GM Pledges a Net-Zero Carbon Future
Mary Bara, CEO of GM, commits to a Net-Zero-Carbon Future in a Linked-In post this morning.
Bara lists fives steps GM will take.
- General Motors plans to be carbon neutral by 2040 – which means removing emissions from all our products, including every vehicle we produce, and all of our global operations in the next twenty years. Where removing emissions is not possible – for example if the technology does not yet exist in those timeframes – we will compensate for those emissions through carbon credits or carbon capture. Our preference will always be for removal of emissions. This is a critical step on the path to a net-zero-carbon future.
- 2. General Motors has signed the Business Ambition for 1.5 degrees Celsius commitment, signaling our intent to help meet the most ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement. We will set science-based targets to achieve carbon neutrality, which we will submit to the Science-Based Target Initiative (SBTi) for verification and approval. The SBTi is a coalition established to drive ambitious climate action through science-based emission reduction targets and is the lead partner of the Business Ambition for 1.5 degrees C campaign.
- We have worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to develop a shared vision of an all-electric future and an aspiration to eliminate tailpipe emissions from new light-duty vehicles by 2035.
- 4. We are working with the EDF and with governments, partners and suppliers around the world to build out the necessary charging infrastructure and to encourage the use of renewable energy in electric vehicle charging, to make it easier for every electric vehicle driver to play their part in the battle against climate change.
- 5. We will use 100 percent renewable energy to power our U.S. facilities by 2030 and for global facilities by 2035 – five years ahead of our previous goal.
- We are collaborating with our suppliers to set ambitious targets to reduce emissions, increase transparency and source more sustainable materials, including establishing a sustainability council to share best practices, learn from one another and create new standards for the industry. While electric vehicles do not produce tailpipe emissions, it is critical that the impact associated with production and charging is incorporated in our plans. By working with utility companies to provide access to more renewable energy sources, GM hopes to address the entire production cycle of future EVs, with benefits that will extend far beyond our own vehicles and operations.
My lead image is from GM’s Exhibit Zero.
Why Now?
Forget Bara’s politically-correct climate message. That is a not the real reason GM is acting.
Electric vehicles are smaller, lighter, and easier to manufacture.
Market forces, not climate change, are what drives GM decisions.
Missing Ingredients
A key missing ingredient is battery technology but that is quickly improving.
The second missing ingredient is the number of charging stations, but that transition will happen too.
Free Market Solution
There is a bit of pressure from Biden, but there was no pressure from Trump for four years.
Assuming one believes CO2 is a problem, this is the way problems are solved.
GM is not doing this to save the world, it is doing this because market forces mandate a change.
Similarly, solar power will come into play as storage technology improves.
Where is the CO2 coming from?
CO2 Stats
- Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
- Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
- In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
- In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
- In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.
The above stats are from Our World CO2 Emissions.
John Kerry Blames Hurricanes on Climate Change
Yesterday, John Kerry, Biden’s climate czar, blamed four recent hurricanes on “climate change” as if we could stop them by spending money forced by government mandate.
Kerry’s Comments
- “There are countless economic analyses now that show it’s now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it.”
- “We spent $265 billion 2 years ago on 3 storms, Irma, Harvey, and Maria. Maria destroyed Puerto Rico. Harvey dropped more water on Houston in five days than goes over Niagara Falls in a year. And Irma had the first recorded winds of 185 miles an hour for 24 sustained hours.”
- “All of them were exacerbated by the last four years. Now we have to try to make up for that. That is a hard pull but this president is capable of doing it.”
Kerry may as well order moon to stop creating tides.
John Kerry Wants to Waste Money on Climate Change
Yesterday, in response to John Kerry’s rant, I wrote John Kerry’s Straw Man Arguments for Wasting Money on Climate Change.
I posted my article this morning at 8:00AM. Click on the link to play Kerry’s video address that I rebutted,
AOC’s Green New Deal Pricetag
And in case you forgot, please recall AOC’s Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing
The Free Market vs Politicians
I had no idea Mary Bara would write that post on Linked-In today just after I blasted Kerry.
But there it is. And the free market is headed in the right direction.
US emissions were already headed down and that is despite reversals by Trump.
We do not need AOC’s $50 trillion proposal or whatever nonsense Kerry will peddle.
