 |
General Motors Responds, Defends Global Warming Denier Bob Lutz |
 |
I wrote yesterday about the fact that a top executive at General Motors doesn’t accept the role humans play in global warming. To be clear, man made global warming is established science. Anyone who says otherwise cannot be taken seriously.
Incredibly, General Motors dispatched Tom Wilkinson, Director of News Relations, to defend both Mr. Lutz and the company’s environmental policies. He did so by commenting on my piece on Huffington Post. He wrote:
Increased energy efficiency and reduced petroleum use are desirable for a lot of reasons. There is no reason a three-dimensional human being (like Bob Lutz) can’t be skeptical about global warming orthodoxy and still be wildly passionate about more efficient vehicles. Which he is, by the way.As for GM policy, it is set by a board of directors and a senior leadership group, not by one individual. And you might be surprised to find that dissenting voices are welcome within GM. In fact, they are encouraged.
A few of these comments also ring of age discrimination — not so good…
GM is as transparent as any company about what it is and isn’t doing in the environmental area. So if you are interested in looking beyond your biases, please visit our media site: http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/.
“There is no reason a three-dimensional human being (like Bob Lutz) can’t be skeptical about global warming orthodoxy and still be wildly passionate about more efficient vehicles.” To be fair, on the surface, that is accurate. It is also fair for us to expect some consistency from General Motors though. GM’s Vice Chairman of Global Product Development should not be going on popular television shows to mock established science. Big auto has a long history of using attacks on the science of global warming in order to resist researching alternative fuels and increasing fuel efficiency. Mr Lutz’ comments also fly in the face of the company’s corporate policy on the environment.
Wilkinson continues: “You might be surprised to find that dissenting voices are welcome within GM. In fact, they are encouraged.” The organization’s lack of conviction with regard to the science of climate change is on full display here. “Dissenting voices” implies that there is a legitimate scientific debate about the merits of climate science. This is simply not the case. Would you encourage a dissenting voice who denied gravity? No, you wouldn’t. If General Motors accepts climate science as fact they should not allow Bob Lutz to speak for them. If they think there is a legitimate debate in which “dissenting voices” deserve to be heard, they should make that clear.
Wilkinson writes: “A few of these comments also ring of age discrimination — not so good…” One of the comments called Lutz an “old stodgy businessman” and said the company was “run by old geezers”. This is not relevant whatsoever, and I’m not sure why Wilkinson brought it up. Trying to deflect the legitimate criticisms perhaps?
Wilkinson finishes his comment a bit defensively: “GM is as transparent as any company about what it is and isn’t doing in the environmental area. So if you are interested in looking beyond your biases, please visit our media site: http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/.”
I am interested in looking beyond my biases and learning more. So, Tom (or anyone at GM), here is my question:
Does GM subscribe to the fact that humans have played a role in increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Do you believe that this is established science?
If your answer is no, can you point out credible claims to the contrary?
If your answer is yes, why do you provide a platform for, and defend, someone who disagrees with established science?
I have corresponded with Tom Wilkinson today via email. I have just emailed him a link to this post, and offered him the opportunity to respond on The Seminal. I sincerely hope he takes me up on this offer.
First, I don’t think it is entirely fair to imply that Bob Lutz went on the Colbert show to mock established science. He went on the show to promote the Chevy Volt. Which is the product of established science. Steven brought up global warming. It made for good shtik.
Second, I perceive a critical misunderstanding here of what “established science” is. Yes, the theory that human activity contributes to climate change is widely accepted by the scientific community — and by many at GM. However, as Thomas Kuhn notes in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” this theory is only a paradigm. Even within science, paradigms need to be challenged, and they are, every day. When an environmentalist (or anyone else) assumes that what we know today will be the same forever, they show a high-school-level understanding of science. In fact, they are behaving more like religious believers than scientists. They could benefit from a good Philosophy of Science course.
Which gets back to my central point — Policy at GM is set by a board of directors and a senior leadership group. And under this policy, GM is making a major global commitment to developing advanced propulsion technologies, which can moderate our reliance on imported oil and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. That multi-billion dollar investment is what really matters, not some shtik on a late night Comedy Central show.
I think this *is* the exact point, Tom. GM’s website makes a loud commitment to environmentalism, yet Mr. Lutz is making a statement on a big platform (The Colbert Report may be a comedy show, but is is widely viewed) that directly contradicts GM’s stance. There’s a real conflict here.
