It’s one of the most remarkable interviews ever seen on Fox News. Yesterday, a conservative guest debunked all the destructive myths their pundits having been perpetuating, decrying their “fetish for demonizing the Volt.”

Conservatives, led by Fox News, have been pushing a variety of lies about the Chevy Volt. They’ve falsely asserted that it is unsafe and a creation of the Obama administration, using absurd terms to discourage sales like, “exploding Obamamobiles.”

This relentless partisan campaign against American products and American jobs has been so successful that GM CEO Dan Akerson suggested it contributed to lower than expected demand, “We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.”

Yesterday, in an astonishing burst of candor, Fox & Friends has set the record straight with its story, “Can the Chevy Volt help win the War on Terror?”

Their conservative guest, Lee Spieckerman, CEO of Spieckerman Media, a self-described “drill, baby, drill guy,” debunks every single right-wing myth about the Volt, noting:

I love Fox news, and I feel like I’m kind of attacking my own family here. I love O’Reilly, I love Neil Cavuto, I love Eric Bolling, but like a lot of my fellow conservative, they seem to have kind of a fetish for demonizing the Volt.

They are perpetuating the myth that the Volt was some kind of Obama administration green energy fantasy that as you say was forced on General Motors during the bailout.

It’d been in development two years before Obama was elected. And it was championed by … Bob Lutz, who is a conservative and a climate change skeptic. So you know it’s a myth.

The tax break for buying the Volt was implemented by the Bush administration. It was not  something that was implemented under the Obama administration.

So unfortunately, there have been a lot of myths perpetuated.

Fox debunking itself — now that is must-see TV, something I’m not certain you’re ever going to see again.

Watch it:

The Fox host, Steve Doocy, actually says, “I’m glad you brought up the myth that so many people think that Barack Obama came into office a shoved this down GM’s throat.” Yes, Fox is shocked, shocked that people believe a lie that they themselves have been repeating endlessly.

And who could have imagined Fox would run a chart about “how much energy we could save” with the Volt. Alternative fuel vehicles are good for national security? It’s like Fox has temporarily been taken over by … its own pundits before 2009 (see Fox News Argued Getting Off Of OPEC Oil With Alternative Fuels Was ‘A National Security Issue’. Then Obama Won).

Spieckerman called the Volt “an anti-terrorist weapon” after pointing out:

“I don’t see what’s so conservative about wanting to send $35 billion a year to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela for his oil or to send $70 billion to Middle Eastern OPEC countries.  I don’t see how that’s conservative…. The Chevy Volt is by far the best way to bring all American energy … to our  automobiles….  It is the safest car on the road.”

Spieckerman also calls the Volt, “the iPhone of the American automobile industry,” explaining that it will come down in price like computers and flat screen TVs have.

I can’t wait for the segment on how conservatives should support a price on carbon pollution because it would save energy, cut the deficit, and boost national security.

by Shauna Theel, reposted from Media Matters

Last week, GM announced that it is temporarily halting production of the Chevrolet Volt, its plug-in hybrid vehicle. Fox News is reveling in the news, repeatedly airing a parody commercial that mocks the Volt and distorts its safety record, including on The O’Reilly Factor.

But only a few years ago, Bill O’Reilly was singing a different tune about advanced vehicles that reduce our vulnerability to gas price spikes, and the government’s role in incentivizing them. In 2008, O’Reilly suggested the government “mandate by law” that auto companies increase production of electric and flex fuel cars (which can run on 85% ethanol), and provide tax exemptions for flex fuel vehicles. Take a look at the contrast between O’Reilly’s attitude towards alternative fuel cars before and after President Obama’s inauguration:

O’Reilly wasn’t the only Fox figure with a more favorable opinion of alternative fuel cars in 2008, when the Bush administration was the one giving tax credits for alternative fuel and electric cars. In November 2008, Sean Hannity lectured a guest: “I don’t see why you don’t praise G.M. for what they are doing with their electric cars and hybrids.” And in December 2008, Greta Van Susteren asked a GM executive “when are you going to change your cars? Because I mean, like, since the early ’70s, we know that fuel has been a problem” (via Nexis transcripts).

Today, you’re more likely to hear Neil Cavuto attacking the Volt at every opportunity and other Fox anchors, including O’Reilly, recklessly distorting the safety of the Volt.

