Regular readers know that I believe that America and the world passed a tipping point last year regarding Global Warming.  I have written about it here and here.  Every week I continue to see evidence that verifies this viewpoint.  Two weeks ago I shared with you my conversation with an executive at GM who not only agreed, but was working to create cars that the post-tipping point public wants to drive.  In the past week I have seen even more evidence that we as a society have moved beyond debating about global warming to a place where much of what we do, think and act, is now based upon the reality of global warming. 

In just one day the Business Day section of the New York Times had several articles tied to global warming.  This would not have been the case 5 years ago, let alone 1 year ago. One article was about cleaner coal technologies.  Environmentalists support the gasification of coal before burning, as this process separates the carbon.  The coal industry say that this process is too expensive and that their old tried and true method, know as pulverized coal can be equipped to capture the carbon.  While costs will continue to be debated, there is no longer any question but that carbon must be captured. …

Recently I have been thinking about the cultural process whereby something that initially is perceived as dangerous to society ultimately becomes a part of the cultural mainstream. New is often perceived as threatening.  Its newness is not understood, so if it can’t be understood and fit into the status quo then it must be bad. 

This thinking was triggered several weeks ago when reading an editorial in The Economist about the need for an age-rating for video games similar to the age ratings of the motion picture industry.  The thrust of the article was that something new is not necessarily bad and in need of banning, it just might need some social rating system.    The article mentioned some past cultural innovations that were initially regarded as bad or even evil.

In the 18th century there was something that began to get wide acceptance that alarmed those that populate the status quo.  It was thought that it would poison the mind, corrupt the morals of the young, letting them immerse themselves in dangerous worlds of fantasy.  What was it?  The novel. 

In the early part of the 19th century, waltzing was condemned as a cultural phenomenon that encouraged promiscuity.  In the early 20th century motion pictures were called evil and destructive of social interchange.  Those of us who are baby boomers can vaguely remember when Rock and Roll was something that would turn young people into “devil worshippers”.

As a parent I remembered all of this as my son grew up through his teen age …

It was great to meet with a number of the top executives at GM prior to the Chicago Auto Show to learn about the Chevrolet Volt, the company commitment to developing battery technology and to really find out how committed this company is and will be in the area of cleaner automobiles.  However there is one interview that truly stands out that needs to be shared. 

Larry Burns is GM’s Vice President, Research & Development and Strategic Planning.  Simply put, this means he is THE person responsible for leading GM into the future of clean transportation. It is Larry’s job to initiate and oversee  research, lead, innovate, prod, motivate  and yes, seduce all those he comes in contact with to buy into a new vision of automotive transportation.

At the outset of our conversation, I made it clear that I was very impressed with GM’s commitment to the Chevrolet Volt and supportive of the seeming commitment to market ever more efficient and green vehicles. That being said, I challenged him to show me what was on his drawing board that was more than just an aggregation of ways to increase over all fleet MPG by degrees and do enough green initiatives for the marketing department to be happy.  I wanted to hear plans for transformation, not incremental change.  I got what I asked for. 

Larry wants to change the automotive world, simple as that.  As our conversation went on, he became ever more impassioned about creating alternatives to the internal combustion engine; that …

As mentioned in my prior post, I had the opportunity to meet one on one with top management at General Motors prior to the opening of the Chicago Auto Show, which is the largest auto show in North America. I am writing several posts about this experience for two reasons. First, I learned a lot that is worth sharing, and second, our collective ability to drastically reduce the production of greenhouse gases during the next two decades is significantly dependent on transforming how we power transportation.

The good news is that all the major auto companies have gotten the message that finding new ways to power vehicles is now an essential part of their future economic success. This is due to market demand, developing political pressure, competitive pressures, and the stark fact that 98% of vehicles today are powered solely by petroleum energy. There are many energy analysts today that think we are passing through ‘peak oil’ during this current decade. What this means is that it is quite possible that sometime after 2040, the planet will run out of oil, at least oil that can be affordably extracted. Any auto company, whether it is GM, Ford or Toyota, does not want to be in the long term business of building vehicles that don’t have fuel.
Green is clearly a new marketing hot button in the industry. While many hard core environmentalists have historically valid suspicions regarding green claims from car companies, I sense that a corner has been turned. Market …