mmarshall

General Motors to eliminate gasoline and diesel light-duty cars and SUVs by 2035

Big U.S. automaker says it will invest heavily in electric vehicles and be carbon neutral by 2040

A General Motors-made Chevrolet Bolt. (Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg News)


I guess it was inevitable. By then, I may have quit driving....but we'll see.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...vsoPk_3pMRqHLQ


By
Steven Mufson
Jan. 28, 2021 at 1:05 p.m. ESTGeneral Motors has pledged to stop making gasoline-powered passenger cars, vans and sport utility vehicles by 2035, marking a historic turning point for the iconic American carmaker and promising a future of new electric vehicles for American motorists.

GM chief executive Mary Barra, who antagonized many climate experts by embracing President Donald Trump’s relaxation of fuel efficiency targets, said Thursday the company now wants to lead the way to a greener future.
“As one of the world’s largest automakers, we hope to set an example of responsible leadership in a world that is faced with climate change,” Barra said on LinkedIn.

GM has said it would invest $27 billion in electric vehicles and associated products between 2020 and 2025, outstripping its spending on conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles. That figure includes refurbishing factories and investing in battery production in conjunction with LG Chem, a South Korean battery maker.

As part of its plan, GM — maker of the Oldsmobile, Buick, Chevrolet and Corvette, among others — will manufacture about 30 types of electric vehicles. By late 2025, about 40 percent of the company’s U.S. models will be battery-powered electric vehicles, it said. And it pledged to make its factories and other facilities carbon neutral by 2040.

One of the Big Three automakers that dominated the North American car market for decades, GM has rolled out millions of pollution-spewing cars and trucks. Transportation accounts for about 28 percent of total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, making it the largest contributor of the pollution that is driving climate change. GM now faces the task of reorienting and revamping supply chains, assembly lines and its labor force to produce a new kind of product that few Americans have experienced.

“This is a very significant pivot … especially for such an iconic American institution,” said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan.

For a century, General Motors has been a giant of American carmaking and of the Michigan economy. In Rabe’s corner of southeast Michigan, where tens of thousands of people are employed by the auto industry, “the central part of life has been the performance of the internal combustion engine.”

“This is more than just a quick flip of the dial,” he continued. “It’s a very wrenching transition.”

It’s also expensive, said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor and economics at the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research. Converting a single plant from making combustion engines to electric drivetrains is a billion-dollar investment or more, she said. And pledging to complete that transition by 2035 is “an aggressive target,” she said.

The electric-vehicle industry has grown exponentially in the past decade but still represents less than 2 percent of automobiles sold in the United States. Global electric-vehicle sales grew in 2020 even while the rest of the car market suffered from the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic. The International Energy Agency projects that the global number of battery-powered and hybrid vehicles could increase from just over 5 million to nearly 140 million by 2030.

The timing of the GM announcement was tied in large part to the election of Joe Biden to the White House. On Wednesday, President Biden detailed a far-reaching plan to transition the U.S. economy away from oil, gas and coal and toward solar, wind and other clean energy.

The president said he wants the country to lead the global effort to cut the pollution that is driving climate change and speeding the planet toward environmental catastrophe. As part of several actions, Biden signed an executive order that calls for the federal fleet of approximately 645,000 vehicles to be converted to electric power. He has also vowed to expand charging stations for electric cars, revise and extend electric-vehicle tax credits and tighten fuel economy standards for gas-powered vehicles.

“On the heels of the President’s historic actions yesterday, we applaud efforts by the private sector to further embrace renewable and clean energy technologies,” Vedant R. Patel, a White House spokesman, said in an email. “As the President and many others have said, efforts like this will help grow our economy and create good-paying union jobs.”

Other government action has also pushed the auto industry toward electrification. California, the world’s fifth-largest economy and the state that created U.S. car culture, will stop sales of gasoline-powered automobiles within 15 years, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced in September. The United Kingdom plans to stop the sales of cars and vans powered by gas and diesel by 2030, five years earlier than planned.

“Major industries have to kind of look to the future and anticipate it,”Rabe said. “Do you really want to be the last one standing with the possibility that you’re just producing nostalgic vehicles that being regulated or priced out of existence?”

GM’s announcement was seen by others in the automobile industry as a public relations effort to outflank rivals, many of which have already launched aggressive electric-vehicle programs.

Volkswagen, for example, is planning to launch almost 70 new electric models in the next 10 years, increase its electric-vehicle production over the next decade to 22 million and pour about $33 billion into electrifying its other vehicles. Ford, which has been building vehicles with internal-combustion engines for more than a century, is spending $11.5 billion through 2022 on new EVs. Tesla plans to increase sales of its all-electric fleet.

