Is GM Making a Big Move Towards Going Green?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    gm Green
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on General Motors' (GM) recent announcements regarding new hybrid models and their implications for the auto industry, environmental regulations, and economic factors. Participants explore the potential impact of these developments on fuel efficiency standards, competition within the automotive market, and the broader political landscape surrounding environmental policy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note GM's unveiling of new hybrid models and a plan for a plug-in hybrid, suggesting a shift in strategy towards greener vehicles.
  • Others argue that GM's actions are a response to competitive pressures, particularly from Toyota, and reflect a broader trend in the industry towards fuel efficiency.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of government regulations, with participants discussing how some automakers have historically circumvented fuel economy standards.
  • Some participants propose that the political landscape, particularly with potential changes in CAFE standards, may influence the auto industry's direction, while others question the necessity of such regulations if market forces are already driving change.
  • There are discussions about the implications of GM's production decisions, including where new models will be manufactured and the potential impact on American jobs.
  • Participants express skepticism about the government's ability to enforce regulations effectively, citing examples of loopholes in existing laws.
  • Some participants highlight the environmental benefits of improved fuel efficiency, linking it to reduced pollution levels, particularly in urban areas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the motivations behind GM's shift towards hybrid vehicles, the effectiveness of government regulations, and the implications for the auto industry and the environment. No consensus is reached on these issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the future viability of GM and the potential economic implications of their production strategies. There are also unresolved questions regarding the enforcement of fuel economy standards and the political dynamics influencing these regulations.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
GM unveils new hybrid models for 2008 and announces plan to develop plug-in hybrid

...Following an environmentally-themed speech from GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner, who said the automaker would begin work on a plug-in version of the Saturn VUE Green Line hybrid, the automaker unveiled three new hybrid models for the 2008 model year at the L.A. Auto Show media preview. [continued]
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/UPDATE/611290443
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Computer science news on Phys.org
You realize of course that this means when the Democrats pass higher CAFE standards that the auto industry will not object. Not going to look good for the Republicans.

To some extent this is GM finally interpreting the handwriting written on the wall. With Toyata kicking their butt they had to respond. The irony is that had they stood behind and marketed the EV1, instead of pushing the Hummer they would be pwning the industry right now. A good example of short sightedness leading to dead ends.

I wonder where GM plans to build these cars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_VUE

The VUE will be redesigned for the 2008 model year. Production was rumored to move to Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, where the HHR is produced. Recently, it was reported that this would not be the case[1], with the next generation VUE being built at an undisclosed U.S. plant instead.

It would sure be nice to see GM employ more Americans.
 
Skyhunter said:
You realize of course that this means when the Democrats pass higher CAFE standards that the auto industry will not object. Not going to look good for the Republicans.
It might not matter if the government keeps letting the auto industry cheat. Look at the PT Cruiser. It's a little wagon built on a Neon chassis. Somehow, Dodge/Chrysler was allowed to call it a truck, and average its fuel economy in with the Ram truck series to avoid having to produce more fuel-efficient trucks. It's one thing to pass regulations, and another entirely to make them difficult to circumvent.
 
Skyhunter said:
I wonder where GM plans to build these cars?

It would sure be nice to see GM employ more Americans.
Since GM's future economic viability is very much in doubt, "nice" cannot be a consideration.
 
turbo-1 said:
It might not matter if the government keeps letting the auto industry cheat. Look at the PT Cruiser. It's a little wagon built on a Neon chassis. Somehow, Dodge/Chrysler was allowed to call it a truck, and average its fuel economy in with the Ram truck series to avoid having to produce more fuel-efficient trucks. It's one thing to pass regulations, and another entirely to make them difficult to circumvent.
Heh, I didn't know that (though it doesn't surprise me). As with gun regulations (what is an "assault weapon"?), it is often easy to circumvent regulations. Keeping them in line requires vigilance, which requires a willingness to act, which is something beaurocratic governments do not posess.

Perhaps the answer would have to be some sort of inspector general in charge of making such determinations (similar to the way building permits are issued). Such a person is empowered to make judgement calls to make the reality of a design fit with the intent of a law. There are obvious downsides to that, though.
 
turbo-1 said:
It might not matter if the government keeps letting the auto industry cheat. Look at the PT Cruiser. It's a little wagon built on a Neon chassis. Somehow, Dodge/Chrysler was allowed to call it a truck, and average its fuel economy in with the Ram truck series to avoid having to produce more fuel-efficient trucks. It's one thing to pass regulations, and another entirely to make them difficult to circumvent.

Somehow they convinced the government that the PT Cruiser was a crossover vehicle and for some mysterious reason that made it a truck.:confused:

Ford did the same thing with the Freestar.
 
Skyhunter said:
You realize of course that this means when the Democrats pass higher CAFE standards that the auto industry will not object. Not going to look good for the Republicans.
How does that follow? If competition is already forcing GM into the production of fuel-efficient cars, why are higher CAFE standards even necessary?

Environmental and economic concerns can align. And when an industry shifts to a strategy more favorable to the environment, it is not necessarily a concession by capitalists and Republicans.

With the auto industry's hybrid/electric cars and Boeing's new 787, the top priority was the almighty dollar, make no mistake. But by improving fuel efficiency to produce the most marketable products, these corporations also decreased the impact on the environment. Yes, these corporations might not object to tougher fuel regulations, as the market is already regulating them, but this isn't a setback for Republicans.

For instance: most shipping companies have drastically cut paper consumption by switching to electronic tracking. So this somehow means that if there were a movement in Congress to pass stricter regulations governing the consumption of paper products, the shipping industry would not object; and it would not look good for Republicans?!

There have been extreme cases of nitpicking over current events of late. When there is even the slightest indicator of a failure of the Republican party, it is sure to show up here.

What's the scoop on the economic sanctions placed on North Korea?
turbo-1 said:
This administration has a severe problem that has long-term implications for all of us.
What does Trent Lott's ascendancy to minority whip mean?
Rach3 said:
It seems the new Republican minority is quite destitute, bringing back such an unpopular, vile figure.
There are more, but I think you get the point.

It is interesting to note that there has been no mention of Murtha's flop in his run for House majority leader or Alcee Hasting's failed bid for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The search terms for https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=522416 are telling. The cynic in me wanted to start a thread speculating that these events showed a lethal divide in the Democratic majority, but I decided against it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
turbo-1 said:
It might not matter if the government keeps letting the auto industry cheat. Look at the PT Cruiser. It's a little wagon built on a Neon chassis. Somehow, Dodge/Chrysler was allowed to call it a truck, and average its fuel economy in with the Ram truck series to avoid having to produce more fuel-efficient trucks. It's one thing to pass regulations, and another entirely to make them difficult to circumvent.

That is a good point.

With Barbara Boxer as Environmental & Public Works Committee Chair, I think that regulations will be somewhat more robust than in the past. She tried and failed to add a simple provision to exclude luxury SUV's from the small business tax credit. (Remember the $2000 hybrid tax incentive -vs- the $100,000 Hummer incentive.) Now with the Republicans in the minority, and the neo-nuts in the extreme minority, we just might be able to get good CAFE legislation passed.

The major source, over half, of the pollution in the Bay Area is caused by automobiles. One of the side benefits of fuel economy is that when a vehicle burns less fuel, it generates less pollution.