So, if GM is serious about its environmental commitments (and a lot of people have their doubts), they should demonstrate that seriousness by chastising or firing senior managers who obviously don’t believe in GM’s corporate mission. And if GM’s real views are actually more in line with Lutz, then GM shouldn’t lie on its website.
Trivializing Lutz appearance on Comedy Central as “shtik” doesn’t fool anybody. Lutz went on national television and contradicted GM’s mission. So which is it? Is GM committed to environmentalism or not?
Good Grief, why do alarmists trivialize the issue by insisting it be reduced down to a single question? This issue raises many questions which need to be answered independently. For example:
1) Has the planet warmed in the last 100 years? (most likely)
2) Does CO2 cause the planet to warm? (very likely)
3) Are humans causing the CO2 levels to rise? (most likely)
4) How much warming will added CO2 cause? (we don’t really know)
5) What are the consequences (good and bad) of a warming planet? (we don’t have a clue)
6) Are rapid and expensive mitigation strategies the best way to deal this the bad consequences? (most likely not)
The science may be settled for questions 1-3) but the answers to 4-6) are much more important and the science is definitely not settled on those. In fact, 6) is more a question of economics rather than physical science and I question the sanity of any individual who believes we should trust the IPCC economic models any more than we should trust the economic models used by the folks at Lehman Brothers.
Attempts to shut discussions on questions 4, 5 and especially 6 by screaming about how the science is “settled” are not helpful and encourages those with different opinions to be similarly obstinate.
Those discussion are worth having, but I still think the choice is pretty clear.
We can take a bet that if we do nothing about this issue it might actually turn out to be a non-issue. Or we could go forward and try to solve this issue, and even if it turns out to be a non-issue, we’ve cleaned up our air. And if this issue is actual a dire problem, well, we’ve solved it.
I can’t see how any rational person could pick option one - to ignore the problem - just to save money.
Jason,
“if it turns out to be a non-issue, we%u2019ve cleaned up our air”
CO2 emissions have nothing to do with air quality. In fact, eliminating CO2 emissions woud likely result in an increase in other types of pollution (e.g. more nuclear waste and toxic waste from solar panel/battery production and disposal). More importantly, if smog is a problem it can be addressed directly at a much lower cost so it is not reasonable use that as a rational for radical CO2 reductions.
“And if this issue is actual a dire problem, well, we%u2019ve solved it.”
The problem cannot be “solved” with current technology or with any technology that is likely to become commericially viable over the next 10-20 years. Our need for energy is simply too large and the non-emitting alternatives cannot fill the gap. The only way to “solve” the problem through mitigation is to severly supress economic and population growth - options that most people will not consider.
Here is an analysis to give you an idea of the scope of the problem: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-carbon-free-energy-ga p-4539
That is why I think adaptation is the better bet. If sea levels rise we build dikes and/or pay to move populations. If glaciers stop storing water during the rainy season we build dams. If drought reduces agricultural productivity in some areas we make sure the we can transport food from places where agricultural productivity increases. All of these options are doable with current technology and would likely cost less than the gradiose mitigation schemes.
Wait, you really think “adaptation” is going to be less costly or less disruptive than trying to solve the crisis before it hits? Amazing.
Do you ANY understanding of how the economy and the energy system works? I assume no since anyone who does understand those things realizes that no matter what we do we CANNOT significantly reduce global CO2 emissions given the technology that is likely to be available in the next few decades. Adaption is not a matter of choice - it is the ONLY option. Most of the money spent on mitigation measures will be wasted and will simply take resources away from more pressing environmental issues.
Raven has a remarkable faith in the American people both to realize the gravity of the situation and cut back and to innovate to solve the problem.
We’ve done bigger throughout history, no reason we can’t step up and do it again. All that’s lacking is will.
it seems there has been lot of propaganda about efficiency amongst US car manufacturers for some time, but never any progress. i assume this stunted growth is the result of incestuous ties to oil companies. gm has had electric car prototypes for quite some time right? [insert "the inadequate fuel-cell excuse" here]
also, wouldn’t:
be considered “age-discrimination?” Asserting high-school students are without a strong understanding of science implies they have not been mentally afforded with time.
your playing the “age-discrimination” card is pretty hypocritical considering GM was hit with a class action lawsuit in the 80’s for their “Forced Ranking” policy. “But that was in the 80’s,” Mr. Wilkinson may contend. If the regression in fuel efficiency of Gm vehicles over the past 20 - 30 years is any indication, they should feel just as at home amongst “age-discrimination” as they were in the past. judging by your high-school reference, you still are.
to be fair tom, you have a very difficult job defending a company run by old geezers and stodgy old businessmen. good luck.