If there is a problem and it can be solved at all, it will be solved by the free market, not Joe Biden, not John Kerry and certainly not by AOC or Al Gore.
Where I Stand
Mish
Mish, I know the right wants to claim this is some evil plot by the democrats to use some bogus theory about man made global warming as an excuse to control more and more of our lives, but in fact GM and other car makers are taking this business decision as a purely financial matter. So are the oil companies, the era of fossil fuels is ending and just denial of that fact ain’t going to change it.
I have for YEARS here said that the campaign of man made global warming (rebranded as “CLIMATE CHANGE”) would end personal ownership and use of private transportation for all but the top 1-10% or so of citizens and I was laughed at. Battery power is not going to be affordable to the middle class in our lives, if ever. The upfront as well as long-term costs are just too high.
You will get from point A to point B in privately (corporate) owned cars that are computer driven, and filthy, and you will get from point A to point B on the schedule of those companies providing the taxi service, you will pay by the ride plus per mile, plus state and local taxes, plus a fuel charge, plus whatever the hell else they feel like charging. At times of peak demand like conventions and sporting events, concerts etc. you will wait a long time to use their services, and every trip both pick up and destination as well as ever word you utter while in the vehicle and every web page you visit via the car’s hotspot will be recorded and documented.
Get ready to pay double to triple for transportation as a part of your monthly budgets.
Mish your article is naive to extreme. Market forces didn’t created the leap forward in batteries or in any thing revolutionary to speak of. Market forces come into play once a particular reaches an in-flexion point where it can become profitable. For any technology to reach that point there has to be continuous investment by someone. In modern societies that someone is the State. The reason space is becoming profitable is because there was a NASA and the military apparatus that demanded satellites (both paid by the state).
The reality is that most USA companies no longer do pure research (to expensive, very high failure odds). Most companies do either applied research (to improve something) or development. In case you don’t know both of those are tax-payer favored.
So yes government “wastes” lots of money giving it to things that do not pan-out but without that money there would hardly be the ones that actually do pan-out
AOC is accusing Ted Cruz of attempted LOL I am not a Ted Cruz fan so if he resigns….fine with me. But I thought AOC said all congress were assassination’s targets that day and even Mike Pence. I wish she would make her mind up.
In a tweet to Ted Cruz:
I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out.
Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.
In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign
Looking at what Ford just did to the Mustang brand, a name Ford often has done disservice, I have no doubt Ford has already made their decision to go down this road too. Using the legacy of the Mustang, they are clearly getting Americans to invest in the coming changes before their announcement.
This is Free Market American style. The government pays to develop the technology, provides the necessary regulations to create a market, and provides the tax and subsidies necessary to make it all work. Once the hard work is done, the private sector steps in and does the design and manufacturing. The government makes it and the corporations profit.
Perceived pressure is better than no pressure. The odd thing here is car companies disagreed with the Trump administration anyway. They were losing market share to the likes of Tesla in the US and others overseas.
As I’ve said before, it will take Biden about a year to undo the mess the Trump admin created. The economy will boom again in 2022 after the pandemic ends with a third and perhaps 4th booster that covers all known infectious covid strains to date.
I see cars becoming a red-blue statement like masks. Blue = electric and red = gas. Red will treat ownership of gas powered vehicles as a constitutional right.
Wow, that is good news. GM figured out how to manufacture steel, plastic, rubber, glass and a whole bunch of other stuff without any fossil fuels. They seem to have also figured out how to mine lithium, copper, and other metals needed without the same. Can they make wind turbines and solar panels without fossil fuels also? They apparently figured out how to modify the grid to handle the demand for non-fossil/nuke fuel electricity distribution to charge these too.
Amazing stuff, unless it is like the EU not counting burning wood pellets for electricity production in their emissions numbers, no?
Just sayin, the shell game smell is strong.
Is there a market for smaller, lighter vehicles?
Are you really saying that– in a country where sedans are no longer made and where the pickup truck is king, regardless of gas cost?
My 4X4 Chevy pick-up, which has a beast of an engine (5.3 liter 355hp) now gets about 20mpg with it’s fuel injection and roller cam technology. Significantly higher than my Volt….but twice as good as my 69 GMC once got….so even ICE engines have gotten cleaner, use less fuel, and are actually more powerful than in the old days.
