Sorry cubicle dwellers but the truth hurts. D Magazine reports that GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz told a group of journalists that global warming is "a total crock of shit." When pressed on his enthusiasm for the Volt, Maximum Bob explained "I'm motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 (argument)." Yes but– MB wasn't so keen on on other automotive technologies aimed at diminishing our demand for foreign petrochemicals. Even though GM is touting their big, honkin' hybrid SUVs and hybrid-lite cars and spending multi-millions on a hybrid research center in China, he thinks hybrids "make no economic sense." GM's Vice Chairman of Global Product Development also stated diesel cars have no place in a market where gas and diesel prices are comparable (i.e. in the U.S.). And just to show solidarity with GM dealers facing GM's sliding market share and the current economic downturn, Maximum Bob said "they've got to isolate themselves from the economic forecasts and say, 'I make my own prosperity.'" Sounds like TTAC's leading candidate for our soon-to-be-announced Bob Lutz award may have been sniffing too much JP-8 or whatever imported-oil-based petrochemical he burns in his jets.
115 Comments on “Lutz on Global Warming: “It’s a crock of shit”...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Well we had fun Mr. Lutz, but it’s time for you to leave the US market for intelligent customers, the exit is on your left. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
And the hits keep on coming…
Give him a little credit, he’s absolutely right about diesel in the US.
When they write GMs epitaph, you will feature prominently, Mr Lutz. But please, go ahead, when the market has shifted almost entirely to fuel efficient vehicles, and GM’s market share is lower than say Kia’s, I will remind you of that quote.
I suppose he came to that conclusion after a thorough review of the scientific literature?
Well, Lutz has been right about everything else.
Oh, wait a sec . . ..
Although Bob, at least the way he’s presented here, seems to be flirting with senility, he was correct about CAFE.
To paraphrase, he said CAFE was like fighting America’s obesity problem by setting a cap on the size our pants.
And TriShield I agree.
As far as global warming, well, everyone keeps saying the debate is over. Regardless of his personal beliefs, Bob needs to make sure his company leads in the effort to take personal transport out of the equation.
@mistercopacetic- I think you meant to say, please let the door hit you on the way out.
Even if he doesn’t believe it, everyone else will have far more efficent vehicles that will be cheaper to run. Plus how will he sell in Europe or other countries? Better to believe it than not as far as the car industry is concerned. Better to take the lead.
This guys is doing his best to convince me he has the intelligence of a lug nut…
Diesels are the best compromise we have at current technology levels even if a gallon costs the same as gasoline b/c you get 20/30% better mpg. Diesel would have to cost a good 20% more a gallon before it is not longer useful. This is all aside from building the 50 state EPA/CARB clean diesels – but diesels are comparable priced to build as you remove the ignition phase and equipment in an engine but slap on higher compression direct injection fuels system (just like Direct Injection gas engines which add cost and only give 10% better power/fuel).
Lutz is a complete moron who has no idea of what is really going on the world – just in his fancy palace. It was GM who basically ruined the market for consumer diesels anyway (trying to cheaply convert a gas v8 to a diesel v8) – so why would they want to evoke one of their dumbest and cheapest moves they’ve ever done.
Hey Lutzy-boy! You should know this, you’re “running” a humongous car making setup:
Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines of the same power, resulting in lower fuel consumption. A common margin is 40% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel. For example, the current model Škoda Octavia, using Volkswagen Group engines, has a combined Euro rating of 38 miles per US gallon (6.2 L/100 km) for the 102 bhp (76 kW) petrol engine and 54 mpg (4.4 L/100 km) for the 105 bhp (78 kW) diesel engine. However, such a comparison doesn’t take into account that diesel fuel is denser and contains about 15% more energy by volume. Although the calorific value of the fuel is slightly lower at 45.3 MJ/kg (megajoules per kilogram) than gasoline at 45.8 MJ/kg, liquid diesel fuel is significantly denser than liquid gasoline. When this is taken into account, diesel fuel has a higher energy density than petrol; this volumetric measure is the main concern of many people,[attribution needed] as diesel fuel is sold by volume, not weight, and must be transported and stored in tanks of fixed size.
