Wagoner disagrees with Lutz on global warming, bets against states' rights
Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, is a player in the auto industry. So when he sits down to have breakfast with reporters, you can bet that some juicy quotes will be delivered. Speaking on a number of topics recently at a breakfast with journos, Wagoner set the record straight that he does not share the view expressed by Bob Lutz that global warming is a "crock of $#!t". Of Lutz's famously quoted remark, Wagoner said, "The comments weren't coming out of our company." No, just the mouth of your Vice Chairman. Wagoner also took some time to address the issue of states' rights when it comes to setting national emissions standards. Despite Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all stating that they are for allowing individual states to set their own emissions standards, Wagoner thinks the lucky winner of the highest office in the land will change his or her mind after moving into the White House. He counts on our nation's economic growth being a bigger priority for the next president, something to which the auto industry can't contribute if it's forced to build different versions of its vehicles to satisfy multiple emissions standards.
Click either of the sources below to read a few more topics touched on by Wagoner over his green eggs and ham.
[Source: The Detroit News, Automotive News - sub. req'd, Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
zamafir 4:41PM (3/11/2008)
"something to which the auto industry can't contribute if it's forced to build different versions of its vehicles to satisfy multiple emissions standards."
So... the Non-American car makers who build cars in the US to California standards aren't having an issue with this it's just the American car makers? Got it. Well that's a nice binary to draw, sounds like something i'd hear those well informed pundits on CNN/FOX/(insert news agency which makes all it's money off commercials here) say.
Man what if GM just announced they'd do their all to innovate and meet the requirements set out by California which the majority of their market (those other pesky 18 states) want to adopt? Who ever said running a business was cake or being inflexible to market changes would lead to success? Oh well, keep hemming and hawing, it's not like US automaker's share of the market slipped to lit's lowest percentage EVER in 2007. Oh. Wait... yeah... keep fighting the states where you sell the majority of your products and make most of your money, that's wise.
Reply
Clarence Young 5:02PM (3/11/2008)
Well, let's suppose you are paying your employees more than foreign manufacturers. Let's suppose that your recent losses mean that you have less capital to develop fifteen versions of the same car times the number of cars you offer. Toyota could afford to do this more easily right now and they are hoping GM will do their bidding for them.
I think the states should be able to do whatever they choose. Some buyers in some states will wind up with fewer automotive choices.
One standard for all states would make cars cheaper.
zamafir 5:53PM (3/11/2008)
More then Britain pays it's autoworkers? Really? Kindly link me to that story, I'd be very keen on reading it.
And you're missing the entire point, the point isn't to make 15 variations, the point is to adhere to the most stringent, as EVERY PROFFITABLE AUTOMAKER HAS. I mean come on, you can fight it all you want but the fact is US automaker market share continues to decline in the US. the fact is, those who are taking that market share meet California’s requirements. So you can hem and haw all you want, but there is no excuse for a modern car maker not to meet the demands of THE biggest market in the US (California and their 18 friends). Period. If you can't meet the needs of the majority of car buyers in North America, maybe you should reevaluate your business model.
Julius 7:37PM (3/11/2008)
@ zamafir...
"the point is to adhere to the most stringent, as EVERY PROFFITABLE AUTOMAKER HAS."
The problem is, no full-line automaker (whether GM, Ford OR Toyota) can currently meet that "more stringent standard" of California's without serious investment of cash. NO current major automaker has a line that makes a 40-mpg average. And unlike what's proposed on the Federal level, there's no inkling that California's willing to "help out" the domestics to make that standard (e.g. battery research funding, etc).
If battery research is seen as something better served on the Federal side, then what does that say about individual States' setting standards? In any case, I as a taxpayer would be upset if I'm paying for the EPA when CARB is going to functionally do that job for it.
And if you haven't noticed, American jobs are dropping at an incredible rate. Forcing expensive change in the middle of a recession is probably the last thing a new President will want happening.
In any case, most evidence notes that CAFE is ineffective. California is a gasoline-intensive part of society, with much less investment in public transportation than other parts of the country.
The only way to change that is to encourage a lifestyle change - make personal usage of CO2 more expensive (something that the mandated CO2 limits would work against). And the only real way to do that is through a carbon tax - an idea that, though it would be effective, is political suicide.
mike 4:47PM (3/11/2008)
"crock of $#!t"-----------that's what's coming out of his mouth.
Reply
Cam 5:04PM (3/11/2008)
I don't think it's a problem whatsoever that he doesn't believe in Global Warming. There are tons of people, inlcuding scientists, who are still skeptical about it. As long as they are working to make their cars more efficient, which they are, then there is no problem behind it. It's one mans POV, it just so happens to go against what is popular right now.
Reply
Jay 5:03PM (3/11/2008)
oh I see, so it'd be better if GM had all of its employees by the juevos and didn't let them have their own opinion. Yes everyone in the auto industry needs to be a tool of the anti-global warming movement. Yup screw freedom of opinion because global warming is threatening to kill us all to death right this instant and there's no room for differing opinions.
Reply
CEMan 8:37PM (3/11/2008)
Jesus Jay
Freakin chill down dude.
You have a problem with SOMEONE ELSES OPINION?
Jay 9:25PM (3/11/2008)
I don't need to chill down, I'm as calm as I've ever been. Notice the distinct lack of exclamation points in my post? You should probably make a note of that for future reference eh?
And just what opinion are you implying I have a problem with? I'm simply saying Lutz has the right to his own opinions and Wagoner and the rest of GM have the right to not have implications thrown at them because of it.
jg 5:15PM (3/11/2008)
'I think the states should be able to do whatever they choose. '
I disagree. This is the United States of America. Not the Independant States of America, the union comes first. We fought a war over this already.
