At a recent Climate One event, GM CEO Akerson was asked why GM funds the Heartland Institute, “a group that has tried to push misinformation about climate change into our public schools” and whether “this funding [is] consistent with their company’s message in marketing of the Chevy Volt?”
Not that GM Authority readers didn’t know this already, but it wasn’t General Motors Company — but rather the GM Foundation — that provided the Heartland Institute the $15,000 of funding. Nevertheless, Akerson’s response — and position on climate change — is clear:
“First time I was interviewed by the press I was stunned with the following reaction. Some guy says, “Do you believe in global warming?” and I said, “Well, yea, I do.” Several GM execs have said, “You don’t say that in public. Well, this may surprise you but my underwear doesn’t have GM stamped on it and I am an individual and I do have my own convictions and sometimes it may be that they agree and sometimes they don’t. I think it’s actually healthy to have different points of view and perspectives around the table.”
Akerson then went on to talk about actions, which in his opinion mean more than words, and informed the public that just last week, the EPA named GM its star energy provider because of consistent reduction in emissions controls. “We are 60 percent more efficient in the use of fuel than we were just five years ago. Landfill usage coming off of our plants is essentially zero. You can put it in a coffee can. That’s how we’re trying to improve.” “We have some plants that are completely run off landfill methane — they’re zero emissions.”
“This [donation to the Heartland Institute] is $15,000 that was committed to before I came in. I also think the Heartland Institute, I’m told, does other things and I find this interesting. I won’t go any further but I’m gonna take another look at it when I get back to Detroit and I’ll leave it at that.”
The GM Authority Take
We never knew this about Akerson, but it’s eye-opening and rather inspiring that the man in charge of the world’s largest automaker isn’t afraid of stating his personal beliefs and theories publicly. That takes guts and a backbone — something those “other GM execs” seem to lack, whatever their thoughts may be about global warming.
Now, how many in the GM Authority army do have GM stamped on their under garments?
Comments
O boy
Well I’m glad there is at least one big wig inside GM who is aware of global warming.
It would be unwise for GM to provide any more money to the heartland institute. History doesn’t look favourably upon those that have tried to fight science.
Nice to see a reasonable, commonsense approach to the discussion and good job steering towards highlighting GM’s efforts at decreasing waste and varying energy sources, increasing efficiency,etc.
Striving towards a more efficient allocation and utilization of resources, thereby reducing waste is good for the economy and the environment, shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Nobody roots for more pollution..
Plus climate change is a generational issue like gay marriage, and unless GM wants to dive into social issues they would be better off identifying with the millenial generation on being good stewards of the environment and designing products mindfully with cradle to grave consequences in mind.
How many GM plants have solar panel roofs? Those systems usually are able to pay for themselves after 5-7 years depending on latitude and the buildings current energy bill – a good investment of GM cash if it makes sense for where the plants are located.
I’ll bet this “sucker” believes in the tooth fairy too. Too bad the Gov got their nose into it all – what has Gov ever made a profit on except taking all our money (aka Taxes)
As for the comment above, where did you go to school – solar DON”T pay for itself in 5-7, more like 20 and the efficiency is almost as good as a “hand cranked” generator not including the replacement costs and repair. Just check the numbers and see who’s right.
What happened to the “free” electricity from Nuclear? Well wouldn’t ya know, the Gov regulated it so hard that nobody could afford to build it. Do wonder how France gets by since 75% of theirs is Nuclear – is there a message there somewhere?
Green Energy is the biggest farce since right after Adam and Eve – and the snake.
Check those figures too – we been going down the Climate change for 10,000 years (or 400,000 as the Antarctica core samples show) as the science proves – ask the Greenlander what happen to their green trees and pastures since 1500 AD – it sure hasn’t got back to “warm” there.
Just give me my trusty SUBURBAN gas hog and I’ll survive when the Yugo’s of the world hit me head-on. Safety pays – drive a 2 ton monster.
We’re running out of oil, the earth is getting too warm, and there’s too many people.
If nothing happens, your Suburban will be one of the first to get the chop.
Grawdaddy read this “Oil Is NOT A Fossil Fuel – It Is Abiotic”
http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm
i don’t mean to insult your intelligence Grawdaddy. What most people forget is that the sun goes through cycles every 11 years. If the sun puts out more heat in a cycle there would be nothing you or I could do to stop it. I am not saying we should not try to better ourselves, I am all for that.
Also the entire world population can fit into the state of Texas. “Texas: 1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet = 27,878,400 square feet. So 268,581 square miles = 7,487,608,550,400. For simplicity say 7.5 x 10^12. That divided by 7 x 10^9 is indeed over 1000 square feet per person. So if we made one giant one-story compound over Texas, land, water, and all, we would each get a 1,000 square foot unit.”
One more thing keep a open mind.
Thanks 🙂
Dude, you’re citing a source from a page that talks about “NWO” and “Chemtrails”. You might as well give me a link on how to assemble your own banjo; it would have just as much use to this thread.