Adjusting the numbers to account for the energy density of diesel fuel, one finds the overall energy efficiency of the aforementioned paragraph is still about 20% greater for the diesel version, despite the weight penalty of the diesel engine. When comparing engines of relatively low power for the vehicle’s weight (such as the 75 hp VW Golf), the diesel’s overall energy efficiency advantage is reduced further but still between 10 and 15 percent.
===
But I guess that at GM it’s Cover Your Ears and Ass, right??
I love this guy he makes the day entertaining.
We should have a Lutz wrong-o-meter and keep track of all the things he’s been wacked out and wrong about. I would say your current take on the markets direction hasn’t been all that correct.
‘I make my own prosperity.’ Because I have a fat contract worht millions weather they make money or lose billions, with bonuses regardless of performance or how stupid I make the company sound. And my nice golden parachute just incase the company is not prosperous and it all goes bad.
This is why maxi-Bob makes the big bucks.
AND he will retire with billions…
Makes me want to risk my money even less on a GM vehicle…
As far as diesel goes, yes, on paper it’s superior to gasoline in mileage and CO2 emissions; yet the price won’t stay where it is if a (relatively) sudden increase in demand occurred. To make room for automotive diesel, we’d need a strategy that would increase the shipments of less time-sensitive goods by rail. Of course, that would have to be the part of our coherent enegy policy. OH snap.
If America wants diesels so badly, then why are VW sales less than 25% of their U.S. volume. By contrast in Canada diesel makes up almost 75% of their sales. Diesel is more expensive here in Ontario also.
So I’m in a business that makes a product that burns oil and pumps CO2 out its back pipe. Is anyone surprised when I say that CO2 doesn’t have anything to do with global warming. And further, I want to sell more product next year which will result in an increased burn of oil. So now I better deny that oil is a finite resource. But I can’t just deny all this I better be emphatic about it and call it a crock of shit. That will go a long way in explaining to the scientists that Global Warming is just a crock of shit. And as for the oil geologist they’re just a crock of shit too. And the oil company execs who admit that oil is tight – well they’re just a crock of shit too and probably commies to boot! Now let me get back to running a decent all american business – too bad it’s a crock of shit too.
He’s right…global warming IS a crock of shit.
The earth has been warming since the original ice age due to much more than man-made energy usage.
The industrial age has some impact, but you can’t correct or postpone the inevitable warming of the earth when producers and consumers are not the problem.
Even a passing study of paleoclimatology will yield a view of how the climate has changed since 1000 AD – both warming and cooling.
Politicians need platforms to run with; therefore, in order to squeeze tax dollars and campaign financing, wishful concepts like global warming are created, emphasized, and band wagoned. It’s all BS, and at least the head of GM has realized it.
But if global warming creates jobs for researchers, topics for universities, and encourages new infrastructure development to stimulate the economy, I’m all for it. But some people are employed by companies that search for and believe in flying saucers, just don’t ask me to buy into it.
Everyone has an agenda.
Finally, someone else has figured out that Al Gore invented global warming and is heating up the planet with a giant satellite dish located in the north pole.
I don’t know who this Bob Lutz fellow is but based on the comments I read in the blurb above he is clearly a courageous pioneer of brilliant proportions.
This guy should be given a medal or something. THANK GOD someone has the balls to say it.
THANK YOU Mr. Lutz!
The global warming debate is not over. There are a lot of thoughtful, intelligent scientists who question the man-made global warming theory, and are looking at other potential causes for the current warming, such as solar activity.
Man-made global warming may be a legitimate theory, but it could be (and my money is on this alternative) that Bob Lutz is right.
Scientists say the polar ice cap has melted a number of times during earths life. Mankind just thinks he is so important that he can control these things. And Al Gore looks like a hero to the world, while poor President Bush looks like a zero. Go figure?
Oooooh, a heretic.
Shall we burn him on a cross?
Or maybe just send him to a reducation camp?
