I can agree with all this but it doesn't affect my point. Actually two points. One is that GM is better positioned than most to meet CAFE. Two is that, even if it weren't, having its CEO be the point person on CAFE reduction is simply downright stupid from a PR standpoint. It's not going to succeed so it's tiling at windmills. At the same time it runs the risk of whacking off Millennials who view climate change as the most important issue facing the US. Since Millennials are the largest demographic cohort and the primary customer base for years to come, snubbing this group is something that should be avoided.It's a very old problem. Some folk believe car companies should only make cars people do not want to buy. Car company folk and the public want cars that serve the actual market.
So it's a compromise. Most car companies are making both. The new tighter CAFE goals were to be evaluated as time goes on. The fleets are still improving their economies, even the 'guzzlers' are achieving higher MPGs as time goes on. The question is how fast should we transition without destroying the US economy. Yes, a massive depression would reduce emissions, but might also reduce government programs.
I think this is right. GM went for space and cost. FWIW I thought your article was thought provoking and I enjoyed it.It seems that one reason for this is the small battery can be packaged and still leave good trunk space (the newest eAssist system is discreetly packaged to maintain the LaCrosse’s fold-down rear seat and ample trunk space).
