So, GM is spending $40m on projects aimed at removing 8m metric tons of C02 from the atmosphere over the next five years… there’s nothing wrong with that, right? Not so fast Greenzo! Here’s the issue: GM claims that
its new carbon-reduction goal equates to the emissions in 2011 from driving the 1.9 million vehicles Chevrolet is expected to sell in the United States over the next year.
Which means that Chevy will actually spend five years and $40m to eliminate all the C02 it will create based on one year of sales. To a multinational corporation that might seem admirable, but to the people who actually care about C02 emissions, this merely underlines how massive GM’s C02 emissions actually are. Moreover, it’s spending that $40m on “eliminating” carbon not by making its vehicles more fuel-efficient, but by investing in initiatives that have nothing to do with its core automotive business.
In other words, Chevy is betting on the kind of directionless corporate greenwashing that jumped the shark several years ago (the prosecution would like to call “Greenzo” to the stand one more time). Here’s the thing: Chevy builds lots of cars, a goal that is fundamentally opposed to the goals of environmentalists… unless (and until) the cars themselves become cleaner. Rather than spending five years to offset a year’s worth of carbon emissions, Chevy should sink that $40m into the kinds of technology that actually bring it closer to a future in line with its professed environmental values. Because this kind of played-out PR effort is what makes people say “Chevy Runs Shallow.”
Actually they are helping to clear up 20% of their emmissions (5 years to cover 1 year). $40 million also is very cost effective if it pasys for stuff that “cleans” up 20% of their emmissions over that time frame. $40 million wouldn`t do much to eliminate all emissions at source. So what is wrong with cost effective measures (if they work)?
Other industries do it – airlines for example. Land Rover also overs the option in the UK for people to buy a carbon offset for a few pounds – which is much cheaper than the car.
Other industries do it – airlines for example. Land Rover also overs the option in the UK for people to buy a carbon offset for a few pounds.
The point is that these carbon offsets and other schemes are blatant greenwashing. Just like the Catholic Church selling indulgences, people do the kinds of things that Chevy plans so that they look good in some (foolish) people’s eyes while still engaging in bad behavior.
If the top people at Chevy think that carbon emissions are such a big problem, they should do something about it. Just like a top executive at a tobacco company would seem hypocritical if he or she were to devise a program to fight cancer by paying money to limit exposure to x-rays. That’s masking the problem, not attacking it.
@mike978: 100% spot on. Other industries do the same thing, in the long run who really knows how effective it really is? I certainly don’t. But I have to laugh, when used to see the Subaru commercial bragging about how their one assembly plant in the US is zero landfill emissions. Big deal. I think all of GM US plants (56) are zero landfill emissions. If not, then the vast majority are. I think Ford’s are too. Not to mention the innovative rethinking of the Ford Rouge plant.
But only GM is bad for bringing this up…
Other industries do it – airlines for example. Land Rover also overs the option in the UK for people to buy a carbon offset for a few pounds – which is much cheaper than the car.
In the examples you give, consumers have the choice to offset emissions if they so choose, essentially “adding value” to their purchase. GM’s pitch is “we do stuff to offset all the carbon we release” which is weak both as a way to solve the problem and as a PR pitch. Forgetting the opportunity cost issue for a moment, as a consumer your behavior isn’t linked to the offsetting… which means buying a Chevy doesn’t “make a difference” the way offsetting your Landie or airline flight does.The net results is that this draws attention to GM’s carbon output without offering consumers a way to actively feel good about choosing a Chevrolet. Even by the low standards of greenwashing, this strikes me as a particularly weak effort.
EN,
I think you have this all wrong. They clearly say when you buy a Chevy, they will invest in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and tree planting programs. How is that not the customer feeling good about buying a Chevy? The opportunity is there. Just like buying items with a pink ribbon for breast cancer etc etc.
I also think it is a stretch for you to say it is GM saying they are doing something about the carbon it releases. I don’t think it says that at all. It is talking about carbon the car releases. Carbon that would be released from any vehicle. Carbon that is released because of the driver driving the vehicle. Turning it around like this is pretty weak.
So barring any major change in emissions technology, the best thing an automaker can do is to say “Our cars last longer than the competition and have to be replaced less often.”
I like that idea, but it probably won’t fly with the shareholders. And engineering a low level of failure into every component results in a very high sticker price (think 1970s Mercedes). Nobody likes high sticker prices.
I guess this effort is the next best thing, and better than nothing at all.
I saw that ad this weekend . . . and it pissed me off. “Government Motors” doing the greenwashing thing, rather than spending the money to make their cars “greener.” And they could certainly start by making the Volt reasonably priced without the $7000 government subsidy from the rest of us. I think “Government Motors” is a fair charge here, as this is such an obvious sop to the current administration and soon-to-be-former controlling party in Congress.
A lower price for the Volt might encourage people to buy it (assuming, for sake of argument, that it is any greener than a hybrid like the Prius or the Fusion hybrid).
FWIW – In the business plan to Congress – they disclosed $2 bn in “Advanced Propulsion Development” through 2012.
Page 23
http://clipsandcomment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gmbizplan.pdf
I have no problem with their efforts, but this minute-long pat on the back smacks of Old GM-style arrogance. It’s disappointing, and it distracts from their products. Quit hugging trees and update the damn Impala, already!
I have to disagree with your assessment here. Chevy is doing something very proactive. Whether you believe in global warming or not, I don’t think anyone would say that energy efficiency, conservation or more trees is a bad thing. There are some pretty cool things they are doing about capturing methane over landfills to use as energy. You also don’t take into account that while this does remove 1 year of carbon output of the vehicles sold, it also reduces this output for more than just a 1 time incident. Most if not all of the improvements will be permanent. So you can start the cycle over again.
Also, depending on the budget for GMs R and D, the 40 million may not make much of a difference, and a much bigger difference going into communities. Without producing actual numbers, I will only highlight Toyota’s spending on R and D and safety numbers in their commercial. Given a ball park figure in that, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Also, it is coming out of GMs advertising budget.
They call it a start, it is a start.
Wind, efficiency improvements( in their factories ) and reforestation, are all needed.
There’s been a vast increase in 100 year weather events, in the last 30 years. Anything and everything that can be done to offset carbon, by all manufacturer’s, should be done.
And it’s one beautiful commercial.
Too bad my drive out of Philadelphia doesn’t look as pretty.