Energy Security and Global Warming: What GM is doing
Is GM about more than just the Hummer?When it comes the environment and global warming, GM is the favored whipping boy in the automotive sector, but is such a view of GM accurate? Just because GM isn't the leading developer of hybrid cars, does that mean they are not an environmental leader? According to GM's VP of Environment and Energy, Beth Lowery, that view is not correct and she is letting people know about it on the Fast Lane Blog.
Finish Energy Security and Global Warming
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, Ethanol, flex fuel, Foreign Oil Dependency, fuel economy, global warming, GM
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:38 AM
3 Comments:
Mrs. Lowery states, "Reducing gasoline consumption as well as our collective impact on the earth's climate should be national priorities. These, too, are our priorities at GM and we recently told Congress what we're doing to lessen our dependence on petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
So, what exactly is GM doing?
To discuss what GM is doing correctly, Mrs. Lowery decides it's time to dispel some myths.
Myth 1 is that GM doesn't care about the environment. To counter, Lowery asserts that GM will invest billions developing plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles and electric vehicles. In addition, GM has more than 2 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road.
While it is true that GM will invest billions, GM has also been given, minimally, hundreds of millions to develop such vehicles. Thus far, the American taxpayer has received ZERO return on that investment. So, I'd say GM owes America already.
Even worse, GM's 2 million flex-fuel vehicles were developed when GM knew full well that most would never utilize ethanol. Besides, corn based ethanol is far from environmentally friendly. And even worse, GM's flex-fuel program has enabled GM to claim CAFE credits by adding cheap flex-fuel technology to millions of automobiles. If not for this CAFE loophole, GM would be in violation of CAFE and would have to pay significant penalties. How many hundreds of millions of dollars - dare I say billions - has this loophole saved GM while increasing America's foreign oil dependency?
While GM might not be as bad as portrayed, they certainly don't deserve any environmental rewards.
Myth 2 is that CAFE works. Here I agree with GM that it doesn't, otherwise GM wouldn't have been able to utilize flex-fuel loopholes to grossly violate CAFE. Also, Lowery asserts that since CAFE, "GM has improved its fuel economy more than any other major auto manufacturer, " yet GM still significantly trails both Toyota and Honda on fleet fuel economy. More interesting, how much of this fuel economy improvement is hidden in flex-fuel credits?
Still, Lowery points out correctly that since CAFE, America's energy dependence has gone up drastically.
Consequently, Lowery again points to bio-fuels as a far better solution than CAFE. Apparently, building significantly more fuel efficient vehicles isn't quite as important as fuel, which is kind of ironic - to blame it all on fuel. In reality, shouldn't an automaker be focused on how to make automobiles more fuel efficient, rather than on developing new fuels - something which requires far less automaker responsibility and action?
Can biofuels really do so much?
No. Biofuels can make an important contribution to global warming and energy independence, but it will take significantly more fuel efficient vehicles AND biofuels to provide any real help. Moreover, corn-based biofuels are not a good bio-fuel and without massive incentives - tax dollars -to both corn growers and ethanol refiners, corn-based biofuels make no sense. Already just the small amount of corn-based ethanol used today is pushing the price of many foods, even beer, higher. The more ethanol, the more your food is going to cost.
On the good side, corn-based ethanol might help develop far more efficient and environmentally friendly cellulosic ethanol technologies, but even that it is not enough. Also, does America really have unlimited capacity to produce cellulosic ethanol? Will global warming affect this capacity? Will droughts or floods? Will ever increasing congestion and urban sprawl? Can any fuel, other than possibly hydrogen, ever match America's growing fuel demands? How much will cellulosic ethanol affect food prices?
GM is not doing nearly enough
Ultimately, GM is doing far too little regarding both energy security and global warming - as is every other automaker. Even worse, as far as GM, is the constant nod towards ethanol, as if ethanol is some magic bullet that means both Americans and GM don't really have to make any serious changes. For example, as long as you have a flex-fuel Hummer the world will be funky dory.
GM shouldn't even try to tell America what they are doing because what they are doing is not nearly enough - not even close. At best, GM has taken a few baby steps forward.
Still, it isn't just GM. Not ONE automaker is doing enough. American consumers aren't doing enough. Congress isn't doing enough. Doing the right thing will require nothing less than a revolution in both technology and in consumerism.
Inevitably, it really isn't all GM's fault - not by a long shot. There is plenty of blame for every automaker, almost every politician, and almost every American citizen. We can ALL do better.
Most important, GM needs to stop talking about alternative fuels so much and stay focused on alternative technologies which can revolutionize the efficiency of automobiles, such as the Chevy Volt. This kind of automobile, as Bob Lutz has stated, "is a game-changer". Instead of launching the Volt in 2010, get the Volt on the road in late 2008 as a 2009 model, as Toyota plans to do with its third generation Prius - then I'd believe that GM has made energy security and global warming a real priority.
Until then GM should mostly shut up, especially regarding bio-fuels. In reality, neither GM nor any other major automaker has made either energy security or global warming a priority. So stop pretending. Shareholder value and profits are far more of a priority - and maybe a good part of the problem - than is energy security or global warming for the automotive industry.
Just as an alcoholic, you can't really move forward until you admit that you have a problem. Well, automakers, consumers and politicians have a serious problem. Can we change, or will we wait until change is forced?
GM needs an edge to compete with the Asian automotive tigers. Although they have been very slow to respond to automotive trends...they might be finally "getting it". Their push to produce E85 vehicles deserves great praise. Please remember that flex fuel vehicles can run on both gasoline and ethanol, so they are providing solutions for everyone. I speak daily on biofuel on my alternative energy business blog: Energy Spin
How does a flex-fuel vehicle running on gasoline benefit anyone? Please remember that many of GM's flex-fuel vehicles would be in violation of CAFE if not for the flex-fuel technology. Consequenlty, those flex-fuel vehicles running on gasoline - which is the far majority of GM's flex-fuel vehicles - are basically violating CAFE.
It is absolutely ridiculous to give GM credit for finding loopholes to violate the law while increasing foreign oil dependency and pollution.
Besides, corn-based ethanol is not environmentally friendly.
In reality, GM deserves very little credit for flex-fuel. In reality, GM's flex-vehicles are creating more pollution and foreign oil dependency than allowed by CAFE. In reality GM should be paying massive fines, not be given massive praise.
Post a Comment
<< Home