PDA

View Full Version : Bob Lutz: Global warming a "total crock of shit" ... !


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
02-23-2008, 04:40 PM
GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of shit," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were "missing 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 ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support," he said in a posting titled, "Talk About a Crock."

GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology.

"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," he wrote.

Lutz said GM was continuing development of the battery-powered, plug-in Chevy Volt and other alternatives to traditional internal combustion engines.

GM is racing against Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research)(TM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to be first to market a plug-in hybrid car that can be recharged at a standard electric outlet.

Lutz has previously said GM made a mistake by allowing Toyota to seize "the mantle of green respectability and technology leadership" with its market-leading Prius hybrid.

A 40-year auto industry veteran who joined GM earlier in the decade with a mandate to shake up its vehicle line-up, Lutz is no stranger to controversy.

As part of a campaign against higher fuel economy standards, Lutz wrote in a 2006 blog posting that forcing automakers to sell smaller cars would be "like trying to address the obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell smaller, tighter sizes."

Automakers ended their opposition to higher fuel standards in 2007 when it became clear that proposed changes would become law with or without their support.

In December, U.S. President George W. Bush signed a law mandating a 40 percent increase in fleetwide fuel economy by 2020, the first substantial change in three decades. (Reporting by Kevin Krolicki, editing by Toni Reinhold)

misterdecibel
02-23-2008, 08:33 PM
What is a "plug-in hybrid"?

MikeHalloran
02-23-2008, 10:59 PM
It's a hybrid with a plug, so you don't have to recharge the batteries by running the onboard engine.

You plug it into an outlet and charge it, e.g. overnight.

Then you can make outrageous claims about its great (artificially enhanced) fuel mileage.

You still have to pay the power company.

swamprat
02-24-2008, 01:11 AM
Lutz is right on on that issues.

misterdecibel
02-24-2008, 03:52 AM
It's a hybrid with a plug, so you don't have to recharge the batteries by running the onboard engine.

You plug it into an outlet and charge it, e.g. overnight.

Then you can make outrageous claims about its great (artificially enhanced) fuel mileage.

You still have to pay the power company.







Then what's it need the onboard engine for? Why not just make it an electric car?

robmcg
02-24-2008, 03:56 AM
It's a hybrid with a plug, so you don't have to recharge the batteries by running the onboard engine.

You plug it into an outlet and charge it, e.g. overnight.

Then you can make outrageous claims about its great (artificially enhanced) fuel mileage.

You still have to pay the power company.


Thankyou Mike,

surely mrdecibel was taking the mickey.

Hybrids mostly cost stuff in terms of production energy that simply outlawing engine over 1 litre and desinging roads to accomdate would fix it.

Or tax the big vehicles to reverse the SUV-truck thing, but we cannot do that beacause GM Ford need trucks masquerading as cars. And the US is not tooled up to make small cars.

Your leaderless country is beautiful; mostly good people.
It has no parallel in history.

MAD (mutually assured destruction) is the final card as your productive corporations dissolve into money-changing Christian nutters who will hopefully not go too religious and attack Iran.

Why should Iran not have nukes? Is it not a human right to defend yourself?

Eric
02-24-2008, 08:36 AM
It's a hybrid with a plug, so you don't have to recharge the batteries by running the onboard engine.

You plug it into an outlet and charge it, e.g. overnight.

Then you can make outrageous claims about its great (artificially enhanced) fuel mileage.

You still have to pay the power company.







Then what's it need the onboard engine for? Why not just make it an electric car?


Because electric-only cars are extremely limited buy their short range - and the amount of time it takes to "refuel." With a hybrid, you don't have to worry about the batteries running down - and finding yourself stuck for at least an hour or more - because the onboard gas IC engine constantly recharges the battery. And the car can run on gas alone, of course.

As Chip mentions, the main advantage of the plug-in hybrid is you can run on electric only for longer periods, which reduces consumption of gasoline and hydrocarbon emissions, C02, etc.

robmcg
02-25-2008, 12:16 AM
Because electric-only cars are extremely limited buy their short range - and the amount of time it takes to "refuel." With a hybrid, you don't have to worry about the batteries running down - and finding yourself stuck for at least an hour or more - because the onboard gas IC engine constantly recharges the battery. And the car can run on gas alone, of course.