Furthermore, what does calculating the area of texas divided by 7 billion people have to do when anything? They only think you’ve proved is that everyone would gets half a tennis court.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+texas+%2F+7+billion
What you’re neglicting to mention is the logistics of housing all those poeple, suppling ALL of them with water, food, electricity, heating, waste management, and transport. When you’ve figured out how those needs we be incorportated into “Texas World”, I think you’ll find that you need another Texas just to keep everyone happy.
On top of that, oil takes many millions of years to form. We simply haven’t got the ability to wait as long give the rate we are extrating oil.
Grawdaddy, I was giving you a example that not everyone agrees with these global warming people. Sometimes we get caught up in one viewpoint and we close our mind to other possibilities I am guilty of this as well.
I know there is no shortage of people who don’t agree with global warming. They’re free to do so.
Also, it’s not an issue of having an “open mind” or a “closed mind”. A closed mind tells you nothing and you suffer as a result. An open mind lets you listen to Mr. Rense’s UFO’s, chemtrails, ghosts, and his understanding of 9/11 and belive he’s telling us the truth.
I’ve always taken the middle ground and gone with what I term a “filtered mind”. Putting things to trial and seeing if they are worth beliving. If, for example, it shows that eating too much sugar is bad for one’s health, then my behaviour changes accordingly. If the LS block is show to preform favourabily in something like a Caterham 7, then we can pursue the advantages of such a platform.
Don’t take anything at someone’s word, not even from me or even your loved ones. Investigate and do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Check it against other peoples research and see if you’ve come to the same conclusion.
“solar DON’T pay for itself in 5-7 years” this comment is made even more hilarious by the sentence immediately preceding it.
Judging by your diction, you must live south of the Mason-Dixon line where energy costs are lower so it may take longer to recoup the cost of a PV solar system – but there are more hours of higher intensity electromagnetic radiation from the sun, so depending on how much of your power comes from coal it may take longer.
Let’s check the numbers, as you suggest:
I’ll simplify the example to one you can deal with. The typical solar panel operates at 12 volts. US homes operate at 120 volts. “Premium” panels operate at 18 volts. Solar panels are DC power. Mains are AC, so an inverter will be required to convert DC to AC.
At this rate:
A 12V (DC) panel that is rated at 200 watts will require 10 hours to equal 1 hour of 120V (AC) output. An 18V (DC) panel requires 6 hours, 40 minutes to equal 1 hour of 120V (AC).
Each 200 watt, 18V panel is about $765.00
The inverter, depending on wattage is about $130
Thus to eliminate the charging delay, you will need:
– if 12V, 10 panels.
– if 18V, 7 panels.
So for 18V panels:
At 1 panel, the total cost is $ 895.00
At 7 panels, the total cost is $ 5265.00
At 10 panels, the total cost is $ 7295.00
Now check your power bill, it will give you the price per kw/hr. Since you probably don’t understand the metric system or scientific notation, that’s 1000 watts over an hour’s time. So the single panel is = to 0.2 kw/hr or 200 watts per hour. Our rate is 15 cents per kw/hr. So at our rate the panel is worth 3 cents per hour (0.2 x 15 = 3), 7 panels is 21 cents per hour (7 X 0.2 = 1.4 X 15 = 21) and 10 panels is 30 cents per hour (10 x 0.2 = 2 x 15 = 30).
Thus it will pay for itself in: (at 12 hours of light per day, maximum amperage all that time).
1 panel: ($ 895 / $ 0.03) = 29834 hours, or about 7 years.
7 panels: ($ 5265 / $ 0.21) = 25072 hours, or about 5 years, 9 months.
10 panels: ($ 7295 / $ 0.30) = 24317 hours, or about 5 years, 6 months.
Your power bill also will tell you how much you’re using. Ours averages to 20 kw/hr per day. So at THIS rate, to be completely off grid, we’d need 100 panels (100 x 0.2 = 20).
That’s the cost of the system without installation, but it also doesn’t include the 30% federal tax credit or any state incentives or SRECs sold to the utility – all of which would exceed the initial cost of setup and shorten your time to recover the initial investment. The average warranty for a PV system (typically to retain 80% of it’s efficiency) is 25 years, but most solar arrays can last for 30-40 years depending on how much of a beating they take from weather.
Solar systems can’t generate power on demand 24/7, 365. But if you have a large utility bill, they can dramatically cut costs from the utility that will save tons in the long run. The system pays for itself by discounting what you would have spent on utility bills without it. You can get ripped off depending who you buy it from I guess, but the cost of the systems is coming down as more and more people are buying them (price of SRECs has declined due to so many large new PV arrays being installed by all kinds of different companies) and the Chinese are manufacturing them cheaper and cheaper in addition to using them to help bring down air pollution in their country (if you think the haze above LA looks bad you don’t want to see what parts of China look like).
