Is General Electric’s Ecomagination just greenwashing hype or the real thing? After a little back-and-forth with GE, I’m pretty convinced it’s the former.

It all started innocently. General Electric’s PR rep asked me if I wanted to go to GE’s Green Technology Tour. Sure! I said, but then got sick, and had to email my questions about GE instead.

Now I’m no expert on trains, but I know how to google — which is how I got to Green Car Congress‘s fascinating post about how the EPA’s calling for a 75% reduction in NOx emissions for locomotive — and how GE’s pushing for a lower 65% reduction, arguing that a 65% reduction is “more technologically sustainable over the life of the locomotive.”

So I asked, very politely:

If possible, I’d also like to know more about GE’s statement that a 65% reduction is more technologically sustainable over the life of the locomotive. Is GE is saying that 75% reduction is possible for a new vehicle, but that the reduction levels get lover as the locomotive gets ages? Or is GE saying that a vehicle created with the 65% reduction in mind will last longer than one created at the 75% reduction level (and if so, why)? Or is GE bringing up a different issue altogether (and if so, what is it?)

Because we’ve had a long history of companies pushing back environmental standards set by federal, state, and local govt. environmental agencies in the past (ex, our zero emissions vehicle standards) with the excuses blaming either the lack or expense of technology, I think Californians have become much more sensitive to these types of claims made by companies — and seek more details to ascertain that the information given out by big companies about technological possibilities is true.

This is the response I got from one Shaunda Parks of GE Transportation, via the PR rep:

GE is committed to aggressive emissions reductions. The proposed rule was just released. We will use the period reserved for public comment to understand its intent. As we work through the public comment period, it is imperative that all of the stakeholders and their needs are considered – we must ensure that all types of emissions and fuel efficiency are considered and that the technology is proven and robust to endure over the useful life of the locomotive….

We must ensure that all types of emissions and fuel efficiency are considered and that the technology is proven and robust to endure over the useful life of the locomotive. As we review the proposed rule, we will be focused on a balance approach that achieves aggressive reductions across several types of emissions and takes into account fuel consumption.

Um, so GE hasn’t actually ensured “that all types of emissions and fuel efficiency are considered and the technology is proven and robust” — yet it’s already pushing lower standards to the EPA?

As you can imagine, I emailed back:

From the replies, it appears to me that GE is saying that it doesn’t understand the intent of, and hasn’t done enough analysis on, EPA’s new regulations regarding NOx reductions (” We will use the period reserved for public comment to understand its intent.”) — yet GE has already recommended a reduction that’s 10% less than the EPA’s.

I guess it leaves me wondering why GE went ahead and made a push for less stringent regulations when it doesn’t yet “understand its intent.” Any ideas?

And as you can imagine, I didn’t get a response to that email.

If GE had really studied and proven that a 65% NOx reduction will, in the end, be better for the environment by making engines last longer, well then I’d applaud them. But to push for lower reductions, making claims that haven’t even been researched?

Sadly, even some eco-blogs have been taken in by the hype — hello Inhabitat! — and are simply repeating what’s printed in GE’s press releases. Inhabitat praises General Electric’s Evolution Series Locomotive, which Treehugger has already said this about: “the so-called “green” Evolution engine is designed to meet less stringent 1997 regulations…. Under those standards a locomotive emits as much pollution as 500 diesel trucks”

1 Comments