Despite the fact that General Motors has introduced several green initiatives and unveiled new fuel-efficient vehicles to be produced in the near future, the vice chairman of the company still thinks global warming is a "total crock of shit." Those are actually the exact words reporters say Bob Lutz used to describe his position on the matter last month. Since making the bold statement, Lutz has faced criticism from bloggers and environmentalists. Despite this, in a recent post on his GM blog, Lutz says he stands by what he said and claims his critics are "spewing virtual vitriol" and "missing the big picture." However he does want to clarify that his remarks have no bearing on GM's commitment to produce more earth friendly vehicles.

"What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support," he said in a posting titled, "Talk About a Crock."

"My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors," he wrote.

This isn't the first time Lutz has faced opposition for bluntly stating his opinions. In 2006, he addressed higher fuel economy standards in his blog, saying that forcing vehicle manufacturers to offer smaller cars would be "like trying to address the obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell smaller, tighter sizes."

I have no problem with Bob Lutz believing global warming is a load of crap. After all, he's entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. What I do find curious is his willingness to make such a bold claim when it's obviously not in the best interest of a company he holds a leadership position in. I don't think Lutz has to agree with the concept or lie and say he agrees with it, however as a representative of a company working on hybrid technology and green vehicle solutions, exercising some discretion and carefully choosing his words probably wouldn't have been such a terrible decision either. 

What do you think about Lutz's comments? Was he entitled to say what he did or should he have kept his mouth shut, or at the very least, chosen a more polite euphemism?

» Reuters Environment