Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 Schwarzenegger to Michigan: Get off your butt Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 70
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 11:49 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Article in todays Det News

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070412/AUTO0 1/704120343&theme=Autos-Green- tech-hybrids

Schwarzenegger to Michigan: Get off your butt

David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled no punches Wednesday in telling Detroit automakers to "get off your butt" and increase the fuel efficiency of their cars and trucks, saying they are "still lagging behind."

Schwarzenegger's comments came as he responded to a billboard that went up last month along Interstate 75 in Detroit that criticized him for mandating vehicle emission caps in California that will be costly for Detroit automakers to meet.

The billboard, from U.S. Rep Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Hills, reads: "Arnold to Michigan: Drop Dead." It features Schwarzenegger's photo and drew widespread attention.

"Now, there's a billboard in Michigan that accuses me of costing the car industry $85 billion," Schwarzenegger said at a speech in Washington. "The billboard says, 'Arnold to Michigan: Drop dead.' The fact of the matter is what I'm saying is, Arnold to Michigan: Get off your butt. Get off your butt and join us."

In 2002, California ordered its air resources board to adopt caps to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and force more than a 30 percent improvement in fuel economy over the next decade. The auto industry has filed suits to block the regulations. Schwarzenegger said the rules would help the industry.

"What we are doing is we are pushing them to make changes, to make the changes so they can sell their cars in California," he said. "And we all know -- let's be honest -- that if they don't change, someone will. The Japanese will. The Chinese will. The South Koreans will. The Germans will."

Schwarzenegger spoke at the Global Environment Conference at Georgetown University. He said he is optimistic about the future of Detroit automakers, all struggling to compete against foreign rivals grabbing ever more U.S. auto sales.

"I want them to sell the cars in California," Schwarzenegger said. "I believe strongly in American technology. And I think in the end it will be technology that will ultimately save Detroit."

General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group agreed with the governor's emphasis on technology, but took issue with other aspects of his comments.

"Technology is the solution, but it's not government mandates that are not based on science or on what consumers want or need," GM spokesman Greg Martin said.

GM is aggressively pursuing technologies to improve fuel economy, Martin said, and has more 30-mpg models on the road than any automaker.

Chrysler spokesman Jason Vines said U.S. auto companies have led environmental advances, including the development of the catalytic converter.

Knollenberg spokesman Trent Wisecop said Schwarzenegger "is dead wrong on this issue. The mandates that are coming out of California would devastate the manufacturing sector of the American economy."
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 901
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 11:57 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lol, who would have believed 10 years ago that the US Auto Industry would be throwing money at billboard ads to attack Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider

Post Number: 337
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looking around at the girth of some people around here maybe we should listen.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dialh4hipster
Member
Username: Dialh4hipster

Post Number: 2039
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:09 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Isn't relying on the development of the catalytic converter as a sign of your commitment to environmental advances a little ... stupid?
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 972
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with the Terminator, quit worrying about increasing Chinese Buick sales from 100k yr to 125k yr and start designing some cars that will sell over here! Check out my thread about GM Stupidity for thier reaction.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 2023
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ahh, here's the reality - using Detroit as the scapegoat for the excessive American lifestyle

quote:

Schwarzenegger urged environmentalists to shed their past image as "serious tree huggers" and begin a new movement that doesn't make people feel guilty for driving their SUVs, but instead focuses on building more fuel-efficient SUVs.

Schwarzenegger's guiltless green

Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly

Post Number: 9
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GM had technology to improve fuel economy with the EV1 and destroyed it.


Screw them, they deserve every bit of financial problem they are experiencing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1583
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i agree with the schwarz unfortunately. where are the GM analysts that should've been tracking fuel trends for the last decade or so? and/or why aren't their voices being heard in the boardroom?

and aside from that, how about you quit complaining that you (looking at mr. lutz) are being forced to compete in the larger marketplace that others seem to have no issue doing, and COMPETE already! remember way back when when innovation was king? well it still is, only problem is that we here in detroit haven't been a part of that for decades.

It isn't the old timey days of the auto industry any longer, gone are the days where "detroit" calls the shots. the sooner we realize it the sooner we can get to making competetive cars.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 2025
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:04 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem is there's more to being environmentally friendly than just improved fuel economy. I think that's something the public doesn't focus on but the manufacturers do. Seriously, do you know that the primary supplier for nickel is in Ontario yet the nickel gets shipped to Europe, China, and Japan by the time it ends up in a car? During the Congressional panel with the automakers, all said they want American battery technology to be developed because right now there is *none* All hybrid batteries right now have to be purchased from Japan. Also, while NiMH batteries are recyclable achieving recycling compliance is another thing. It seems that everyone's forgotten the domestics' push to get mercury out of vehicles, conversion of A/C refridgerants, etc. that have already taken place.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 296
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 2:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fuel efficiency does not equal less pollution or toxicity, much as many tree huggers would like you to believe otherwise. Lithium Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride batteries? VERY TOXIC MATERIAL in those things (that power the EV1, and hybrids). On a environmental scorecard, they do very badly. Not to forget that something has to be burned to generate the electricity to charge those batteries, the possibilities range from gasoline, to coal, to nuclear. What about the environmental impact of those processes? In the automobile, the catalytic converter does a good job of scavenging out toxic pollutants. Can the same be said with confidence for the coal generators, or nuclear reactors??

Fuel efficiency is more a political issue than pollution issue. The topic touches on what type of economic system we have/will have, foreign affairs, the middle east, war...everything. Frankly, it is far too complicated to be encapsulated by the contents of what Arnold, or Joe Knollenberg have to say.

Most importantly, don't fall prey to the environmental extremists and alarmists' propaganda spewed by Al Gore and his henchpeople. They are fixing to effect some very harmful changes in our way of life via threatening our liberties and freedoms.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.