April 6, 2001
The two Detroit automotive giants left standing are fierce rivals, naturally, in the race to sell vehicles and earn money. Don't overlook the contest between them for the title of greenest U.S. automaker.
Yes, we all know Ford Motor Co.'s chairman, William Clay Ford Jr., has a longstanding record of environmental activism, having used his clout as a Ford director starting in the late 1980s to raise the consciousness of top executives. He even owns a fly-rod company, which in some mythical way endows his enviro-credentials with an extra dash of authenticity.
But let's not forget General Motors Corp. Chairman Jack Smith is cochairman of the Nature Conservancy's "Campaign for the Last Great Places," an effort to preserve sensitive habitats and species. GM gnashes its teeth because of the image Ford has captured, because it sees itself as every bit as dedicated to a clean Earth.
At a news conference Thursday, Smith, who doesn't yet enjoy a reputation for tree hugging, presented a Chevrolet Silverado full-size pickup and $50,000 to the Nature Conservancy so its workers in western Michigan, Shiawassee County, the Upper Peninsula and its office in Lansing can more easily "monitor rare species and control invasive plants."
Big Conservancy donor
In recent years GM has contributed cash and vehicles worth $5 million to the group. GM marketing people whisper about a plan, soon to be announced, for GM to underwrite preservation of a chunk of the South American rain forest "the size of Boston."
It would be easy enough to dismiss the activism of these two automakers as cynical attempts to curry favor with pro-environment customers and lobbyists. But such dismissal would imply that chairman Ford and other top auto executives don't really care about minimizing impact on the environment.
Based on casual conversations, I believe the vast majority of auto executives these days do support the concept of sustainable resources (the current catchphrase) by conserving, recycling and by increasing efficiency. Their reasons: because minimizing environmental impact is morally correct and can be accomplished while still earning a decent return on investment.
Batteries a hard sell
One penalty for the auto industry's failure to embrace sustainability is more polarization between industry and government, exemplified by what automakers are facing in California, where the Air Resources Board refuses to ease mandates for more sales of battery-powered cars in 2002. At great expense GM developed a zero-emission car, the EV1, but could lease fewer than 1,000 of them, a strong suggestion that consumers aren't willing to accept the technology's limitations.
After much debate and argument GM sued the Air Resources Board, claiming the policy of forcing battery-powered vehicles is in conflict with "the public interest in safe, lower-polluting motor vehicle transportation."
GM realized that a nasty lawsuit undoubtedly will neutralize some of its greenie points. Ford is trying to fulfill at least part of the zero-emission mandate in California by manufacturing glorified battery-powered golf carts and trying to sell them as cars in gated communities. There's no telling how much the effort could cost Ford.
Winning the title of
cleanest automaker isn't a contest for the faint-hearted.