It's GM vs Toyota

[AZEqualizer]

GM's VP of Environment Says Prius Didn't Make Sense From a Business Perspective: (http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/10/gms-vp-of-environment-says-prius-didnt-make-sense-from-a-business-perspective.html)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/art/loweryp.jpg
She is General Motors' vice president for environment, energy and safety policy and represents GM on the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Nov. 9, 2007.

If you missed the Frontline documentary "Heat" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/) on PBS last night, you likely slept much better than those of us who caught it.
The basic theme of the two-hour special, which can be seen in its entirety at pbs.org, is that if humans don't curb carbon-dioxide emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, the consequences to life on Earth will be catastrophic.
And by the time the credits role, you're certain a catastrophy of planetary proportions is in Earth's future.
The documentary's reporter, Martin Smith, conducted many interviews. One, with Beth Lowery, General Motors' vice president for environment, energy and safety policy, was particularly interesting.

The Interview can be found here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/interviews/lowery.html)

[WarpedOne]

is that if humans don't curb carbon-dioxide emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, the consequences to life on Earth will be catastrophic.

Bull****.

[ziggy951]

Alarmist Bull****.............agr:1

[Mike kZ]

agr:1

[beeson]

I respectfully disagree with you gentlemen. At some point we are going to reach a tipping point, like too much fresh water from Greenland in the north Atlantic disrupting the Gulf stream Current. Then there will be a big and very sudden change in world (northern hemisphere) climate. The results won't be pretty. Civilization, as we know it, is actually a very delicate thing. It won't take much to knock it on it's ear.

Most people think of climate change as slow and gradual. A tipping point scenario is relatively sudden, severe and as far as much of mankind is concerned, irreversible.

Just my opinion as a Biologist, not a climate expert.

[AZEqualizer]

If you have feelings about this instead of saying it is Bull why not discuss the concepts you propose to prove it is correct or incorrect?

[ppi]

Bull is right! most of us have only until 2012 then it's super volcano timeo:o:p:s12 plus we only watch 1% of the sky, have you notice how many big companies only have plans up to 2010??? the moon effects tides on earth what happens when the granddaddy aliment happens??

[ziggy951]

The idea that the climate of Earth is changing is not bs. The idea that humans are the "main" cause of it is ridiculous and has very little scientific fact behind it. As more and more people actually look into the subject they realise that the majority of the emission reducing push in this country is mainly for political reasons and not really based on NON-biased facts of what is really occuring. An easy critique about this is the fact that the original claim of this movement was in fact global "warming" rather than global climate change. They based all of the assumptions on the fact that the climate was getting warmer annd we would all die because of warmer summers. They then backed up this claim by citing the heat waves that happened in the next summer. The facts of climate change are many and very few of them support the claim, outside of washington, that humans and our activities are "mainly" to blame for the cause. Natural decay of rainforest vegitation for instance, causes more co emissions than humans could possibly attempt. Its pretty simple stuff.

I agree that emissions are bad but for different reasons and I dont think that we have that much ability to change Earths overall ecosystem in a greater capacity than the Sun and the rotation/angle of our planet. To me, this is the same as saying the first forms of life on this planet caused the great landmass shift that created the continents because the planet couldnt stand the extra weight they created.

If supporting any of these movements will get EV's to market faster then I will support them, but not because of the ridiculous claims that most of the greenies propose. If carbon trading becomes part of our law, and therefore economy, I will surely benefit so I dont really care if it happens or not. The problem is how far the supporters are willing to take it. Some want us to all be subsistance farmers that use hand tools to eek out a living and not disturb the majority of the other life forms on the planet. On the other end you have the Factories in China that have absolutely no safety or containment protocols and their outputs are truely poisoning their land and water.

