GM's CO2 Greenhouse Gas Solution: Everybody Breath Less

[DeSwiss]

SOURCE: Chicago Tribune

GM Puts Brake On Rear-Drive Vehicles

By Jim Mateja
Published April 10, 2007

General Motors has put a hold on future rear-wheel-drive vehicles. "We've pushed the pause button. It's no longer full speed ahead," Vice Chairman Bob Lutz revealed in an interview.

Two of the most important RWD cars in the works are the Chevy Camaro sports coupe due back late in 2008 and the full-size, RWD replacement for the Chevy Impala sedan for 2009. Both are expected to be huge sellers and contribute major profits to a GM till burdened with IOUs the last few years.

"It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble," said Lutz, noting that also means Camaro derivatives -- along with a big Impala sedan, "if we call it Impala." The RWD cars, you see, would be larger and heavier than front-wheel-drive cars or are high-performance models.

So it comes down to the matter of fuel economy. Or as Lutz says: "We don't know how to get 30 percent better mileage from" RWD cars.

That 30 percent bogey arises from a proposal by the Bush administration to raise corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 4 percent a year so cars would have to average 34 m.p.g. by 2017, up from 27.5 m.p.g. today. On top of that, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide expelled by cars, a gas that contributes to global warming. The EPA doesn't do so now.

"We'll decide on our rear-drive cars when the government decides on CO(-2) levels and CAFE regulations," Lutz said, adding that limiting CO(-2) would increase mileage, too.

"Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of burning gas and directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. If we legislate CO(-2) from cars, why not legislate we take one less breath per minute since humans release capricious amounts of CO(-2) each time they exhale?" offered a testy Lutz.

more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704090401apr10,0,1765735.column?coll=chi-bizfront-hed

*** - Well now that we know who the real culprits are (breathers), we can put a stop to this insane short-sighted behavior immediately. I mean, how much air do we really, really need? And since it was GM, the great bastards bastion of global corporatism which made this suggestion, I'd like to see them lead by example (like maybe by STFU!)

And remember, if you see anyone who is breathing "inordinately" you are free to place a firm cupped hand over their mouths and noses to reduce the release of CO2. But don't kill them. Their bodies will only give off even more CO2 during decomposition. It can be tricky......

I know, I know. I'm bending over now..... :spank:

~DeSwiss

[lvx35]

1. Sigh. Its those damn sport utility lungs that are doing all the damage.

Those athletes and their 'sport' lungs make more CO2 than normal lungs. If only they would just lead a sedentary lifestyle and drive instead of all that damn jogging and biking, the world would be a much safer place! :+

[DeSwiss]

2. LOLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!

[july302001]

3. heavy breathing?

I don't want government in the bedroom! :rofl: