LA Auto Show video: Bob Lutz makes apparent slam at Hillary Clinton's energy plan
The video above is an interview with the emanently quotable GM vice Chairman Bob Lutz on GM's move towards making greener cars and CAFE standards at the 2007 LA Auto Show. Bob says the reasoning for making more fuel efficient cars is really a global one because there are places around the world with $9-a-gallon gas. Bob continues by saying they will continue to make "both" anyways (i.e make green green cars and fuel wasting sports cars and SUVs).
In the interview, Bob was specifically asked about Hillary Clinton's CAFE standard which is the mpg plan by a presidential contender that calls for the largest increase in the shortest amount of time. Bob says the candidates are on a "mad race" to outdo each other by coming up with ever larger CAFE standards. Bob then makes an apparent direct slam at Clinton's plan to give them money to "retool" their plants and repeated his apparent new reasoning that CAFE means larger cars. Here is exactly what he said:
The politicians now seem to be in a mad race to who can come out with the larger number. Nobody seems to be concerned with technological feasibility or what it's going to take in terms of technology and cost to reach these numbers. Because anybody who thinks we can just sort of retool the factory to produce 35 MPG cars obviously does not understand the situation.
Bob could have meant another candidate reference to retooling plants but I don't recall another candidate or policy asking for retooling. Anyway, just the way says "retool" makes me think Hillary's energy plan was not read happily in GM offices. Bob Lutz wittiest quote, from the many great one in this short interview, was probably that "a lot of the CAFE discussion is well intentioned, maybe, but misguided." You, sir, are a poet.
Maybe.
[Source: Wall Street Journal video]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dave 8:42PM (11/20/2007)
At the end, Lutz says he wants incentives for cars like the Volt and fuel cell vehicles.
In other words - if gas cost $6+ per gallon (and electric rates stayed relatively flat) and the gov't offered a $5000 tax credit for the Volt, it may make financial sense to consumers (many of whom realize the Volt is a $30,000 car with less space and utility than a $15,000 Cobalt or Astra, its platform mates).
Reply
Dave 8:43PM (11/20/2007)
At the end, Lutz says he wants incentives for cars like the Volt and fuel cell vehicles.
In other words - if gas cost $6+ per gallon (and electric rates stayed relatively flat) and the gov't offered a $5000 tax credit for the Volt, it may make financial sense to consumers (many of whom realize the Volt is a $30,000 car with less space and utility than a $15,000 Cobalt or Astra, its platform mates).
Reply
OhmExcited 9:30PM (11/20/2007)
Lutz is spot on. If you don't like gasoline, raise taxes on gasoline. Raise taxes on carbon. But don't lead crusades against a lifestyle.
Reply
Joseph 12:18AM (11/21/2007)
"The politicians now seem to be in a mad race to who can come out with the larger number. Nobody seems to be concerned with technological feasibility or what it's going to take in terms of technology and cost to reach these numbers"
Right on the money. I believe I heard some crazy 50mpg CAFE suggestion by some politician. For that to happen, all our cars would need to be EVs, Chevy Volts, Priuses, Honda Civic Hybrids and Honda Insights, with a few SUVs sprinkled here and there for those who really do need them.
Not going to happen for a lonnngggg time.
However, I think Bob's view of CAFE is kind of biased. For one, overall fuel consumption would increase almost no matter what your CAFE is. The amount of cars has probably increased exponentially since the 70s. Fuel Economy cannot increase exponentially. And his talk about, oh, fund us for alt. fuels. Hmm...sure....Automakers are all for alt. fuels. Um, ever heard of the ZEV Mandate?
Reply
David Fox 12:44AM (11/21/2007)
I've been a 'car guy' since 1975 and in terms of Detroit its always been the same old "can't do" story. Doesn't Lutz know his company's history? In 1943 the US auto industry switched from making cars to planes? From a vehicle with 30,000 parts to one with 1.5 million. And they managed to push one off the production line every 64 minutes. Come on Lutz...get with the program. Stop complaining and start leading.
Reply
John 10:20AM (11/21/2007)
Diesel hybrids are getting over 80mpg in Europe now. Fairly certain Opel and Vauxhall need those types of cars to survive against Citroen, Peugeot, etc. Just import them as Saturns.
Can't imagine what $4/gallon gas is going to do to bubba trucks.