Wow…global warming from CO2 has been discussed since the late 1800’s…yet people still doubt it could possibly exist. I mean the population of this planet has exploded and with it a massive deforestation to make room for people and business/industry.
In that process of expanding and deforestation we remove the planet’s ability to convert CO2 back to good old Oxygen.
And you folks want to say Al Gore invented something that is over 100 years old.
Go do some research folks – even if you don’t 100% agree with what scientists have found, you won’t sound like a bunch of blathering fools like Bob Lutz when you claim someone that is alive today came up with Global Warming.
If you break his arguments down point by point, what he’s saying isn’t that outrageous
1) (Man made) Global warming is B.S.-The jury is still out on this one, there are persuasive arguments on both sides, I don’t agree with his outright dismissal of the possibility though
2) Hybrids don’t make economic sense-This is probably technically correct since it’s very hard to offset the hybrid premium with gas savings. Of course this doesn’t take the ‘green halo’ effect into account (although GM may not be capable of taking advantage of this effect anyway)
3) Diesel cars have no place in the U.S.-Last time I checked, Diesel is more expensive than premium. Couple that with the fact that diesel engines are more expensive, and it is definitely possible that the U.S. market won’t warm to diesels any time soon
4) Making your own prosperity-It’s hard to argue this one on an empirical basis, but there are probably plenty (or at least a few) of examples of businesses thriving, or at least not suffering during recessions
I don’t really see what’s so outrageous about any of his statements
Let’s rename this site The Truth About Global Warming!
I get flamed by EVERYBODY when I say that global warming is BS, but thanks to Bob Lutz and the past 5 posters, I see that there is more sense in this world!
thetopdog:
Thank you for being reasonable. He makes valid points.
Has anyone ever done a ROI on the Lexus hybrids? I think it’s a 22 year break even on their Hybrid LS.
And you folks want to say Al Gore invented something that is over 100 years old.
WOW! The internet is 100 years old?
What a friggin’ idiot
Hmm, my last post didn’t go through – not sure why, but here we go with a slightly different approach:
Since we’re here to discuss Truth (about cars), lets make sure we stay truthful about Al Gore et al:
Quote from Wikipedia:
“Gore has been involved with the development of the Internet since the 1970s, first as a Congressman and later as Senator and Vice-President. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn stated in the 2000 article “Al Gore and the Internet”, that Gore was “the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.”[140] His High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (often referred to as the Gore Bill) was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[141] which Gore referred to as the “information superhighway.”
In a March 9, 1999 interview on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Gore stated, “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”[142] This statement was often misquoted by media outlets and led to the creation of a widely spread urban legend that Gore claimed to have “invented the Internet.”[143]“
Emphasis to point out this is an urban legend, and not fact as many like to try and say.
Making a 50-state diesel car is such a pain in the ass that diesel is not likely going to be a major factor in the United States any time soon.
Notwithstanding what he actually “believes” he seems to be subscribing to the Bushian philosophy that continuous repetition of a statement will make it true. We know that how that worked out.
But hey, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt on all these issues. Maybe he’s right.
Unfortunately the fact is the market does not give a shit about what he believes so we should just stop asking him.
It is clear that the market is hearing something completely different. Pity nobody in GM seems to hear it too. Deafened by lunatic ravings maybe.
Last year it cost them $38 billion.
Imagine what the bailout is going to cost US. Let’s (forlornly) hope that MB and RW don’t see a penny of it.
Orian: Cheers to you! Ai Gore remains the favorite “whipping boy” of the right, and his crusade against anthropomorphic climate change really gets under their skin. His backing, however has probably induced the conservatives to drum up some pretty convincing “scientific” evidence to the contrary; thus extending the “debate”, and delaying timely measures in government and industry to correct it.
Yeah, hybrids suck; that is until there are lines at the gas stations, and 10 gallon limits…
In that scenario, the hybrid owner looks pretty goddamn smart.
