how NOT ONE Corporate entity learned from the energy crisis in the 1970’s,not to mention most Americans period.
    It is a sad fact that the bail-out money is being wasted.It should have been given to the (currently) smaller companies that are trying to put out their electric/alternative fueled vehicles.I say let the Arabs keep their oil and America become stronger from within.
    To you individuals that still think human beings are not destroying the Earth-you really need to wake the hell up and understand that environmental issues caused by human industry and “progress” will not magic themselves away in time to save your children and grand-children from some type of harm.
    I am no crazy hippie tree-hugger-it’s just that the FACTS are out there,it’s been proven and cannot be denied.I assume you are all learned people,be a part of the solution-don’t continue the problem,it doesn’t help to be delusional and continue to think there isn’t a gigantic problem with the way we Americans and everybody else for that matter,have been doing things for the past 40 or more years.I dare you to prove me wrong-you’ll just make yourselves look ignorant.

  • Lisa Adam
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    A new, lean and much smaller GM is the correct approach.

    Of course if I worked for GM, I’d be more concerned about my financial situation than the survival of GM.

    Long live General Motors!

  • Cyrus Elliott
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The recent ad on TV saying that GM cars where better than Hondas because GM doesn’t make lawn mowers is just plain ignorant.

    Honda lawn mowers are the most expensive and the very best lawn mowers available to the us home
    owners. Just like the superb Honda Outboard Motors and Motorcycles.

    Perhaps if GM would have put their efforts to perfecting small motors they would not be facing bankruptcy.

    Honda engineering of small, dependable engines then building on this knowledge to build larger, dependable engines is the reason they have succeeded in the market place.

    People can not be fooled forever and, as with most business failures, the problems are from within.

    Ads that try to denigrate fine products, such as a Honda lawn mower, will only backfire .

  • Christopher James Whitson
    Reply to this comment On May 2, 2009 at 1:56 pm Christopher James Whitson said:
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    My Opinion on what GM should do:

    Kill Buick before you kill Cadillac, and you will be killing Cadillac by making a front wheel drive sub CTS. Make a large rear drive caddy to compete with the Europeans. Cadillac should be LEADING Audi, Mercedes, Lexus and inifiniti rather then following. The CTS is a step in the right direction but where are the rest of the products? Give the Hummer HX design to GMC and change the grille. Making several different versions of the same car is a bad idea anyway (example – Torrent, Vue, Equinox) . GMC should have made the HX and called it the Terrain rather than the upcoming Terrain that is being made. Realize that Crossovers and SUVs are different animals. Hummer had to die. Fine. But don’t call a crossover the “Terrain” and then give it huge overhangs and no ground clearance. It’s misleading. The word terrain means “a tract of land, esp. as considered with reference to its natural features, military advantages, etc.”. That name should reserved for an SUV. Not a crossover. Killing Pontiac was a necessary step but don’t call the G8 a “Camaro” sedan. Hyundai calling the new and admittedly excellent rwd Tiburon a “Genesis Coupe” is confusing because there is already a Genesis sedan and they look nothing alike. Don’t make that mistake. Call it a Chevelle, Caprice or if you have to, Monte Carlo. It stays with your “C” naming strategy such as Cruze, Camaro, Corvette. Get rid of the Impala name plate. I don’t know anything about Buick but I do know that Buick should get Opel’s products such as the Insignia and the Antara. I thought killing HUMMER was a bad idea but I understand it had to happen. If there were more cash reserves I would have liked to see Hummer reinvent itself by making smaller models that were still highly capable off road vehicles with solid axles – such as the HX. Now that this is irrelevant, I think GMC should step to the plate by making a true “rally car”. Base it on the Chevy Cruze SS platform or the Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice platform but give it AWD, paddle shifters, a dual clutch manumatic, and skid plates. make it a purist model with upgraded suspension but only one trim level. Compete head to head with Lancer Evo and Impreza STi. Here is a good name plate – “GMC RoaR” standing for Rapid Off-road And Reliance – a tribute to the history of the brand. I am a GM guy all the way but the 2011 Grand Cherokee is going to be hard to beat, especially with those incentives. If you give GMC a few products that can actually compete with whats out there by making the HX (an upgraded competitor to the wrangler but without SO MANY configurations – KEEP IT SIMPLE) then I will be a loyal customer. Fuel economy is not as important to me as overall value, especially in the current economic landscape. thanks.

    ALSO: GMC – hire me to be in charge of the “RoaR” project and I will beat the Evo and STi at their own game.

    I have a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies; Business Leadership and Psychology. In addition, my father worked for GM and Delphi for 34 years as a supervisor.

  • Christopher James Whitson
    Reply to this comment On May 2, 2009 at 2:16 pm Christopher James Whitson said:
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    One more thing:

    All this nonsense about the corporate jets needs to stop. THE FACT IS – GM HAD ITS OWN Private AIR FORCE because it was CHEAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and took less time then flying on commercial airlines. The Corporate jets were not luxury jets but standard jets that GM kept operational – a fleet they maintained themselves. So you people need to shut up about it if you don’t know what you are talking about.

  • Christopher James Whitson
    Reply to this comment On May 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm Christopher James Whitson said:
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Correction to prior post – the Hummer HX concept was a not a solid axle but an experimental suspension system. Obviously, the GMC version would have a more conventional suspension.

    One more thing:

    All this nonsense about the corporate jets needs to stop. THE FACT IS – GM HAD ITS OWN Private AIR FORCE because it was CHEAPER!!! and took less time then flying on commercial airlines. The Corporate jets were not luxury jets but standard jets that GM kept operational – a fleet they maintained themselves. My father and many employees of GM flew on those jets and they were not executives. Do the research before you make ignorant comments.

  • Sgt. Stryker
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    The oil refinery companies are more wealthy and powerful then most people can imagine. They brought the whole world to its knees in 2008. In sept/08 gas was at $5.00 a gallon in the US but in Venezuela it was around 12 cents a gallon. If we introduced a TAX on the PROFITS that the oil companies make rather then taxing consumers for using oil it would be a big boon to government revenue and would show the oil companies that they don’t have unlimited power!

  • Julie
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    Fold this fake bankruptcy, let GM organize normal. We goning to loose 100’s of billions either way, so why not let GM start fresh, rebuid from bottom up. Remember, GM was lossing billions back before 2007 when the market was great. Please use bankruptcy to clean the slate, otherwise we and GM loose.

  • Wingo Wango
    0Thumbs DownThumbs Up

    >> Honda lawn mowers are the most expensive and the very best lawn mowers available to the us homeowners. Just like the superb Honda Outboard Motors and Motorcycles. <<

    Honda also makes pretty good snow blowers.

  • Leave a Reply

    (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

    To protect against spam, off-topic and abusive comments, all comments are reviewed before being posted to the blog. Please limit your comments to two on each topic and don't use all caps. Also, please note that some comments related to specific ownership issues are forwarded to customer assistance rather than posted here.