Reply
Green-Money 1:55AM (11/21/2007)
I really don't care about Hillary Clinton, or any of the other candidates. I agree with David Fox. Greener technologies are there, but the US auto makers do business as if it were 1972... as if they have a birthright to exist. Their lack of forward thinking on green tech goes against the laws of capitalism. It seems like they are trying to hold on to a dying reality, but they might just die with it - or the gov will have to bail them out, keeping them afloat in spite of their lack of innovation and competitiveness, in a sense, rewarding them for failing to build fuel efficient vehicles. There are fortunes to be made in technical innovation and green tech - more than can be made by John Mellencamp commercials.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 2:52AM (11/21/2007)
Brazil just announced a huge new oil find. One article I read said this find counters the peak oil theory. It also said this is the biggest find since 2000, 7 years ago.
At current world consumption rates, the new Brazilian oil find represents a 100 day supply. If it took 7 years to find a 100 day supply, what do you think is the future of oil? That is what peak oil is all about; new finds do not keep up with demand. We increasingly rely on the oil from older finds, and that is not sustainable.
It is not CAFE that Detroit should be worried about. Gasoline prices in the US are going to go up much faster than the CAFE standards. In five years, gasoline will probably go for over $10 a gallon in the US and Detroit won't be able to pay people to take a large SUV off their hands.
Cars like the Tesla Whitestar, Chevy Volt, Mitsubishi i MiEV and other alternatives will be the new big sellers. Enjoy your big vehicles while you can folks, the end is of that era is coming.
Reply
Throwback 8:11AM (11/21/2007)
I don't think cleaner, more efficient cars necessarily means the end of big vehicles. It may mean they would be much more expensive. If the Tahoe hybrid was made mostly of aluminum, it's weight would probably drop by about 700-800lbs. It still would be heavy, but a 3.6 liter V-6 with the dual mode hybrid set-up would increase it's mileage significantly. The cost obviously would be the issue, but their are a lot of very wealthy folks in this country who could afford it.
Reply
Tony Belding 8:14AM (11/21/2007)
Joseph wrote: "I believe I heard some crazy 50mpg CAFE suggestion by some politician. For that to happen, all our cars would need to be EVs, Chevy Volts, Priuses, Honda Civic Hybrids and Honda Insights, with a few SUVs sprinkled here and there for those who really do need them."
But isn't that exactly where we should be going? When oil supplies get *really* tight (likely within a few years, I believe), isn't that the kind of mix that the auto industry should, in fact, be making and selling?
Reply
Throwback 9:07AM (11/21/2007)
Tony, the question is will we be buying? Our will the low cost of used (non-hybrid/EV)cars mean more cars stay on the road longer?
Reply
Mark 9:20AM (11/21/2007)
This is NOT a simple issue - Detroit HAS delayed new technologies and complained that things were impossible when they clearly were not. On the other hand - politicians HAVE mandated new technologies there were NOT ready. Anyone here remember the cars of the early 70's? New smog controls meant cars that didn't run well and got lousy gas mileage. Eventually the computer controlled fuel mixtures with electronic ignition and fuel injection along with catalytic converters made for cars that were greatly improved - but those 1973 cars were total crap.
Not to mention that Congress NEVER expects the consumers (that's you and me, bro) to pitch in and change OUR behavior.
Getting from one fuel base to another historically takes 50 to 100 years (animal to steam, wood to coal, steam to electricity). We don't have 50 years so big thinking is required. Big plans, big investments, plans that try every option, everyone doing his/her part. Blamestorming is not brainstorming. And to anyone in Detroit that reads this - My next car will get 50 mpg minimum and I'll buy the first practical electric car I can afford. I hope its a Volt.
Reply
Woodenbee 9:59AM (11/21/2007)
Bob is referring to the oft quoted myth that Detroit doesn't make efficient/green/sensible cars because of the tooling costs, he's exploiting that myth as an excuse. Ask any American over fifty and they'll trot that red herring out as their first line of reasoning. It's completely bogus, every time they make a new model they have to "retool" all they do is "retool" The myth states that they can't switch from making V8's ???? to smaller engines, like there's this one huge machine that only pumps out V8's. This myth is probably more prevalent in the south where there's little car industry and the people are willing to believe anything ludicrous.
Reply
EnviroBob 11:18AM (11/21/2007)
To say that auto makers operate as if it is still 1972 is ridiculous. Compare the products of that era with what is available now and tell me there's no difference in manufacturing process, no improvement in MPG, no improvement in emissions output and no improvement in safety.