Please. The development contract for ARPANET was let to BBN in 1969 and the development followed concepts developed in the early and mid 60s. You can find that on WIKI also. The template for the internet emerged from the work on ARPANET, initially with character based terminal communications (and I’m old enough to have used same). Al Gore’s claims he ‘took the initiative’ is as laughable as the claim he was a role model for the chick book Love Story – which he quickly retracted. Yeah, he didn’t claim he invented the Internet, but he clumsily implied it wouldn’t have happened without him when he was a member of the Gang of 435. Thus, he deserves the ridicule he gets.
re: anthropogenic global warming. At the intersection of politics and science, there stands a statue. It is of Trofim Lysenko. We can start planning who to add with respect to AGW…..
Lutz is like a broke cuckoo clock and its the time of day where he’s right.
shaker, get real. It’s not a political, liberal/conservative debate as much as it is a scientific debate. There’s facts, and the rest is all talk. Fact is that before mankind even made the first car, the earth had cycling climates. All of this El Nino, la Nina, global warming crap is done so to scare voters into supporting a candidate or purchasing some overpriced good or service.
And in your scenario, how smart does the hybrid driver look when he STILL has to stand in that gas line at some point, while STILL paying more to maintain his vehicle? It would be different if the modern hybrid was a true electric, but it’s not; therefore, the hybrid is useless. It’s not even a proof of concept – just a way to get more money through new car sales and service, and according to Lutz, a way to reduce the dependency on foreign oil.
So at least Lutz has the intestinal fortitude to say that the hybrid just decreases the requirement for foreign oil, and does nothing for this global warming nonsense. I applaud him.
But the global warming people don’t want to look at the fact that cows release more natural CO2 than anything. Maybe they should crusade against beef and leather seats to reduce the CO2 emissions. Ridiculous.
I am well aware that this website is dedicated to the premise that GM will (must?) go bankrupt, hence the deathwatch series. Along with that comes bashing of any executive/employee of said company. Bob Lutz has forgotten more about cars than any of us will ever know, and fortunately he is not afraid to speak out when he sees theories and misinformation accepted as scientific fact e.g. CO2-induced global warming. While we have had slightly warmer temps on earth’s surface recently, they pale in comparison to the heat that was endured during the 1930’s. Five, ten or even 30 years does not a trend make when it comes to climate change on a planet billions of years old. As an earlier poster said, this is about money – for universities and researchers and ultimately for the carbon traders that will surely come as the cap and trade system is implemented. Gee, another Gore innovation.
“Global warming is B.S.-The jury is still out on this one, there are persuasive arguments on both sides”
Likewise, there are “persuasive” arguments that creationism is right. And that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
For a given value of “persuasive”, which in this case, like in the tobacco “science” of the 1950s through 1980s, means “how much money does it take for us to persuade a few unethical scientists to say what we want them to say”.
The “I invented the Internet” quote was taken well outside the context. But with how poorly our masses educate themselves (from cable news) they take it as fact. It’s not like FNC didn’t take the lead in order to refute Gore in 2000 – As we see on FNC / CNN / MSNBC misinformation and the “fear factor” works as well as truth nowadays.
Lutz is an idiot – don’t really care if he forgot more about cars than I’ll ever know. He’s wrong in his position to so often backtrack and spew out misinformation to the masses. It’s idiotic.
As for the GW detractors who don’t believe it is happening. I believe that we must have an effect on our climate. The effect we have I’m not sure how significant or how dangerous. But to simple ignore it or say our actions have no effect is just wrong (current estimate is we burn 90 million barrels of Oil a day for our energy needs in the US – the equivalent of OPEC’s current production for the world).
Lessons from history include: Coal fired plants were roaring for decades and the posions they emitted – ignored and the people in power who made their living from those riches of course denied them. What about the 2,000 square mile area in the Gulf of Mexico where nothing can live except algea (same major problem the Great Lakes States are dealing with) b/c of the fertilizer and sewage runoffs – the US’s greatest dumping grounds. Again, Denial as it can’t be b/c of us. Now jump ahead 40-50 years and we take them as fact (now that the overly conservatives are no longer in power to detract these facts). Don’t forget Love Canal – the money told us nothing was out of the ordinary – but couldn’t pay off everyone forever.
