And I agree, the numbers aren’t set in stone – but we’re not really helping with the kinds of cars we drive (and I’ve been one of the truly serious sinners, driving hogs for years. Just never sat down to really think it through back then.)

Lutz is off in space, though, in his own very particular place. Must be terrible actually, for him, to see what his programs have done to GM.

That’s the problem; there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the exact number. It still indicates there are ways, other than automobile related, to curb oil consumption.

However, I will cede that argument, since my original comment was dealing with pollution, particularly CO2 emissions.

I think designing more economical, environmentally friendly vehicles is a good thing; I just don’t think the alarmist attitude some people have is necessary.

That is why carbon dioxide emissions by a country or region and oil use by a country are not necessarily the same thing, or even necessarily related.

Combustion of natural gas and coal also results in carbon dioxide emissions – it’s just not generated by transportation (which would include private motor vehicles). These fuels are still heavily used in the generation of electricity.

If you are concerned about carbon dioxide emissions, then you can’t just look at oil consumption – you have to look at the consumption of ALL fossil fuels.

The generation of electricity is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions for both the U.S. and the world as a whole. In the U.S., the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the production of electricity are more than double that generated by private cars and trucks.

Nearly 50% of the total, not 28%. And the numbers haven’t actually gotten better since 2003.
I’m quoting the Hirsch Report, by the way, which takes a very level headed view of this.

The biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions is not from personal trucks and cars, but from…electrical power plants, even though, in your own words, “the 2003 daily serving of 19.7 million barrels, 13.1 million went to transportation – 66%.”

Over 41 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States comes from electrical power plants (the world figure is 40 percent).

But I guess picketing the local power plant isn’t quite as glamorous, and someone might mention that – GASP! – nuclear power does not generate any greenhouse gases.

If you read my post, I said PERSONAL transportation, which is only a portion of the transportation in the statistic you quoted. Using your statistic, personal transportation accounts for 43% of the transportation total.

This means that about 28% of the total oil consumption went to personal transportation.

According to this site,

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07Trends.pdf

transportation accounts for about 25-30% of CO2 emissions, with 63% of that from cars and light trucks. So, personal transportation accounts for about 16-19% of CO2 emissions.

And Bob, it DOES matter what you say and think because your decisions will affect millions of customers.

Well at least their doing a good job of removing GM’s cars and trucks from most people’s debate over which car to buy.

Of the 2003 daily serving of 19.7 million barrels, 13.1 million went to transportation – 66%.

You are talking about oil consumption. TexasAg03 is talking about carbon dioxide emissions. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Hmmm – where do you get your information?

Here’s a nifty chart showing you what the transportation portion is of total US oil consumption, from 1973-2003.

Of the 2003 daily serving of 19.7 million barrels, 13.1 million went to transportation – 66%.
http://www.eurotrib.com/files/3/051025_US_oil_consumption_by_sector_1973_2003.jpg

I’m not inclined to disagree, but the real problem is that other countries are joining the automobile revolution, while oil supplies are not keeping up with the growth in demand.

Any company that relies on V-8 powered trucks and SUVs for its bread-and-butter is in trouble, manmade global warming or no manmade global warming.

Gas is over $3 a gallon again around here…do you really think we will be looking at a Tahoe or Silverado for our next vehicle? And my wife and I are not exactly “greenies.”

I second that post.

Personal transportation contributes a relatively small amount of pollution. Even if man made global warming theories are correct, automobiles are a small part of the problem.

From Maximum Bob’s Fastlane blog entry:

“The Chevrolet Volt program is occurring under my personal watch.”

Leaving aside how out of touch he is with the actual progress on the vehicle, he’s certainly the public face of the Volt. ANYTHING he says will be evaluated in light of the Volt program. Doesn’t he realize this?

And it’s the greenies who think Global Warming is both serious AND man-mande who want CO2-free vehicles… are they going to want a Volt for $40K after he jabs ‘em in the eye?

GM’s new vehicles ARE quantum leaps over their replacements, even if they don’t necessarily send the competition scurrying for cover (which should send a shudder through every poster as we ponder what GM’s latest releases would be like if he weren’t there).

GM needs to keep him focused on improving internal processes and procedures…he should not be making these statements to the press or on his blog.

Note that Alan Mullaly was hired to do essentially the same thing at Ford, but he manages to keep his mouth shut…which is good, as this is not a time when GM, Ford and Chrysler should go around painting big fat targets on their corporate backs. The companies need to buckle down and get the job done.

I am willing to cut people like him some slack. In some ways I find him refreshing. Rightly or wrongly, he speaks his mind without having a team of PR specialists molding his message into meaningless mumbo like other business leaders and politicians. Our society has hoards of journalists waiting around like a pack of jackals for somebody of note to say something worth ripping apart in a feeding frenzy.

He’s not planning to improve the industry’s impact on the environment, he’s hoping to distract people away from talking about it!

I don’t Bob, believe me, I don’t.

# Stein X Leikanger :
February 12th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Oh, Bob Lutz will be eating those words in a few days, no reason to worry.

===

Though we can just get out the pop-corn and soda for his next statement clarifying what he actually meant to say, which is going to be diametrically opposite to what he said.

Simple, really…..

* = Some of Prince Philip’s gaffes:

Speaking to a driving instructor in Scotland, he asked: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?”
When visiting China in 1986, he told a group of British students, “If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed”.
After accepting a gift from a Kenyan citizen he replied, “You are a woman, aren’t you?”
“If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.” (1986)
In 1966 he remarked that “British women can’t cook.”
To a British student in Papua New Guinea: “You managed not to get eaten then?”