GM Promises 40% Less Manufacturing Emissions
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 04. 9.07
Via press release:- "...General Motors announced its goal to reduce CO2 emissions from its North American manufacturing facilities by 40 percent by 2010, based on 2000 levels. GM is setting this target as part of its voluntary partnership in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders program. This reduction would equal 4.5 million metric tons and equate to annual emissions from the power consumed by 432,692 U.S. households." By focusing the 40% emission reduction goal on absolute carbon dioxide emissions from US manufacturing sites, General Motors leaves open the question of which techniques "count" toward the goal. Per the press release, carbon dioxide emission reductions in US operations of General Motors, to date, ...25 percent since 2000...were mainly from energy efficiency measures, waste reduction projects, increased use of renewable resources, and so on. Would plant closings or "off-shoring" qualify as emissions reducing measures going forward? Hopefully, what they mean to report on exclusively is the impact of design, supply, configuring, and operating changes at manufacturing facilities. It would be nice if the unit basis for such progress-measuring was defined as a national standard, by industrial sector Then, we would not be left to wonder about such things. Good role for a Federal Government, no? We checked the EPA Climate Leaders website briefly and the only guidance we saw related to public relations. Corrections anyone? Image credit: GM Flint Michigan, USA truck plant.
Update: It appears GM is already half way to its goal, with 2000 as the basis year. If that is so, then a better headline would convey how much more progress will be made in meeting a goal being pursued successfully since 2000. Otherwise, its a hummer. Does the 40% header reflect EPA guidance? More questions than answers, still.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
- 7 Ways the Troubled Automotive Industry Could Change Your Car and Your Commute
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
didn't they already f*ck us with their
trial of the EV car? Anyone remember
that plight? They pulled the electric
vehicle the same year they released
the hummer (waste of space).
Didn't Toyota pull the EV too? Doesn't really say much, other than it was not profitable.
A majority of emissions come from industry and business, not homes and consumers. And since they operate according to the laws of economics, they're gonna adapt more quickly. In doing so, they habituate their workers to lower energy routines, and maybe those workers will bring those habits home.
"A majority of emissions come from industry and business, not homes and consumers."
Lets not forget that industry doesn't operate in a vacuum. It is individuals that buy their products and that decide which company they'll give their money to. Individuals have a lot of power there too.
jiltedcitizen,
No, that doesn't necessarily say that it was not profitable. Profit is the strongest motivator for businesses, but it's not the only one. There are cases where farmers were paid to not grow wheat. Does that mean that growing wheat wouldn't be profitable?
Side-note: The majority of an automobile's energy use comes from the consumer, not production. Perhaps GM could spend some time focusing there too. It's in their best interest (which they seem to be, just now realizing). Way to be slow, stubborn, and beholden to oil corporations.
The EV1?
Ha, try the streetcar conspiracy.
Making and selling fewer vehicles has probably really helped out in reducing emissions at production facilities.
=== author's response follows ====
Yes. If absolute number is all that is reported, it helps. The better measure (ed. opinion) would be per unit of production, however industry feels that should best be tabulated.
This is very important going forward. What happens if GM buys Chrysler after years of each using unique metrics to measure progress. Big mess is what. Because the auto business is global, a global, transferable metric is in order. This takes leadership.
Just a hunch but I'm guessing that since they're going out of business and closing factories it'll be easy for them to cut emissions.
Crysler used to make air conditioners. They should go back into the field using green technlogy. And stirling generators are just gigantic cylinders made out of sheet metal. GM and Chrysler could turn out thousands of them a day.
Didn't GM, ford, and Chrysler close most of their US based Operations?
Funny that GM is now trying to take credit for reducing factory emissions by 40% when it is about that much of job losses and factory closings in america since 2001.
And still fat cat CEO's do not get the message to go green!
D~W
The GM effort is a graet idea, they're gonna do it