As Chip mentions, the main advantage of the plug-in hybrid is you can run on electric only for longer periods, which reduces consumption of gasoline and hydrocarbon emissions, C02, etc.


Pure electric cars use rare battery resources, and use power mostly made from coal and gas... and 1-litre euro cars have a lower overall carbon footprint than a medium hybrid.
Americans prefer two-ton bricks.
Why not add the cost of the Iraq war to US fuel?

chiph
02-25-2008, 09:54 AM
Yes, Hybrids are a crock, so far as total impact to the environment are concerned (taking manufacturing and end-of-life disposal into account, not just operating impacts).

But plug-ins are better than the current hybrid designs because you can transfer emissions from several million mobile emitters (not all of which are that well-maintained) to a few centrally located sources of power (generating stations -- nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, etc) where the emissions are at least easier to control & cleanup.

Chip H.

robmcg
02-26-2008, 12:01 AM
plug-ins are better than the current hybrid designs because you can transfer emissions from several million mobile emitters (not all of which are that well-maintained) to a few centrally located sources of power (generating stations -- nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, etc) where the emissions are at least easier to control & cleanup.

Chip H.



It's a bit academic if economies are required to grow with population, as they do, and most hydro and wind is fine, but with the current economic model of worldwide trade and capitalism there must be either nuke power or some other solution, like limiting the 'right' to use power. Whether by old V8s or electric generation.

I think given that coal is still the main thing for USA China Australia I think the USA is the LEAST able to stop is rampant freedom/consumerism/energy consumption unless by cost.

That why the cost of the Iraq war could be reasonably applied to gasoline, as a 'war tax'.

But the people driving two-ton bricks everywhere in MY HUMBLE OPINION ought to have their cars destroyed, and all cars over 1 litre banned except as curiosities, freight by rail then small trucks, and computers that last two years-or-so , well, (sigh) .. the apple tree outside is about 40 years and just gave it's first fruit... granny smith a bit strong early in the season (wind fall)

misterdecibel
02-26-2008, 01:25 PM
plug-ins are better than the current hybrid designs because you can transfer emissions from several million mobile emitters (not all of which are that well-maintained) to a few centrally located sources of power (generating stations -- nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, etc) where the emissions are at least easier to control & cleanup.

Chip H.



It's a bit academic if economies are required to grow with population, as they do, and most hydro and wind is fine, but with the current economic model of worldwide trade and capitalism there must be either nuke power or some other solution, like limiting the 'right' to use power. Whether by old V8s or electric generation.

I think given that coal is still the main thing for USA China Australia I think the USA is the LEAST able to stop is rampant freedom/consumerism/energy consumption unless by cost.

That why the cost of the Iraq war could be reasonably applied to gasoline, as a 'war tax'.

But the people driving two-ton bricks everywhere in MY HUMBLE OPINION ought to have their cars destroyed, and all cars over 1 litre banned except as curiosities, freight by rail then small trucks, and computers that last two years-or-so , well, (sigh) .. the apple tree outside is about 40 years and just gave it's first fruit... granny smith a bit strong early in the season (wind fall)



Then lead by example.

MikeHalloran
02-26-2008, 07:28 PM
....all cars over 1 litre banned except as curiosities...

Have you ever been to America?

swamprat
02-26-2008, 09:50 PM
Global warming?? Who cares.

robmcg
02-27-2008, 05:47 AM
I would run a 998cc Mini,

but I am a special case.

Ken
02-27-2008, 06:21 AM
I would run a 998cc Mini,

but I am a special case.


Correction Rob? - I would run a well tuned 998cc Mini Cooper.<gg> (Just to make it clear to the uninitiated. <gg>)

Ken.

Dave Brand
02-27-2008, 03:59 PM
Global warming?? Who cares.


I do! It's materially improving my way of life - why do these idiots want to stop it...as if they could!