Electric vehicles are great, but you can’t pull a boat trailer with a Volt….or a dump trailer, or an 18 ft flat bed…..all of which I own and use frequently.
It seems that a number of people, including our host, have missed the point that the purpose of corporations is to maximize returns for share-holders.
In a world with weak governance and trivial penalties, cash returns are king, everything else is secondary–including, life, health, safety, environment.
I am cynical enough to think that GM has noticed that Telsa is valued greater than GM and they want that same sort of share growth for their share-holders.
To reiterate an important point, the upward trend of CO2 emissions in China directly mirrors the graph of China’s exports to the world.
They make more of the world’s stuff, as a result they create more of the world’s CO2.
will GM still be in business in 2040?
besides, this is a “plan” or “aspiration”, but not a commitment,
and anyway, 2040 might be Too Late if Market Forces go the Mish Way.
I didn’t think so but Honda is turning to GM for electric vehicles
Consumers didn’t want 4 cylinder cars with turbos, then government raised requirements. Now consumers are no longer interested
I’ll go as far as to wager that before their 2035 deadline they will have either gone bankrupt to competition from Tesla and others if they don’t move faster.
EV price is rapidly dropping, fuel cost is a fraction per mile, the biggest detriment is the danger & volatility of Li batteries, but even that’s getting better, atop newer technologies in batteries like graphene.
Fuel costs are less but not orders of magnitude less. And as more and more EV’s come on line, the electric costs will rise because of electric demands and a lot of grids are already strained (see California).
Batteries are just 1 problem. Charging stations are another as mass build-outs are needed and faster charging (people aren’t going to wait 30 minutes to charge compared to 5 minutes to fill a gas tank).
The final problem is what all the apartment dwellers are going to do. It’s relatively easy for a homeowner to plug in at night but in an apartment building it’s orders of magnitude harder (need lots of plug in stations and a way to bill for the electricity used).
15-20 years seems about right for mass adoption. Gas powered vehicles will still be around for a long time after that (decades).
“Fuel costs are less but not orders of magnitude less.”
Comparatively, at ~ $0.70 per gallon of gas, I’d say so.
Remember that much of the gas price is just taxes, not actual fuel costs in terms of extraction/refinement.
Governments are addicted to this tax revenue. Already states are moving to implement taxes on EV’s in terms of license renewal fees to make up for the lost gas tax. Or you can expect electric costs in general rise as they tax electricity more.
“Governments are addicted to this tax revenue.”
It’s the easiest way for both sides to raise revenues without pissing off wealthy campaign donors.
Then, if we notice or complain, each side gets us to angrily blame each other.
Increase the gas tax and the free market can respond faster. Use the money to fund electric recharging stations
Consumption taxes are regressive, hurt the poorest most.
The guy driving a 10 year old Ford drives relatively the same miles as his boss driving a Lexus, but his income is 50% of his boss, a ~5% tax is double the proportion of his income.
Better to incentivize both with a tax break, no?
the gas tax is simpler. the result should be the purchase of a more fuel efficient vehicle or use public transportation. we tax cigarettes too. that’s an even more regressive tax
Government a huge role. Government sets standards like promoting a standard lightbulb. By going 100% electric fleet suddenly the car companies have a large electric auto customer and they can promote recharging stations. Suddenly a huge obstacle to consumers buying electric vehicles is gone.
Well, might GM’s cute 2035 prediction be driven by China’s 2035 mandate? Speaking of market forces.
But I sure agree: Let the market sort this stuff out.
Or Europe’s. Cities are increasingly banning diesel and tightening restrictions. G.M. isn’t about to develop cars only for the American market
Sure was great how the free market solved water and air pollution. A true inspiration
how free markets solved over fishing and toxic waste discharge. Heartwarming to see how free markets have responded to vanishing rainforests. Any day now I expect the free market to open up some more national parks for Mish to take his pictures in.
You put your finger on a major question before mankind: How to assign property rights to the fluids?
Establishing and maintaining “ownership” to land and physical objects is a lot of work and expense, but is largely a solved problem as to methods and fundamentals – now that painful lessons can be learned from the 20th century.