GM’s stock rose nearly 3.5 percent Thursday.

The move toward ending tailpipe emissions will affect GM’s passenger cars and light-duty trucks — SUVs such as the Yukon, as well as vans and minivans and some pickup trucks, such as the Silverado, a company spokeswoman said.

But its heavy-duty vehicles — box trucks, tractor trailers, utility trucks and some heavy pickup trucks — will continue to run on gasoline, the company said.

GM also said it is working with EVgo to triple the scale of the nation’s largest public fast-charging network by adding more than 2,700 fast chargers by the end of 2025, a move it says will help speed up electric-vehicle adoption. The chargers will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy.

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which had worked with GM on its plan, called it a “breakthrough moment.”

“And it’s part of a wave of industry action that reinforces what the Biden administration is doing,” Krupp said.

Biden’s plan to electrify the federal fleet, from postal trucks to government vans, “creates demand and drives down costs as privately owned fleets follow suit,” Krupp said.

Some critics said that GM still had not publicly joined four other automakers — Ford, Honda, VW and BMW — that agreed to comply with California’s fuel efficiency standards, which are more stringent than the federal targets under Trump. The California settlement is an important benchmark in restarting negotiations among auto companies, the California Air Resources Board and the Biden administration over cutting greenhouse-gas emissions in the transport sector. For now, GM has still not made as big a commitment as the others through 2026, when fuel economy gets renegotiated again.

GM’s statement also left some wiggle room in continuing internal-combustion engines, critics noted. The company did not rule out using carbon offsets or credits “if absolutely necessary” to reach its goal of eliminating tailpipe emissions. That means GM could invest in programs that remove carbon dioxide from the air, such as tree planting, and still sell some gasoline-powered vehicles.

And GM said that its plans for “decarbonizing and transitioning to 100 percent EVs” would take place “as supported by our commitment to setting science-based targets.”

Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that “given GM’s polluting track record, their promise to arrange some offsets for pollution” suggested that the company’s plan was “just blue smoke and mirrors.”

Lawmakers, however, applauded GM’s move.

“General Motors committing to exclusively sell zero-emissions vehicles by 2035 and to be carbon neutral by 2040 is a big deal,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a statement. “This is good news for our climate and a smart financial move for the company — a win-win.”

By pledging to go carbon neutral by 2040, “GM demonstrates that members of the auto industry are committed to tackling the global climate crisis and decarbonizing the transportation sector,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who is a former GM executive and also served as president of the General Motors Foundation. “We have had discussions for months with the auto industry, labor unions, and the environmental community on concrete actions like this that must be taken to reach carbon neutrality.”

GM’s announcement showed that “industry does want to work with the administration” and that “industry realizes that climate change is real and action on the part of industry is needed,” Dingell said in an interview.

“Even as we celebrate this announcement, we need to keep our focus on creating jobs, confronting climate change, and the transformation of an innovative mobility industry,” Dingell said in a separate statement.

Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser in the Clinton White House, said GM is setting the tone for U.S. manufacturing. “When America’s most iconic manufacturer commits to carbon neutrality, that’s a huge signal to the rest of the economy,” said Bledsoe, who is now at the Progressive Policy Institute. “At the same time, it’s clear GM is trying to burnish its reputation from past practices and justify new tax incentives.”

And now, GM will have to convince American consumers to change a century-old habit.

“It will be incumbent on these auto manufacturers to really sell the transition,” Rabe said. “Not just with glitzy advertising and sales pitches but delivering on quality of the driving and of the experience.”

Toys4RJill

This is the way everyone will be going. Smart move by gm

mmarshall

Not everyone has (or will have) the ability to recharge BEVs. It's a crap-shoot at best.

SW17LS

It will come, like we've said before. 15 years is a long time, we can't even fathom the technology that we will have 15 years from now.

winterturb

They all ready have rolling blackouts in California. What do you think it will take to upgrade the grid to handle the surge in Electric cars? And where will that electricity come from?

