Bob Lutz, GM Volt Champion: "Global Warming is a Crock of !&#$"

At the recent Detroit Auto Show, Bob Lutz, an automitive pioneer and veteran of all of the Big Three, as well as BMW and start-up Via Motors, stood by his frequently-overlooked (by the MSM) observation that there is nothing about the environment that warrants a mad dash to electric vehicles and hybrids.

Lutz is the car guy’s car guy, having been an insider since his first General Motors job in 1962. He’s consistently campaigned for more exciting, performance-oriented cars that are also—a consistent problem for the Big Three—well built. At BMW in the early 70s, he says he helped develop the first 3- and 6-Series cars. At Ford in the 1980s, the Swiss-born, multilingual Lutz shepherded the Ford Explorer to a major hit, but also championed the miserable flop that was the Euro-sourced Merkur division.

After a stint at battery maker Exide, Lutz was recruited to join GM, where—despite famously saying that global warming is “a crock of *&$%#@”—he became the champion and main cheerleader for the Chevrolet Volt.

www.cartalk.com...

Interviewed at the car show, Lutz explained that any push for alternative power and vehicles must rest not in concern for the environment, but on the need for independence of foreign producers of fossil fuels,

I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.

So what’s my motivation for the electrification of the automobile? Well, as a businessman I recognize the environment we’re operating in. So if you don’t agree with the goals and the philosophy, hey, it doesn’t matter. I can’t change it because I’m not the emperor of the universe. The second thing is I don’t like the U.S.’s strategic dependence on foreign oil, much of it from sources hostile to us. It’s a huge drain on our balance of payments. And, frankly, we may be heading into a naval conflict in the Straits of Hormuz. Well, if we didn’t need Iranian oil that whole point would be moot. I’d like to see the U.S. be energy independent with natural gas for the stationary sources, because we have unbelievable quantities of domestic natural gas. And for the mobile sector, I’d like to see a gradual transition to electrification. When we get to the point where we actually reduce our oil consumption, we can tell the hostile nations, “You guys can do what you want, because we don’t need you.”

So, can we expect the "green" movement to face-up to the truth, or will we just continue subsidizing cronies under the false premise that we are "saving the planet?"

deny ignorance

jw

Yep,global warming is a crock...that's why we've been wearing t-shirts all winter, right?

That's OK, I am still waiting on unaltered data proving we humans are causing "global warming".

reply to post by calnorak


I'm just waiting for someone to talk about it without trying to profit from it. Carbon tax,etc. Or my carbon footprint is going to be on someone's butt,

reply to post by calnorak


The best scientific evidence supporting the conclusion that recent (i.e industrial-age) human fossil fuel burning activity is resulting in extreme increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rising, is from measurements of oceanic acidity, which is reported to be at the highest levels in 300 million years.

This acidity results from the oceans taking up the CO2. Not volcanoes, forest fires, etc. Unless the deniers can point to something in the natural environment that has caused this change in the past 60 or so years, I think the science is clear.

IMHO, the wackos and radicals aren't the scientists who are gathering data that helps build theories and models to explain global warming (and identify risks to society). The real radicals are the evangelical capitalist types and pro-business lobbysists who believe in their God given rights to mine, pump, extract and consume every bit of gas and oil out of our planet.

Their fossil fuel energy is sold in order to generate profits and dividends which they can use to buy bigger cars, homes, toys, democratic elections, and of course their stairways to heaven.

reply to post by surfin4it

This acidity results from the oceans taking up the CO2.

Perhaps, like so many of the AGW faithful, you'be chuseb to ignore the recent revelations that underwater volcanoes far outnumber our prior estimates.

Ocean acidification has been irretriecably tied to many sources other than man ...or did you forget that , too?

Either way, please justify Western de-industrialization as a solution in the face of Brazil/China/India refusal to stop growing.

jw