'There are tons of people, inlcuding scientists, who are still skeptical about it.'
No. Any scientist who says global climate change isn't happening is paid by people who want to continue making profit without government regulations intruding. The opposition to GW has NOTHING to do with the science. Its business, its economics. It's always an economic issue, they just dress it up otherwise to appeal to voters. 'They're trying to take away consumer choice' is one that works far too often. Luckily it only works on the 'common sense' crowd.
Reply
simianspeedster 6:15PM (3/11/2008)
"No. Any scientist who says global climate change isn't happening is paid by people who want to continue making profit without government regulations intruding. The opposition to GW has NOTHING to do with the science. Its business, its economics."
Really? So ANY scientist who doubts global climate change is automatically a tool of industry and no longer a scientist? EVERY one of them? None of them are scientists? You're saying it's not possible to form an opinion counter to the majority without being bought off? That's a pretty strong (and foolishly naive) statement. Care to back it up with some facts?
Here's an article detailing a list of notable SCIENTISTS who have become global warming skeptics. Please tell us where each of them is deriving the money that changed their minds. If you can't provide the info, your claim is meaningless, petty and dismissive.
"http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12"
Do you honestly believe that SOME (not all) global warming believers don't take any money from industry or interest groups? If so, does that invalidate their research and opinions, too?
I bet you wish the world were as black and white as you would have us believe, but reality comes in shades of grey. There is room for diversity of opinion on global warming, and there is room for healthy, well-reasoned doubt without accusations of fraud.
-SimianSpeedster
Toledo Guy 8:36PM (3/11/2008)
You might disagree, but the Constitution isn't on your side.
Have you ever even READ the Constitution? You must have gone to a government (i.e. Public) school.... Check out the 10th Amendment.....
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The States have the right to set individual emissions standards. GM has the right to not sell vehicles in that state if they don't feel they can make money because of the standards set. Vermont (or any other state) can impose their own standards, but can't force any automaker to build a vehicle that meets them. Quite frankly, I'd like to see the automakers simply pull out of those states.
Al Gore might not have invented the internet, but he did invent global warming.....
davewin 5:18PM (3/11/2008)
Vehicle and emissions standards should be set by the Federal government. Every time there is a deviation from it, all it does is cause an additional cost burden for everyone (customers, US companies, foreign companies) and only benefits a small group or area.
The US economy is so big in large part because of national standards.
Reply
psarhjinian 5:34PM (3/11/2008)
* California's Air Resources Board (CARB) predates the EPA by some years
* California, more or less, is the US economy. California's gross GDP is higher than a most countries'. I think they get some leeway here.
* States that don't want to use the EPA standard have all agreed upon CARB. We're looking at two levels, EPA and CARB, not fifty.
* California has some unique geographical quirks that, combined with a high population density, mean that emissions are a serious issue for them, as compared to pancake-flat prarie states. People will actually die if California adopts EPA emissions standards.
Now, that said, CO2 is not toxic, and doesn't necessarily constitute a life & safety issue for California, unless you count rising sea levels and/or climate change. That said, as a greenie, I have nothing against California being proactive, especially when the current administration and congress are barely reactive.
Tourian 5:25PM (3/11/2008)
I don't understand why people who say its okay for each state to have its own standard will back that up by saying there would only be two, Fed-spec and Cali-spec, where as the Cali spec would be adopted by 18 states, so in the end there would only be two. What would stop, let's say, Georgia or Montana to want to delevop their own in the future and force manucaturers from making another, or carrying it on out for each state to develop their own?
In short, I think its dumb to force auto manufacturers, profitable or not, domestic or not, to meet more then one standard.
Reply
davewin 7:09PM (3/11/2008)
I don't disagree with most of your points. If CARB had not predated the EPA pre-emption wouldn't even be an issue.
CA's economy is a significant part of the US econ but it is not the majority.
If all states that want to regulate GHG adopt the CARB proposal that would still leave 2 levels of compliance.
I'm not debating the merits of CARB's proposal over the Fed CAFE standard, etc. What I am saying is that whatever standard there is, there should be only one applied everywhere.
Zerk 5:38PM (3/11/2008)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
This is the basis on which the Federal government has the right to set the standards and California does not.
Autos sold in CA are primarily produced outside of CA.
Reply
letstakeawalk 6:22PM (3/11/2008)
The regulation of Interstate Commerce clause. I'm surprised more people haven't heard of it. Kudos.
John P. 5:42PM (3/11/2008)
Global Climate change has happened since day one, it will continue to happen long after man is extinct. Even Mars has gotten warmer over the last 20 years. Not many Hummers rolling around up there last I heard.
Over the last 8 years, the earth has actually cooled, El-Nino was the last big spike up. The ice up in the Arctic Ocean is back this winter, and this has been one of the coldest winters globally on record. If you want to follow a loser alarmist like Gore, graduated in the bottom half of his high-school class, go right ahead. I'd rather concentrate on finding better ways to move around. Personally, I ride my bike to work and save about $20/week doing so.
Of course there's Global Climate Change. Sheesh. Now, responsible citizen's of earth will find a way to conserve, and pick up after themselves, but I think we'll find ways of getting around the planet long after oil is gone if that's a worry for some.
Reply
DesiAuto 7:17PM (3/11/2008)
"Global Climate change has happened since day one"
Dude, they are not even sure about earth's age and you are claiming that climate change has happend since day one?
One thing I do admire about you: Confidence to type BS.
BTW, daily temps going up and down is not what they menat by "global climate change".