Speaking at the Beijing auto show, GM CEO Rick Wagoner went on the E85 offensive. The automaker's Beancounter-in-Chief ripped into a recent United Nations (UN) report claiming that ethanol production is warming the globe and reducing vital food supplies (a.k.a. a "crime against humanity"). Wagoner described the UN report as "shockingly misinformed." Yep, an army of scientists from all over the world has nothing on Rick Wagoner. Yes yes; the UN has a bureaucracy to rival GM's and its own political axe to grind. But more importantly, this kind of commentary from Wagoner [via the Financial Times] highlights GM's breathtaking arrogance and a failure to realize the development money they've spent on ethanol so far is a sunk cost. Wagoner tried to deflect attention the morality of raising cane in former rainforests and making corn juice out of food crops. "Oil prices are a far bigger driver of higher food prices than ethanol." Ain't moral relativism grand?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Wagoner is not completely off base with his comment about the inflationary pressures of high oil prices. However, the UN has a point — GM really has no incentive to stick with food-based ethanol. Wagoner should just admit that “GM loves ethanol, but corn and sugar cane have problems. We at GM will help the world to find a more responsible solution.”
Moreover, anyone who thinks that the UN does not have its own political agenda (i.e. making the plight of third worlders the exclusive responsibility of first worlders) is delusional.
@detroit1701:
I agree with you that corn ethanol isn’t creating all of the world’s problems. But GM’s line shouldn’t be “We’re perfect.” It should be “We’ll do our part.”
Claiming that oil prices are a bigger part of food inflation than corn prices isn’t saying “we’re perfect”. And GM is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is in trying to move away from corn-based ethanol.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=827&docid=42311
Unless my searching skill is lacking, that story slipped by the TTAC news editors.
Well, it wasn’t actually the UN people who called ethanol a crime against humanity — that was a douchetard named George Monbiot. For once in my life I actually agree with the UN, but what they’ve said is fairly mild — of course ethanol is a contributor to higher prices, along with a lot of other things — such as organic farming and every use of land everywhere for anything other than growing crops.
But don’t tell me we’re morally obligated to make food as cheap as possible for the poor people of the world, unless you’ve already quit your job to become a farmer.
Captain Tungsten :
Unless my searching skill is lacking, that story slipped by the TTAC news editors.
Nuh-uh. You may not like our take on it, but click here for the GM – Coskata story.
Tungsten, TTAC did link to the Coskata news when it was announced.
Ok Kevin above used the phrase “douchetard” and it gets printed. I said “doucheb@g in an earlier article and it was rejected.
we’re morally obligated to make food as cheap as possible for the poor people of the world
And yet at the same time we are screamed at for making crops so cheap that local farmers can’t compete (subsidizing crops in the US)…. so we are held responsible for their failure to create an agriculture business.
RF:
I was having trouble believing that one slipped by you guys. Wonder why it didn’t pop up when I put “coskata” in your search pane? (that’s the extent of my effort….)
And after re-reading your take..well, they must have some way far cool bugs….
Isn’t it obvious to everyone by now that ethanol is the source of all the world’s food problems?
Clearly Haiti has done nothing wrong. The island is paradise in the Caribbean. The people are faultless. It’s government exemplary. They are starving because of ethanol.
Similarly another island country has fallen victim to ethanol. The beautiful people of the Philippines who have increased from 60 million in 1990 to 90 million today are running low on rice. Ethanol forced the government to make importing rice national policy.
And lets not forget those lovely countries: Sudan and Zimbabwe. Ethanol did it all.
Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, but you wouldn’t know it from how powerful it is.
The previous posts have a valid point – why is it the USA’s job to feed the rest of the world?
Sure, Waggoneer could’ve acted more responsibly (were you guys expecting GM to behave any differently?), but God forbid 3rd world countries act more responsibly and be able to feed their own populations.
And as evil and un-PC as this will sound in today’s media, why does it seem as though the people with the least ability to feed their families have the most kids? Seems like birth control would be cheaper than another 6 or 7 kids to feed, but what do I know? I’m only a debt-free, tax-paying, law abiding, veteran of a foreign war, married father of one child, American citizen. I’m not obese and drive a Corolla and a RAV, so I don’t feel like I’m chewing up too much of our food or fuel supply.
I feel like me and my family are living our lives responsibly and with self control. But in the U.N.s eyes, I should still feel guilty for simply being an American. How dare I have a problem with feeding 3rd world countries that can’t take care of themselves and continue to populate unabatted?
Yeah lets just drive our SUVs and pickups to the mall for some corn chips. That ought to help things. Spending money to keep our house/mortgage/car/loan economy going. It’s our god given right to be american.
@dastanley: Lots of people would agree with you. I don't, because I believe in a moral obligation to help others. But forget that for now. A few quick comments: 1. If the US hadn't unethically and unlawfully intervened in the foreign affairs of many poor countries in the first place, it would be easier to say "not our problem." Haiti's economy is in shambles for many reasons. The US's intentional actions toward Haiti is one of them. Read the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman for more lengthy explanation. 2. Even if you believe the only thing that really matters is the US, it's self serving to keep other countries out of extreme poverty for two reasons: A. Poverty often leads to instability, dictatorships and religious fanaticism. These represent a threat to the security of the U.S. Both dictatorships and fanaticism can arise in richer countries too. But more poverty adds fuel to the fire. B. The US is a net energy and product importer. We're not self sufficient. We depend on raw materials and resources from other countries. It is more expensive and more dangerous for the US to get what it needs when it has to get those materials from unstable, extremely poor countries. 3. One thing you said is "How dare I have a problem with feeding 3rd world countries that can't take care of themselves." I think you're a little confused. A. The US signed onto treaties to help eradicate poverty in the third world. Our government signed a binding agreement. That means you have a binding contract, too. Don't think you should be personally accountable for things our government does? Read on to B. B. The average farmer in Zimbabwe didn't tell Robert Mugabe to steal billions of dollars in foreign aid money. If you're not accountable for what the US government has done, Joe in Zimbabwe isn't accountable for what HIS government did to screw up their economy. Maybe he can take care of himself when the government isn't a brutal military dictatorship (that the US has been financially and militarily aiding since 1982).