Contrary to the prevailing media narrative about low consumer interest in the Volt, electric car sales in 2011 were significantly higher than first year hybrid sales even in the midst of an economic downturn and without climate legislation. The Volt has received several awards including 2011 Motor Trend Car of the Year, and just this week was named European Car of the Year.

Despite its promise, Volt sales have been stifled in part by negative media backlash toward the car, especially from Fox. As GM’s CEO said in January, “We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become” (via Climate Progress).

Perhaps it’s time to remind Fox that the Chevy Volt is a “Win for The Home Team,” as Wall Street Journal auto columnist Dan Neil wrote in 2010:

A lot of people don’t like GM because: 1) the bailout, or 1a) Obama; or 2) the United Auto Workers; or 3) because some Monte Carlo or Cutlass Sierra or deuce-and-a-quarter left them walking a long time ago. That’s understandable. These are sour times. But for the moment, we should suspend our rancor and savor a little American pride. A bunch of Midwestern engineers in bad haircuts and cheap wristwatches just out-engineered every other car company on the planet. And they did it in 29 months while the company they worked for was falling apart around them.

– Shuana Theel is a researcher with Media Matters for America. This piece was originally published at Media Matters.

In response to growing protest, the CEO of General Motors publicly committed to reviewing his corporation’s funding of the Heartland Insitute, the radical right-wing organization that is planning a campaign to spread climate-science denial in public classrooms. Over 10,000 GM owners have signed a petition organized by Forecast the Facts to get GM to pledge not to support Heartland’s attacks on science. GM CEO Dan Akerson told Climate One’s Greg Dalton at a San Francisco Commonwealth Club appearance that he does not agree with Heartland’s climate denial.

Akerson stated that he was castigated by other GM executives after saying that he believes global warming is real, calling dissent on climate science “healthy.” He described GM’s efforts to reduce its ecological footprint and distanced himself from the work of the GM Foundation, the charitable arm of General Motors that made the contribution. Akerson then promised to review his company’s support for the Heartland Institute:

This is $15,000 that was committed to before I came in. I also think the Heartland Institute, I’m told, does other things. I find this interesting. I won’t go any further, but I’m going to take another look at it when I get back to Detroit. I’ll leave it at that.

Watch it:

Before the petition effort, GM spokesperson earlier defended the corporation’s support for the Heartland Institute, calling its work “careful and considerate.”

“I always say actions matter more than words,” Akerson said at the beginning of his response.

Forecast the Facts director Daniel Souweine issued this reply:

We are encouraged that CEO Dan Akerson has committed to review GM’s funding of the Heartland Institute. We hope that review leads to the result that more than 10,000 GM owners have been asking for: a public commitment by GM to stop funding Heartland immediately.

One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute’s inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green. ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later revealed himself. Heartland Institute has issued several press releases claiming that one document (“2012 Climate Strategy”) is fake and asserting other claims regarding the other documents. ThinkProgress has taken down the “2012 Climate Strategy” document as it determines the document’s authenticity.

Rush Limbaugh continued his bizarre attacks on clean energy innovation today, claiming that the solar and wind energy sectors don’t exist. Limbaugh was responding to a ThinkProgress Green post that noted his role in scaring American customers against the Chevy Volt. He has even claimed that GM is “trying to kill its customers.” Attempting to justify his denigration of the extended-range electric vehicle, Limbaugh said that “all of Obama’s green energy” is a mirage:

The problem with the Volt is just like all of Obama’s green energy, there’s no business there yet. There’s no solar energy business yet. There’s no wind energy yet. It’s not there yet. But we can’t have more oil. We can’t have cheaper gasoline prices.

Listen here:

Limbaugh is wrong. Clean energy isn’t just the future of the 21st century economy, it’s driving the present.

In 2010, global investment in wind, solar, and biomass energy hit $187 billion, exceeding the $157 billion spent on fossil fuel energy. U.S. solar installations more than doubled in 2011. U.S. wind power capacity represents more than 20 percent of the world’s installed wind power. Over 400 manufacturing facilities across the U.S. make components for wind turbines. In July, 2011, the Brookings Institute found that the green energy sector has had “explosive job gains” since 2003.

