“As I write this, GM is feverishly lobbying Congress for $25B that it was supposed to get in exchange for fuel economy increases. The company wants the money now, but without the efficiency strings attached. Do a few hybrid and fuel cell cars compensate for such destructive policies? Do they make up for GM’s opposition to stricter CAFE standards? Or the corporation’s lawsuits against states for limiting car emissions?

[…] I didn’t take the bait, and neither did the rest of EcoSense. Citing GM’s culture of corporate irresponsibility, we refused to endorse the auto makers latest greenwashing scheme.

For GM, it seems that “green” is not a movement, but a marketing strategy. If GM wants to profit off a green economy, it needs a green business — one that puts efficient cars in showrooms and endorses, rather than interferes with, greener standards.”

Also related: Vattenfall’s latest climate campaign faces protests from environmental organisations and Let GM and the other failed auto giants go under.

Photo credit: davetrainer

Trevor Reichman over at TreeHugger asks why GM and the other corporate giants in the auto industry seeks $50 billion in public funding, while no one mentions help for public transportation.

Reichman points out that the demand for fuel in USA is decreasing and that an increase in travellers on public transportation shows that “Americans are willing to drive less”. So why should the US government even think that a “wasteful and economicly demanding invention from last century” is needed when there are other and better alternatives available.

“Instead of handing over 50 billion dollars to an industry that cannot be sustained at its peak level, public funds can be better used to fund rails, buses, and bicycle pedestrian projects that have already been engineered, already been proven, and are just waiting for funding. While GM and friends seek roughly $165 per American, there is no clear or specific plan for how that money will be used to benefit the public or save jobs.”

Reichman says that the “automobile giants have successfully lobbied to derail mass transit infrastructure around the world for many decades”, and that “now is not the time to further subsidize them.”

“Commuters have spoken, through actions, that the use of public money is better spent on public services than on private industries. Shifting jobs from the automotive sector to the public transit sector may hurt the elite few who sit at the top of a decades long monopoly over transit infrastructure, but the millions it would almost immediately benefit is something to consider before a decision is made.”

I completely agree with Reichman.

GM and the other auto giants that now face a financial crisis and their own impending death have themselves to blame. These auto companies have resisted and done everything in their powers to stop stronger compulsory MPG and CO2 emission standards, denied climate change and their promises that they could cut their greenhouse gases voluntarily have all failed. As a result the average car sold in USA today is less efficient than the Model T Ford from 1908.

In Sweden the auto giant Volvo is also facing a financial crisis and many people are loosing their jobs. The Swedish Government foolishly tries to help by pouring tax-money into these doomed companies. They all ignore the fact that these companies are failing today because they have for year’s resisted sane technological change.

The best thing for everyone is to let these “foot-dragging, planet-eating spongers” to go under.

During an interview with comedian Stephen Colbert last week Bob Lutz was asked if climate change is being caused by “sunspots”. He answered that “in the opinion of about 32,000 of the world’s leading scientists, yes.”

These 32000 people are not “the world’s leading scientists”. They are, as DeSmogBlog puts it, “a self-selected group of people whose science credentials are modest or non-existent and who are led by the man who was big tobacco’s leading apologist.”

Good job Bob Lutz, spreading global warming denialism while promoting an eco-friendly car. That’s brightness! No wonder GM is in such a mess.

He still foolishly tries to defend his comment by saying, in a blog entry titled Talk About a Crock, that his “thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I [he] make to advance the cause of General Motors.”

Yeah. Right.

Bob Lutz have also opposed laws that would force automakers to sell smaller cars saying it would be “like trying to address the obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell smaller, tighter sizes”.

There is no wonder that GM is doing so good financially and falling behind the “green” auto-industry leaders like Toyota (with their Prius) when they have people like Bob Lutz running the company.

Image credit: Rockershirt. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.