In fact a very recent sponsored report by the White House on Global Warming (2002-2003 I think it was released) our President asked his scientific counsel and even a non scientist to revise a lot of the findings and reduce the importance of our effect we had on the environment. So the findings were pooh-poohed in order to fit a political agenda.
Now I’m no tree hugger but I’m not blind and I actually worry about the footprint I leave whether it be CO2 or material waste, etc. The previous generation passed on a lot of problems, wasted a lot of resources, to mine b/c of they unwillingness to do anything b/c of the money and the “what can I do effect”. I don’t want us to make the same mistake and force our children to make up for our purposeful ignorance.
M1EK :
Your refusal to even consider the fact that the current warming ‘trend’ may not be entirely due to man-made emissions seems as short-sighted as Lutz’s statement that global warming is B.S. At least provide a link or some kind of reference to back up your point, since you seem to feel so strongly about it.
I honestly don’t care either way. I researched the subject of global warming for a paper I wrote a few years ago in college and from what I read, I couldn’t be entirely convinced that the warming we are currently seeing is entirely (or even mostly) due to anthropogenic emissions. Perhaps you have researched the subject as thoroughly as I have, or perhaps you’re just parroting back information on a subject you don’t fully understand (I don’t blame you for not fully understanding all factors that influence climate change because nobody understands everything about climate change). All I know is that I have yet to see irrefutable evidence for or against global warming, so I am keeping my mind open. I suggest you do the same
“Likewise, there are “persuasive” arguments that creationism is right. ”
Funny that is mentioned. “Human caused global warming” and Creationism are both presented, pushed, and argued very similarly, and both in very non-scientific ways.
Science STARTS with a question. (How old is the earth?) Then, science works, without prejudice, using logic, facts, math, etc… to find possible answers. (These are called hypotheses.) A hypothesis that stands hard scrutiny and gains acceptance as fact is called…. a theory. One that is able to be PROVEN is called a law. This is very difficult, and impossible for most theories. Like gravity. We have gravitational theory, not gravitational law. We can’t prove gravity exists. (”Law of Gravity” is misnamed) Evolution is on the same level of scientific acceptance and relevance as gravity, folks. Deal with it.
Now, religions start with an ANSWER. “God made earth and life in a week.” Thats the answer. Period. They then ignore logic, and twist some facts, ignore others, to try to justify their answer. Science is about FINDING better answers, not making claims, and justifying them. Its a world of difference. People who question the religious answer are not met with disagreement. they are labeled as heretics, as questioners of some fundamental truth, not questioners of man’s explanations. Thier objections are not attacked, THEY are.
Environmentalism, and global warming specifically, are a “new” religion. The world was once perfect and at peace. Man gained knowledge and has soiled the earth, bringing pain and destruction. Now, an enlightened few know the truth, and its their duty to spread the word, and convert the actions of others, even in the face of opposition. Sometimes, in the name of their cause, it may be necessary to make sacrifices, and bend some rules. Maybe be a little unethical, but its all for the greater good…Right?
As was said, warming trend is nothing new. The Earth’s temp has NEVER been constant. Ever. For millions of years. We started coming out of a little cold spell 200 years ago. We’ve been warming for those 200 years (few degrees), yet polluting for only 100. Our contributions to the gasses as minimal, in comparison to the natural emissions from various sources (less than 5% for all the gasses). Hell, CO2 isn’t even the biggest warming agent as far as effect goes (by far).
Ice caps? Have been melting at roughly same pace FOR 10,000 YEARS. Since last “major” Ice Age.
Oh, also, we have more trees in the US now, than 100 years ago. We’ve been replanting. And these new growth trees suck down way more CO2 than old tress do. In fact, its good for the earth to cut old trees down and replant saplings.
Hurricanes? They follow a neat cycle, looks like a sine wave, up and down, over the years. Katrina was about the peak of the newest “up” years. We just noticed this last cycle, because only recently have people been so densely populated in hot-ass hurricane zones. That an 24 hour news, etc… We’ve had storm like this before.