Limbaugh’s attitudes about energy, like his opinions about women, are stuck in the 19th century.

Subscribe to ThinkProgress Green.

Relentless attacks on the Chevy Volt from Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians have taken their toll, as General Motors has announced a five-week suspension in production of the range-extended electric car. Conservative enemies of clean energy and the Obama administration seized on isolated reports Volts with battery fires, calling the cars “Obama-mandated death traps.” Limbaugh even said GM was a “corporation that’s trying to kill its customers.”

These conspiracy-tinged partisan attacks have now cost American jobs, with 1300 workers temporarily laid off in the face of lower than expected demand for the innovative cars, even as gas prices rise. In January, GM CEO Dan Akerson bemoaned the effect of the barrage of ideological criticism on the popularity of the 37 – 93 mpg car:

We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.

Oh, and about those attacks? After an investigation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined that the Volt is just as safe as any gasoline-powered vehicle on the road.

One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute’s inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green.

Internal documents reveal that General Motors Foundation has contributed to the climate-denial shop Heartland Institute, giving $30,000 since 2010 for its school-privatization publication School Reform News. GM has called for mandatory climate action, in sharp contrast to Heartland’s attacks on the fact of global warming.

Asked about the contributions, GM defended the Heartland Institute as “careful and considerate,” even though the radical think tank has accused “Government Motors” of “corporate welfare-sucking” and told people to “never again buy a GM car or truck.” In a statement to the Guardian, Greg Martin, GM’s director of policy and Washington communications, heaped praised on Heartland:

We support a variety of organizations that give careful and considerate thought to complex policy issues and Heartland is one of them.

In light of that high praise, ThinkProgress Green reviewed what the Heartland Institute has said about GM on its website over the past two years. Here is a sampling:

– “I, for one, don’t believe [GM CEO Dan] Akerson and his corporate welfare-sucking ilk believe Americans are ‘generous’ when government forces us to pay for their failures and mistakes. They know better; they just hope we don’t. … Let’s show him we know what he’s doing. We could start by never again buying a GM car or truck.” ["Raise Debt Ceiling? No. End Obamacare? Yes" 7/12/11]

– “It really doesn’t get much dumber than this unless, of course, you consider the Obama administration’s bailout of General Motors. Amidst a bevy of costly bailout measures in 2009, Obama stepped in to ‘rescue’ GM when, in fact, all it had to do is step aside and let the company file for bankruptcy, get restructured, and begin again. Countless companies, large and small, do this every year. The rescue, however, was not about GM so much as it was the United Auto Workers, a union that was largely responsible for putting GM in the poor house. … It didn’t help that the Obama administration insisted that GM step up its electric car program, always notoriously unprofitable, or that the steering wheels on some Chevy Cruze models literally came off in the driver’s hands!” ["The GM (Government Motors) Debacle, and Gas Prices" 4/28/10]

– “A little research shows that Chrysler has used essentially the same . . . creative accounting? bookkeeping devices? . . . that General Motors used in 2009 when that company announced with great fanfare that it was paying back government rescue money.” ["Chrysler Repays Government Early; Deja Vu All Over Again?" 5/25/11]

– “On a radio show I tuned into a while back, I heard the ballyhooed Chevy Volt electric car described as ‘the world’s first coal-powered car.’ Love that line. Even Henry Ford wasn’t dumb enough to engineer this lemon.” ["SHOCKER: The ‘Coal Powered Car,’ the Chevy Volt, is a dud (281 Sold in Feb.)" 3/5/11]

Perhaps Martin might want to reconsider whether the group’s thought is really so “careful and considerate.”

by Shuana Theel, cross-posted from Media Matters

Conservative media have misrepresented the results of Chevy Volt crash tests, claiming the batteries “blow up” and are a “fire trap,” and suggesting that fires have occurred spontaneously during use. In fact, fires only occurred after crash tests and regulators concluded an inquiry after finding that Volts are just as safe as conventional cars.