If green energy is a farce then why are the smartest, most successful tech companies in the world (Apple, Google) using it to power their enormous, power hungry data centers (you might know them as “clouds” – wait, no you probably think those are the bunny shaped things outside your window). You really need to turn off the Fox News and enter the real world.
Having been in a very bad accident between a very large family vehicle and a very small
compact…..I’ll take the Suburban every time. (the compact driver didn’t make it)
OH and Grawdaddy….Have you checked on US energy reserves lately and read about the criminal actions of the so called global warming “EXPERTS”
WHAT A SCAM !!!!! AND GM IS HELPING TO FUND THIS ? YIKES
I won’t matter how safe you think a Suburban is. The harder the vehicle is on gas, the sooner it will get axed. Everyone is moving for efficiency, and for an as of yet unexplained reason, some people think going further on a tank of gas is wrong.
You can have your Suburban, but its powertrain is going to have to be more efficient than what it is now. Simple.
Furthermore, I don’t have to check or even care about the US energy reserves as I know they are limited in their present state. Stockpiles of oil and coal won’t last forever, hopefully you’re not unaware of this. The only problem is that too many Americans think it’s just oil and coal; nothing else. The US does have the potential for renewables, but many of them don’t want to hear about it, somehow thinking electric is “immoral”.
We could also throw scientific data at one other. But I’m fairly certain that whatever science shows that isn’t mirrored by your own understanding of the universe is probably rejected.
And that’s probably the biggest problem in the US. Americans seem to hate or distrust science if it doesn’t paint a rosy picture for them, or that it might depict an unfavourable outcome. It’s pityable because you guys once had a commanding understanding of science and what knowledge it could yield to serve everyone.
Now, it’s “science is only useful if if it keeps the status quo”.
As people buy Suburbans they become part of the force behind a declining U.S. economy. Reason: GM won’t make smaller cars if they can make a bundle on the big ones. This is so obvious when we consider that the Equinox is the smallest CUV that we can buy in the Chevy lineup, despite a burgeoning market for small utility vehicles. That forces much of the buying public to foreign cars, which devalues the dollar and puts people out of work, only to then become dependent on the government and the tax revenues paid by those left still standing. Ironically, in time, most who are buying the Suburbans today won’t be able to afford them in the future. I wish folks like Akerson would take a long-term view. His global warming comments reign hollow with me.
Oh boy and he is running GM. Scary. Looks like he is kissing liberal donkey.
Im pretty sure he said at one point that he votes republican.
He did:
http://jalopnik.com/5633126/new-gm-ceo-criticizes-obama-brags-about-voting-republican
Lutz is more perplexing because although he helped develop and fight for the Volt, he has said he thinks global warming is a huge hoax perpetuated by the global left. It is identify politics to a large degree in the public square, but scientific disciplines reach consensus on different theories based on peer-reviewed evidence, and lots of different scientific fields have seen the effects of climate change on the subjects they study that serve as corroborating evidence to climate scientists (varied animal and plant populations adjusting to the changes in the environment) to show the planet is getting warmer – a point that even the Koch brothers have been forced to acknowledged.
There are moderate republicans (most of whom don’t get loud microphones) who don’t deny climate science, but who go to the next logical step and ask what can we do about it? This is what Jon Huntsman and (once upon a time) Mitt Romney have said. The cost/benefit analysis of most of the climate legislation shows significant economic costs to Americans in order to achieve benefits that often fall below the margin of error for the various metrics used to measure them! If the US throttles itself while China (now the worlds largest emitter of carbon) and India do nothing, then it won’t really make a dent in global climate because climate isn’t limited to the United States.
I’m much more concerned with air and water pollution from older sources of energy than about CO2 emissions. And a much better case can be made for a strong public interest in reducing pollution. Pollutants have direct negative consequences on the health of millions of Americans, and spending money reducing and cleaning up pollution of air and water will directly benefit the economy through reducing health care costs and lost productivity. We still let coal plants emit mercury into the air. Mercury!
I’ve never seen the green movement as a left vs. right issue. It was always something like “What can we do if the enviroment is becoming unlivable?”
The funny part is that poisonous air and polluted water isn’t limited to someone’s poltical leanings; if we can’t get either in good quality, then everyone is screwed.
No one is saying that to be enviromentally consious is to eat granola, wear clothing made out of burlap, and to sit in a Pacific coast forest singing songs at trees. I get the impression Akerson isn’t going to do that (I wouldn’t either), but he’s not going to ignore the scientific data when it suggests so.
As I said before, history doesn’t look favourabily upon those that have tried to fight science; and if Gen Y buyers and their interests in the sciences are anything to go by, it’ll be virtually impossible to try to mislead them with the “findings” of fringe organizations such as the Heartland Institute, or even Mr. Rense’s ramblings.
Now the problem of global warming is really complicated and needs to be solved. After all, there are factors that we can change, so it can be our salvation. It is only necessary to make more effort and read more about it. Many environmental catastrophes are not the fault of the people, but only because we did not know how to deal with it. That’s why it’s important to stay afloat and read up-to-date information.