There has to be a place in the middle, without political bs, that we can come to terms with and fix the problems that really do exist. But at the same time we need to leave alone those things that are only "viewed" as problems, like the old view that because diesel engines spewed blak smoke they were not as clean burning as cars. The main problem is, as alwas, politics. Because of it most people dont really understand whats going on but end up jumping on one side or the other. Like that nice lady from GM. Does she and GM really give a damn about the environment? If they did they would have stopped producing 6-8mpg Tahoes when the greater push for co emissions began. Now, they see an oportunity to gain political clout because of the Volt. "hey look, we care about teh environment because we make a hybrid EV, oh and Toyota was totally ignorant to make the Prius. What were tehy thinking? That wont save the planet, but our vehicle will. Oh and please buy our stuff be cause we care.......and dont want to go bankrupt because we have sold vehicles for a decade that havent really worked for the market we sold them in." Thats the bs that clouds the real issues of climate change. If GM was sincere about it they would be converting all of their vehicles to ev, hybrid, diesel, or ethanol fuels instead of blaming the government for not allowing them to "retool" as they put it.

We are talking about carbon trading but not planning for an increase, and in my opinion unstoppable, in the sealevel as much as 14 feet. We arent moving metropilitan cities away from the coast. We arent building dikes around New York City. We are talking about making catalytic converters work better and making companies that produce more co BUY credits from copanies that use co or reduce co in some way. Its all crap and thas what I was refering to above.

The one good thing that will come from all this is that a new industry will be created to deal with the cleanup, whether necessary or not and people like me will make new fortunes similar to the dotcom boom.

2thumb:up





Z

[ziggy951]

I respectfully disagree with you gentlemen.

A tipping point scenario is relatively sudden, severe and as far as much of mankind is concerned, irreversible.



So...the tipping point is irreversible by mankind, but the causes are reversable? This is the stuff I am talking about.



Z

[westonlgray]

I agree with some of what Ziggy said. We are being sold a load "***" about the CO2 emissions stuff. If Mr. Gore really believed what he says, would he really live in a house that is only half as energy efficient as the national US average and fly around in private jets???

The problem with the environmental movement is that is has been hijacked by people who want to control us, not people that want a clean environment. The money is in "proving" that global warming exists because then politicians can use it to "lord" over us. Opposing scientific opinions can not even get published because no one wants to cut the flow of funding from global warming clients.

We should concentrate on conserving resources, recycling (where energy efficient), and trying to make the products we have more energy efficient.

If it turns out that the theories behind the CO2 global warming have some truth to them, it would hurt, but we can always drastically cut CO2 emissions in just a few years (if our lives depended on it).

If you really, truly believe that CO2 produced by man will end the Earth as we know it, then you should want us to continue the status quo so that some of the predictions can be observed and then everyone will know that you were right. If it takes 25 years to prove you right, then that still leaves us 17 years to drastically change our civilization. If you are wrong, then we haven't wasted Trillions of dollars over the next 25 years, and those dollars could go to making things more efficient and improving the lifestyle for everyone on the planet (not just the political elitists).

[beeson]

"So...the tipping point is irreversible by mankind, but the causes are reversible?"

Quite possible. Take the Gulf Stream, a warm current that moves north on the surface and curls around the north Atlantic to Europe. It's the reason that England, with a latitude the same as northern Vancouver Island to Glacier Bay Alaska, has a much more moderate climate and can grow crops like it was more southernly. The Gulf stream sinks as it gets cooled off and becomes a deep ocean current. It's one very big conveyor belt.

The conveyor belt can be disrupted in this way. As warming causes the Greenland ice sheet to melt the fresh water flows to the North Atlantic. It dilutes the salt water and makes it lighter. Eventually it will cause the water to stop sinking, thus breaking the conveyor belt. This slows and then stops the Gulf Stream from bringing warm tropical water north. The results of this will be catastrophic for all of northern Europe. It would not just affect Europe.

Thus, the tipping point is irreversible. Once the sinking stops, nothing (probably) mankind can will reverse the action. It won't stop for only a year or two, probably a long time. But the cause of the icecap melting, global warming, might be reversible. Of course this depend on whether you believe the global warming (fact) is natural or caused by the actions of mankind.