But air and water are hard to pin down. There is the concept of blaming the land owner upstream in a river when he harms the river for those downstream. But when you get to oceans and the atmosphere, it seems to be prohibitively expensive to track ownership. That is, identify who has power over, say, a chunk of air, and who therefore, in a fair, sustainable world, takes the fall when that chunk is trashed.
As of now, the fluids are one, big Tragedy of the Commons.
Similar unsolved problem with information, which does not even live in a Newtonian world! Sheesh. Imagine trying to apply real estate or vehicle law to information! It’s the fish on a frigging unicycle.
For years, I’ve been on the lookout for suggestions for how to handle these problems. Haven’t found much that makes any sense. So, if you have ideas, half baked or not, please air ’em.
So you think we operate in a “FREE” market right now?
The legitimate role of government is to protect property rights. Pollution is a concern. CO2 is not pollution
“CO2 is not pollution” – are you disagreeing with the widely held scientific concensus? On what basis? I understand it occurs naturally, but when it is produced in quantity it is pollution.
GM should have been phased out
around the mid 70s.
The federal government, much like the Federal Reserve, may not be able to force a change in market direction but can certainly accelerate present velocity.
“If there is a problem and it can be solved at all, it will be solved by the free market, not Joe Biden, not John Kerry and certainly not by AOC or Al Gore.”
The “free market” is ill-suited to addressing global issues. Way back in econ 101, I wrote a paper on how the free market could solve the world’s problems. Got an A…how naive I was…and probably still am…..
Why do you hold the free market in such high esteem? Seems like a foundational fallacy?
Why do you hold the Goverments in such high esteem? What the hell have they ever done besides start wars.
I hold the concepts of capitalism and effective government both in high esteem, but recognize their limitations. I support getting the right balance and in continuous improvement – government and enterprise working in partnership. I also support building and strengthening our societal fabric, of which effective government is a necessary component. Idolizing the free market is silly, just as believing government can fix everything is silly. Statements like “What the hell have they ever done besides start wars” are stupid and destructive, and only serve to polarize peoples opinions.
All you are doing is idealizing corporations as some kind of benevolent alternative to government. It’s almost as if you think neo-liberalism is sacrosanct and a panacea for a model human society. How? History is littered with corporations doing terrible selfish, short sighted and destructive things. The examples are too numerous to even scratch the surface. The free markets brought us child labor and polluted and dangerous cities during our industrial revolution. We’d also still be spraying ddt if it hadn’t been regulated out of existence. There is also no way we would have nearly as much public land nor a collective body enforcing environmental stewardship. Not really grooving with the idea that a completely free market should dictate everything. Once we castrate our political institutions with the meme that the free market should run unrestricted and somehow like magic everything will just self optimize into perfect harmony we become so vulnerable to neo-feudal corporate governance. I love your blog. But this reply just sounds ignorant and that you basically outed yourself as a cult member of the neo-liberalist religion.
There have been a lot of free market solutions in the past 40 years to help in the fight against climate change. Off the top of my head the biggest ones are
There are probably lots more that I haven’t mentioned but these 3 have vastly improved things.
The Volt was probably the best car GM ever made, in terms of a trade-off between the carbon reduction of an eV….and the actual real time convenience of gas back-up…..so of course they quit making it, just when they finally got the range up to 50 miles on battery.
My Volt gets well over 100 mpg normally….and if I only use it for the commute, I use zero gas.
Serial hybrids make a lot of sense, especially in a place like Texas, or Australia, where people have to drive long distances on a regular basis.
Yet they now intend to go to all electric, which will take many years to get to full utility and will never have the range of my hybrid.
It is true that the Volt was not that popular a car……and my opinion is that it’s because it was too expensive to compete with low-end cheap ICE cars…..and just not snazzy enough to appeal to the Tesla crowd…so market forces….that’s probably what killed it.
It’s interesting….to me it’s still a political thing. If we outlaw ICE cars, then people will basically have no choice other than to buy an eV.
My guess is that we will see some give on this eventually. I doubt it will all work out as well as the politicians think it will, in the long run.
“I doubt it will all work out as well as the politicians think it will, in the long run.”
that’s just the cycle of history isn’t it?
Peanut gallery that used to praise the host when he excoriated Trump, now coming with pitchforks in 3….2…..1
The earth covered in solar cells will look like the Darth Vader’s Death Star, and warm even faster because less sunlight will be reflected.