@Justin: A. The US signed onto treaties to help eradicate poverty in the third world. Our government signed a binding agreement. That means you have a binding contract, too.
Contract requires consideration (value exchanged). Saying, “you will eradicate poverty in my country because I don’t feel like taking responsibility for myself or I will start blowing up bombs in your streets” is not a lawful consideration.
“I have a binding contract”. Right. I am going to work my a%% off to send money to some god-forsaken third-world hole to have twice as many mouths to feed and a completely insurmountable problem in a generation. Yeah, that’s a brilliant strategy. But it sure will make a few leftist mush heads feel good for a day.
I think you guys would be better off sticking to writing about cars and sparing us your politics. It doesn’t help your publication.
If the US hadn’t unethically and unlawfully intervened in the foreign affairs of many poor countries in the first place
And here we completely agree – let’s stay the he** out of the third world. No intervention of any kind, including no taxpayers’ money for any reason.
@hwyhobo: I appreciate the first year contracts refresher. I am, in fact, familiar with consideration. Unfortunately your contract analysis of US treaty obligations is not accurate. if you want to discuss this further, feel free to email me. I can send you some reading suggestions in basic international treaties. You might find helpful in particular if I forward to you some of the reading list from a course I once took with the United Nations' Special Rapporteur to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization. That said, I was and remain happy to stick to car and not politics. This blog post wasn't about American obligations to what you've described as "godforsaken" countries (an ironic choice of word). Frankly I don't care what other people believe, just as I'm sure you're not interested in my beliefs. In any case, I think most car enthusiasts are vehemently libertarian, making such discussions moot. But I missed the connection between this: GM: We know more than the UN does about international food markets. And this: why does it seem as though the people with the least ability to feed their families have the most kids? That's why I posted my above response, and since this political discussion has left me feeling nauseous, you are right to point out that it was a mistaken avenue for all of us. Want to stay talking about cars? It really would be my pleasure.
Justin Berkowitz:
Upon reading my earlier post, I realize that I was ranting somewhat. I happen to live in a “welfare town” in New Mexico with a large portion of our population that chooses to not work for various reasons and then self righteously demands local, state, and federal aid because they are “underpriveliged” and “oppressed” (I know I can’t spell). I was transferring lots of my frustration of this local situation to that of the article dealing with third world countries.
I am really not some heartless a-hole that wants to see other people, American or not, suffer. There is nothing wrong in aid, whether it be local, state, federal, or international – long as it is temporary and not a permanent free ride. I recognize and often act on the universal law of giving to complete strangers or friends through charities or church in order to receive happiness and fulfillment.
I just have a problem with (international) welfare as a way of life for others. I also have a problem with the international attitude of entitlement via the UN that the USA is the world’s open bread basket. Third world populations seem to recognize and act on their human rights to populate unchecked – is this irresponsible? I guess we should agree to disagree on that point. And anytime that third world issues are brought up in such forums, there is always the danger of disguised racial issues – political dynamite in the least.
hwyhobo brought up the point that we should just stick with relevant posts on TTAC, namely cars. Justin, I have read many of your articles and posts and respect your writings. hwyhobo is right on that point – why don’t we just stick to cars and agree to disagree on the other points. And besides, you’re more literate with the keyboard than I am so I could never truly compete with you on such a debate :-).
Justin:The US signed onto treaties to help eradicate poverty in the third world. Our government signed a binding agreement. That means you have a binding contract, too.
Justin, that may literally be the stupidest thing I have ever read, and that’s saying something. As you clearly know nothing about contract law, perhaps you should quit giving us legal advice.
BTW did you miss my earlier point? Have you quit your job to become a farmer? If not, why are you still here talking? Seems to me you are contractually obligated to be pulling a plow right about now; perhaps I should report you to the UN police.
@Kevin: Now I'm getting really bored. First of all, we'll let you slide on what's clearly flaming in violation of the site's policy. Second, What you quoted from me was in fact hyperbole. Well, the third sentence is. I wrote it because frankly, I think it's very sad that many of the comments on this page were "people in the third world have it coming." As for the first two sentences, despite your flagrant insult implying I'm not too familiar with contract law, see my above comment and feel free to contact me for suggested readings in international treaty law. As for your earlier comment about moral obligations, no I didn't miss your point. There's just nothing to say. Knowingly or not, you presented a straw man example about the immediacy of moral obligations. No one, including me, disagrees with your example. Presumably under the straw man you have a greater point about the extent of moral obligations. This isn't the forum for such a debate, and considering that most of us read Nozick vs. Rawls in college and/or grad school, I doubt you're capable of doing such a discussion justice (no pun intended). Nevertheless, I have no interest in a lengthy debate about positive and negative moral obligations a la Princeton's Peter Singer and nobody has any interest in reading it. For everyone here, myself included, this uncharacteristically non-TTAC discussion about moral philosophy, or assertions about contract law is done. Either talk about cars, or ethanol, or GM.