Oh, and Al Gore didn’t invent, take initiative, or create anything. What he was involved with was called “The Information Superhighway.” No, not the internet, or the Web (two different things). This was supposed to be a new network. It talked about in the early to mid 90’s and was supposed to replace the internet, telephones, tv, radio, the whole bit. One, new, all-in-one comm network. Like Skynet. ;-) It never left the ground. Al Gore took the initiative in creating a failed pipe dream. At best, his ‘91 bill helped fund the FURTHER development of Mosaic at the U of I.
The problem with “studying” AGW, is that the longer we wait, the closer to the “tipping point” that we get.
Since many seem to agree that there’s still “debate” on the issue, there’s an implication that the doomsayers might be right.
As has been said before; if there’s AGW, and we do what it takes to reverse it, we’ve saved the planet.
If there isn’t, then we’ve become more efficient and energy independent (at some cost and “inconvienence”, to be sure).
I don’t understand why we don’t see this as an opportunity to become the champion (and major source) of “green” tech; as it is, we’ll just sit on our collective asses, gulping oil until we have to buy the “green” tech from someone else.
It’s pitiful that we have to rely on BP or Chevron to develop these technologies; they’ll do it at a pace that suits their business model, not the global enviornment.
The argument for diesel fueled cars isn’t that diesel fuel costs less. The argument is that diesel fueled vehicles get around 30% more miles per gallon than do gasoline powered ones.
“If America wants diesels so badly, then why are VW sales less than 25% of their U.S. volume.”
Because you haven’t been able to buy a VW diesel in California, Massachusetts, Maine, New York and Vermont. California and New York are the two largest car markets in the country. Massachusetts is huge as well.
Lutz joined GM in 2002. In 2002 GM enjoyed a 28.3% of the US market. Ref: http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm03ar/fin_mda_2.html
Today GM’s US market share is running 22%-23%: Ref: http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/124535/article.html
So in five years of having Mr. Car Guy on board General Motors has lost 5-6 percentage points of US market share all while launching a “Product Renaissance”.
Now tell me why ANYONE cares what Bob Lutz says ????
“Since many seem to agree that there’s still “debate” on the issue, there’s an implication that the doomsayers might be right.”
^My point exactly, toss science out the window. “Theres a doomesday possibly coming!”
Please. This is the same “sky is falling” crap that has been used in every civilization ever to control the population by passing more laws and restrictions.
Gravity is also just a crock of shit – just wait, one day we’ll all just float off.
“Has anyone ever done a ROI on the Lexus hybrids? ”
I’m still waiting for the ROI analysis of buying a “luxury” vehicles instead of it’s standard brand sibling.
Hybrid technology is the only automotive option people ever ask about the ROI on. What is the ROI on an 8 speaker sound system, leather interior, sunroof or a GPS navigation system?
I’m not a fan of McCain, but I think he states it pretty well. If we do nothing and global warming is heavily influenced by man, we’re screwed. We being all humanity and most life forms in fact. We can’t turn on a dime and pass laws, revalue our currency, etc. and fix it. We’re screwed. So it seems prudent to change our course. If we’re wrong and there is no significant human affect on climate change, we’ll end up with a cleaning environment as a bonus.
This is one issue I agree McCain on.
I think it’s pretty hard to avoid talking about ROI on a hybrid when we’re discussing Lutz’s comment that hybrids ‘make no economic sense. Saving money by saving gas is an integral part of the hybrid raison d’etre, although reducing emissions/dependence on foreign oil also plays a role
“I suppose he came to that conclusion after a thorough review of the scientific literature?”
Yes. He swallowed all of Al Gores horse***t.
jthorner:
There’s no ROI in an 8-speaker sound system, leather, sunroof or GPS – those are options and are are chosen for the enjoyment or the benefit of the buyer. But there’s no politician attached to a Mark Levinson sound system screaming that it is the answer to all of the world’s problems.
That is what ticks me off.
Obama had to sell his Chrysler 300C and get a freaking Escape Hybrid because if he drove the V8 Hemi and tried to attract the liberal voters, he’d be crucified by the extreme environmentalists. Come on…
How about ROI of V8 option in terms of power/fuel economy vs V6s?