So yes, the tipping point is irreversible, but the cause, in my opinion, is reversible.

I believe that global warming is caused by mans actions. You do not. I look at the corresponding beginning of global warming and the beginning of the industrial revolution happening at the same time as more than mere coincidence. CO2 emissions began small and have become progressively larger. The beginnings of global warming began slowly and have accelerated in a direct parallel with that increase. I don't think the two events are unrelated.

Computer modeling is not perfect. We cannot yet predict exactly what amount of greenhouse gasses will increase the temperature by X number of degrees. But I believe it is accurate enough to show cause and effect. More greenhouse gases will cause a rise in temperature. We are releasing a lot of greenhouse gases and have been for over 100 years.

Could the current rise in global temps be a natural phenomenon? Yes, temps have fluctuated a lot in the past. And we could be in one of those warming trends. I hope not because it doesn't help to throw the greenhouse gases into the mix at the same time. That is a double whammy. And there is no way mankind is going to slow down on the emission of greenhouse gases anytime soon.

Another way to look at a tipping event. Remember the Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons. I always loved the Coyote going over the cliff at a hundred miles an hour. Then suspended in mid air for a moment realizing that he was toast and plummeting a thousand feet. You can prevent the event by stopping before you go over the cliff. after you've gone over, no amount of trying to slow up or go back will help. All you can do is hang there for a moment and realize your toast.

I admittedly am a bit of a pessimist, but I honestly believe we are within feet of that cliff. And I honestly think we don't have a snowballs chance in hell (pardon the pun LOL) of ever slowing down. We respond only to the threat we can see right in front of us, not something that is probable to happen, but we don't know when. I'm glad I don't have kids that will face this cliff. I'll probably be gone before it happens.

[Miracleman89]

I think that Gm is filled to the brim with idiots and I hope Toyota kicks GM's behind so bad they wind up buying them out!!! Who knows, if they do they might actually turn GM around and make it a decent company! First thing they would have to do is get rid of every single person on GM's board of directors!

[beeson]

MM89, I can't argue with you there. I am totally in awe of how stupid the American car companies have been.

[Miracleman89]

Are you really that surprised?? I mean over half the board owns stock in OPEC!

I should have explained that better! They have stock in oil companies that are controlled by OPEC!

[westonlgray]

What are you talking about MM? You can't own "stock" in OPEC.

[ziggy951]

What are you talking about MM? You can't own "stock" in OPEC.

Rofl

Thanks for the morning laugh. Regardless of how it made my sore throat hurt like hell.



Z

[westonlgray]

GM may get burned by the volt if the batteries can not come down in price, but I wonder how it will compare to the new Prius. I can't imagine Toyota coming out with a Prius that costs $40k. Maybe Toyota will eat the loss and sell a similar car at $30k for a while, but the quatities would have to be limited even for Toyota to be able to afford it.

If Toyota comes out with the new Prius but says they can only produce 5000 per year due to " " shortage, then we will know they are just subsidizing the cost of their own $40k hybrid. Of course, maybe they will just have a 10 mile electric range and keep the car below $30k. They could still have a plug-in option.

[Mark Tomlinson]

Well, since GM expects to lose money (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS244&=&q=bob+lutz+volt+40%2C000&btnG=Google+Search) at $40,000, I don't see Toyota trying to sell a PHEV for $30,000.

[westonlgray]

Mark, exactly, that is what I mean. The new Prius is supposed to have a real electric only range and be able to get up to 62 MPH when it comes out in 2010. That range might only be a couple of miles...

[ziggy951]

I wonder how well GM would be kicking ass right now if they hadnt sold the EV-1...wait a second, was it really called the EV-1...CHANGE THE V-1 name NOW!!!.... and all the patents that went along with it back in the 80's. I bet if they would have had a two decade start at the whole ev/hybrid thing, they would be making the prius look like a child's toy and laughing in the face of competition rather than worrying about filing for bankruptcy.




Z