Regulators Concluded Inquiry After Finding Volts Are Just As Safe As Conventional Cars

Battery Fire Happened Weeks After Pole Crash Test And Rollover Test. From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s description of the test:

During an NCAP [New Car Assessment Program] oblique side pole impact test conducted by NHTSA in May 2011, the pole struck and deformed the sill plate under the driver’s door at a location where there is a structural member. The lateral member displaced inward, pierced the HV battery enclosure and battery, and caused a battery coolant leak. Thereafter, the Agency conducted a rollover test (the rollover test consists of four 90-degree rotate-and-hold movements about the vehicle’s longitudinal axis). In that test, the HV battery and electronics were exposed to coolant that leaked as a result of the crash. The vehicle fire that occurred three weeks later and the additional testing NHTSA conducted are discussed in a report titled “2011 Chevrolet Volt Battery Fire Incident Report” a copy of which is available in the public file. The report indicates that intrusion induced coolant leakage, and subsequent rollover that saturates electronic components, were the only test conditions which resulted in a subject vehicle HV battery fire. [NHTSA, 1/26/12]

CNN: “No Fires Were Reported In Cars That People Were Actually Driving.” CNN’s Erin Burnett made clear that fires had only occurred in crash tests, not real-life scenarios:

ERIN BURNETT: Investigators did not find a safety defect. They also supported GM’s fix, which reinforces the structure surrounding the battery. No fires were reported in cars that people were actually driving. This came from crash tests. [CNN, Out Front with Erin Burnett, 1/20/12]

NHTSA Did Not Drain Battery After Crash, As GM Protocols Require. From an Associated Press report:

Read more

The Chevy Volt has received the highest ratings possible for overall safety

by Roland Hwang, reposted from NRDC’s Switchboard

Top safety regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Transportation Administration (“NHTSA”) have closed the books on the Chevy Volt safety investigation. NHSTA concluded last Friday that it does not believe the Volt and other electric vehicles “pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.” This is good news for drivers, the economy, and our energy future.

Unfortunately, there are some in Washington D.C. that are attempting to turn a prudent safety investigation into a referendum on our nation’s commitment to clean energy and ending our dependence on oil. Congressman Darrell Issa will hold a hearing today with the country’s top safety regulator, David Strickland, and the CEO of GM, Dan Akerson, as the main witnesses.

Let’s quickly review the facts of the investigation:

• First, no fires have been reported in real-world to be caused by lithium ion batteries that power the Volt and other electric vehicles including the Nissan Leaf, Tesla Roadster, and the hybrid versions of the Hyundai Sonata, Infinity M35, Buick LaCrosse, and Mercedes S400. The Volts in question caught fire under laboratory test conditions that NHSTA and GM were unable to replicate in subsequent tests. With an abundance of caution due to the novelty of the technology, NHTSA chose to launch its safety investigation in the absence of any real world incidents, something it rarely does.
• Second, GM moved quickly to install retrofits that strengthen the battery case and ensure the integrity of the liquid cooling system. Crash tests by both NHTSA and GM of Volts with these modifications have produced no fires.
• Third, gasoline vehicles carry a significant risk of fire.  According to the National Fire Protection Association, there were 184,500 reported vehicles fires in 2010. This is high rate of fire, about 0.75 fires for every 1,000 vehicles.  With about 17,000 Volts and Leafs driven tens of millions miles to date, the first year of electric vehicle experience supports NHTSA’s conclusion that the Volt and other electric vehicles do not pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.

The Volt received the highest ratings possible for overall safety from both NHTSA and the independent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (”IIHS”), neither of which intends to alter its ratings as a result of the investigation. The IIHS crash tests found no evidence of damage to the Volt’s battery packs. “If we had found that the battery pack had been damaged or certainly if we had subsequent concerns about fire risk – that would have raised red flags,” IIHS spokesman Russ Rader told Reuters.

Rather than promoting clean energy technologies to get America off oil, electric vehicle naysayers in Washington D.C. have chosen instead to attack the Volt. If successful, these attacks will only serve to benefit oil-exporting countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, at the expensive of workers building electric cars in Michigan, Tennessee, and California.

Fortunately, Volt owners know better. Ninety-three percent of Volt drivers told Consumer Reports they would “definitely buy (the Volt) again,” the highest ranking of any car ever included in the survey.  That’s a hopeful sign that consumers are ignoring the political theatrics and are voting with their wallets for an oil free future.

Roland Hwang is the transportation program director for NRDC’s energy program. This piece was originally published at NRDC’s switchboard.