For three decades we have been hearing how we are going to run out of oil any day now. Nevermind the fact that there's a single well in Canada that has at least enough oil in it to meet our current demands for 100 years. There's more oil under Utah alone than there is in the Middle East. There's more oil off the North American coastline than Hugo Chavez could ever hope for.
Should we be developing other forms of energy consumption- absolutely. But let's do it without all this BS rhetoric. Had we been cleanly accessing our domestic oil supply, we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil- including that from our biggest supplier of oil, Canada. Keep in mind, politicans who want to impose new demands for fuel efficiency to keep us from dependent on foreign oil are the same ones who voted to allow oil companies to sell 90% of the Alaskan oil to foreign countries. Anyone who believes they should rest their faith in the government as a solutions providor is an idiot.
Reply
susan.kraemer 11:37AM (11/21/2007)
Like Brazil's newly discovered 100 day supply, ANWAR is only a couple months supply.
Why did BP did not repair its pipelines in Alaska? Why did they have that oli spill? Because they know theres little oil left.
The US peaked in 1972 as Hubbert predicted, and the rest of the world is peaking now.
Reply
susan.kraemer 11:37AM (11/21/2007)
Lutz wants incentives?
Clinton has proposed a new fiduciary responsibilty for publicly traded companies: they would have to report carbon risk to the SEC.
Currently corporations act on their fiduciary responsibilty to create a profit. Thats why they build cheap/profitable SUV's for suckers, because thats where the profit is now.
Clintons plan would change that dynamic.
Thats the reason Lutz is afraid of her. Her energy plan has real teeth.
Reply
MikeInNC 12:18PM (11/21/2007)
In case no one has been paying attention, there are oil reserves under the western US that amount to more oil than is in the middle east. Investment letters are full of this info but no one else is interested since it will take a while to figure out how to get it out with as little environmental impact as possible. At the current price of oil per barrel it's easily economically viable. The question becomes, can we figure out a way not to need it before we have to go get it. Personally I hope we go electric but the reserves are indeed available.
Reply
Green-Money 5:27PM (11/21/2007)
Enviro-Bob:
Clearly, the US auto makers do not exist EXACTLY as they did in 1972... innumerable things have changed, of course - duh, (EFI, airbags, etc. etc.). My point is that they once again appear to be caught
off-guard by transforming markets and consumer needs, and are left lagging behind competitors due to their lack of foresight, (or lack of desire to SEE). Why have they been caught off-guard? Because of a business logic that is reminiscent of that of the 1960s/early 70s: build big vehicles, let the good times roll, who cares about efficiency? I feel that Lutz's comment is suggestive of the greater failure of the US auto manufacturers, as someone else said, the "can't do" attitude. Where is the innovation of Henry Ford in Lutz? Where has the "America can do" attitude gone?
Not this I need to qualify my assessment, but I drive a small US sport-ute (Jeep Patriot) and it gets 28-29 mpg highway: within 10% of my prior car, a Toyota Matrix - which was, in comparison to the Jeep, a real piece of junk. I really like
American cars a lot and the Patriot is a step in the right direction, (global engine, interchangeable platform, relatively fuel efficient). Now if only they offered it in diesel or hybrid...
I want the US companies to succeed but Lutz's attitude is one of failure.
And by the way, maybe the US government feels that it has a right to force the manufacturers to build more efficient vehicles to meet the changing market demands, being that the government will likely be forced to bail out these same businesses with billions of dollars in charity if they fail to change with the times.
Reply
rob 8:26PM (11/21/2007)
One of these days, some manufacturer is going to drop a viable production hypercar on the market, and the market is going to have to change, CAFE regulations or no.
Tesla has been dropping vague hints that the White Star may be such a car. It would make sense, they have no legacy manufacturing infrastructure, and every pound they can shave off the car lets them hit their target range with a smaller, more affordable battery.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 9:18PM (11/21/2007)
Rob, Anyone smart enough to make one is smart enough to take the boat load of money industry would give them to advise (he says rolling his eyes)... BTW Amory is working for Ford :D
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/04/video-rmis-hypercar-a-100-mpg-suv-featuring-amory-lovins/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/14/video-ford-junior-talks-about-sustainability-leaks-first-carbo/
Reply