I can’t imagine what taxes will jump to or what the Increase in electricity electricity costs will be to pay for the grid upgrade. This is going to get costly

EZZ

You don't see rolling blackouts in the middle of the night when 99% of EVs charge. California is planning to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate the EVs...why wouldn't it given its a giant source of revenue. Other states will follow because there is money to be made.

winterturb

you see rolling blackouts when demand is high. Plug every car in at night and that increases demand. Reservoirs fill up at night so they can meet demand during the day. It’s not like there is lots of free electricity sitting around at night that doesn’t get used.

you are correct. They will indeed update the grid but it’s not as simple as just doing it especially in California with all the regulations and red tape. It’s going to cost huge sums and take a long time. There is not enough electricity currently to handle all cars converting to EV. So you are talking about HUGE infrastructure costs. New dams in California? More water in Lake Mead. New coal plants, oh ya can’t build those. New nuclear plants. No body wants those any more. So more natural gas plants. Again can’t build those as they pollute so it will have to be dams

I don’t think people even at the top of GM are giving much thought as to where all the energy is going to come from to run all these cars.

a little trivia. There are 23,000 man hours in a barrel of oil. Any idea how much water has to run over a dam to equate that amount of energy? Or how long the sun has to shine in a panel? It’s worth searching for the answer

I say this only so folks think about the grid and where that energy is going to come from

China is Building 1300 new coal plants to handle the coming electric demand in China and the US is tearing theirs down. This is NOT and insignificant issue

im not advocating for any specific type of energy just pointing out that electricity will have to come from somewhere as currently there isn’t enough and the Hoover dam can’t supply it

EZZ

Honestly, it doesn't take that many panels to accommodate an EV. I have 19 panels at 350 watts and it's enough to power my house and 2 EVs. Currently many Teslas in so-cal are probably solar powered as most owners are financially decent to purchase a Tesla. This will change of course but California is definitely building more battery plants for all this solar energy but use natural gas plants to meet demand at night.

LeX2K

California is about the worst example of how to run an electrical grid. Also I think in the next 15 years we can figure out how to expand grid capacity, solar for example is getting cheaper and better every year.

RNM GS3

This is such nonsense.

Whats going to power all their HUGE trucks and SUVs? They currently don’t have 1 successful EV model. All propaganda and talk.....

Get ready for $5+ gas at the pump and huge increase in home heating bills.

No free lunch in this world and your average Joe will be footing the bill as usual to this EV future which will make driving much more expensive.

tex2670

When you have a state the size of California and one of the world's largest car makers (which is a public company with an obligation to stock holders in making forward-looking public statements) telling the world that this is the plan on this timeline, it's not a crapshoot. They clearly think this is achievable. In addition, the Sierra Club is on a nation-wide push to get municipalities committed to 100% renewable energy on the same timeline.

Just because you and I don't see tangible evidence of this happening in 14 years doesn't mean it's not realistic.

Look at the big changes that happened to the auto industry in the 15-year period during the gas crisis. GM in particular was slow to adopt to small fuel efficient vehicles, and look at how it hurt them. And Honda and Toyota, on the forefront of those changes, thrived.

Look for the same thing to happen with EVs.

tex2670

Right. On a smaller scale, the iPhone didn't even exist 15 years ago. Now smartphone use dominates our daily lives in every imaginable way.

mmarshall

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term "crapshoot"....at least in the sense that I was using it in reference to the thread-topic. I did not say that it is (or will be impossible) to achieve an adequate EV infrastructure in 15 years.....particularly if we get to work on it and commit ourselves as a nation, not just the state of CA. But, there are many, and severe hurdles, and there is no guarantee that it can be done. Thats's why I said it's a roll of the dice at best.


And I wouldn't use I-Phones as an legitimate 15-year comparison. How much electricity does it take to recharge an I-Phone?.......and how much to recharge an EV car-battery? That, alone, should quash any comparisons. Electric grids aren't going to be overloaded by charging phones.

Bob04

Nothing but a PR move to go along with all the hype of the executive orders. 3 months ago that they were still part of a lawsuit to roll back Cali's crazy emissions restrictions. They did flip on that, after the election, of course. Probably looking for a big handout for the current administration.

tex2670

Can't tell if you are joking with the winking emoji. My analogy to iPhones had nothing to do with how much electricity they consume. It's the shift in adoption of the technology.

Most of the apps when the iPhone came out were games. No one paid bills by their phones in 2007. No one unlocked their cars or houses. The smartphone technology has caused so many things we do in our daily lives to change in a way that you would not have thought possible in 2006.

And again--I do not believe a public company like GM or a state like CA would set 2035 as a goal like this if they -- looking at all the data, science and industry information that you and I have not studied -- thought it was a "crap shoot" to achieve. They aren't flying by the seats of their pants like we do on internet forums--they are doing the hard work to determine if this is an achievable goal. There's a wide spectrum between "no guarantee" and "crap shoot."