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.
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.