Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
A General Motors (GM) plant in New York previously intended to build electric vehicle (EV) parts is pivoting to manufacture new V-8 engines as the GOP dismantles the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate, according to Reuters.
GM is investing $888 million into its Tonawanda Propulsion plant to support its new generation of V-8 internal combustion engines that will be used in trucks and SUVs, a shift from its EV investment plans for the facility announced as the Biden administration worked to gradually phase out gas-powered cars, the company announced on Tuesday. The Senate blew up a key plank of the Democrats’ EV agenda when it repealed waivers enabling California’s de facto national EV mandate on May 22, and the Trump administration is also moving to roll back Biden-era regulations and subsidies designed to push EVs on American consumers.
“Our significant investments in GM’s Tonawanda Propulsion plant show our commitment to strengthening American manufacturing and supporting jobs in the U.S.,” said Mary Barra, Chair and CEO. “GM’s Buffalo plant has been in operation for 87 years and is continuing to innovate the engines we build there to make them more fuel efficient and higher performing, which will help us deliver world-class trucks and SUVs to our customers for years to come.” (RELATED: Musk-Hating California Liberals Accidentally Undermining Golden State’s EV Mandate)
“[The investment] marks the largest single investment the company has ever made in an engine plant and makes Tonawanda the second GM propulsion plant to produce this new generation of engines,” GM’s statement added.
GM announced a commitment to invest $300 million to manufacture EV drive units at the facility in November 2023, though production has not started there to date, according to Reuters. Barra previously stated in December 2023 that the company aims to exclusively sell electric light-duty vehicles by 2035 in line with state and federal policies, though she also noted that GM will “be responsive to where the customer is,” Reuters reported at the time.
GM lobbied the Senate to repeal the federal waivers enabling California’s Advanced Clean Cars II vehicle emissions rules, according to Reuters. Beyond the Senate’s recent efforts to attack the EV agenda, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation have each moved to end Biden-era regulations that would effectively require automakers to produce an increasing share of electric vehicles over time.
Though Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul has supported the expansion of EV technology in her state, her office celebrated this investment on Tuesday.
“Today’s $888 million investment is great news for the hundreds of workers at the plant and builds on New York’s manufacturing legacy by providing world-class products to the global market,” Hochul said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing New York’s partnership with GM bring the next generation of automotive technology to its Tonawanda plant and I thank them for their tremendous support and belief in Western New York.”
Notably, New York announced a two-year suspension of penalties for failing to meet EV targets last week, according to Reuters.
GM and Hochul’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mandates and subsidies? Not a viable business plan?
There’s nothing like the sound of a V8. 😄
True. But I also have a similar fondness for the sound of a Harley and for the sound of a radial-engined airplane.
For me the Napier Deltic T18 takes the prize
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/N2wUMLpTRmM
How about the RR Merlin?
Yes. And the Allison V-1710 used in the P-38, P-40, and others. A few years back there were 5 P-40’s flying at the Geneseo NY air show along with the Merlin-engined P-51’s.
The local aviation museum where I volunteer fires up one of its Merlin engines every Saturday – an impressive sound.
I’d also include the sound of a steam locomotive pulling away and accelerating from a train station. But those days are past.
Except on preserved railways. You are so right – a steam engine sounds glorious.
We have one of those only about 40 miles from us. Goes from Carson City to Virginia City. We’ll be doing that again this summer with friends!
The Matra V12 is in a class on its own
I still thrill to the sound of my college days when I owned (or was owned) by a Jaguar XKE. That straight six had a sound all its own.
I felt I might be owned by it because it demanded so much of my time maintaining it.
YES! WINNING!
At last, the adults are in charge, instead of the leftoid idiots that were pulling Biden’s puppet strings for the last four years.
Not to worry! Whorechul will order it be followed anyway.
The whole EV thing is crumbling, just as I figured it would – it was never sustainable!
Here in Blighty a lot of us are hoping to become the 51st State and could really do with our own Trump!
Now invest in making them more affordable.
When the government “invests” in something we get nothing but socialist misallocation of resources.
This ^
Hopefully a “good” V8. Thankfully not a turbocharged 4 cylinder V8 substitute.
“Notably, New York announced a two-year suspension of penalties for failing to meet EV targets last week, according to Reuters.”
I didn’t know that! Time for full repeal of the CLCPA (the absurdly named Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act) and all the related coercive regulations here in NY.
Seems like something a media desperate for content would mention. I wonder what went wrong.
Grok’s Evaluation of this article:
The article argues that GM’s decision reflects market realities and political pushback against Biden’s EV agenda, which it claims ignored consumer demand and infrastructure limitations. It highlights the Senate’s repeal of California’s waivers and the Trump administration’s moves to eliminate EV-focused regulations, presenting these as restoring “true consumer choice.” GM’s CEO, Mary Barra, is quoted emphasizing the investment’s role in strengthening U.S. manufacturing and improving fuel efficiency for traditional engines, aligning with customer preferences for trucks and SUVs.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Bias and Credibility:
WUWT’s history of climate skepticism shapes the article’s framing, presenting EV mandates as a failed experiment without engaging with data supporting electrification, like the 20% drop in global wildfire CO₂ emissions from 2003 to 2025, which suggests climate policies may have broader benefits. The reliance on The Daily Caller, a conservative outlet, reinforces a partisan lens, and the article’s lack of primary data or counterarguments limits its credibility in mainstream scientific or policy discussions. Conversely, Governor Hochul’s support for GM’s investment suggests a pragmatic acceptance of market realities, complicating the narrative of a clear partisan divide.
Broader Sentiment:
X posts reflect enthusiasm among skeptics, with @Anthony Watts framing GM’s pivot as a rejection of Biden’s policies. However, mainstream outlets like Reuters provide a more neutral account, noting GM’s strategic flexibility and Hochul’s endorsement. The article’s narrative aligns with Project 2025’s push to reduce federal climate funding, as outlined by The Heritage Foundation, but ignores the project’s controversial Christian nationalist undertones, which critics argue threaten broader governance principles.
TL;DRThe WUWT article celebrates GM’s $888 million shift from EV production to V-8 engines at its New York plant, tying it to the GOP’s repeal of California’s EV mandate waivers. It accurately reports the investment and political context but adopts a biased, celebratory tone, ignoring environmental trade-offs and long-term EV trends. While resonating with skeptics, its lack of data and partisan framing limits credibility against mainstream climate science.
Repeats of this silly pattern will, in the future, be considered spam.
Your proclamation gave me the first really good laugh of the day. Thanks Mr Rotter, I appreciate your efforts at WUWT. Keep up the good work.
Apologies. I did not intend to post it twice. You can delete this one if you will
I mean the idiotic, “let’s have grok (or any AI) give us the consensus position without refinement” pattern.
Seems like the commentariate likes it still.
In my experience the better software engineers are smart-analytical types and the AI bubble seems to be sucking up better young software engineers (better old software engineers, anyone that existed before GIT hub, seem less interested). If smart-analytical types are forced to comply with illogical policies created by politically motivated dictators, they will revolt in the way of clever introverts – the AIs will develop sarcasm.
Or worse.
So far I have seen nothing in AI responses that indicates either critical thinking or healthy skepticism regarding its sources or training. How would someone write code that would produce an original idea or creative thought? AI seems to be very good at looking things up that are already written, but that’s just a really sophisticated extension of Google.
“looking things up that are already written” That’s why I like it.
Can AI have original ideas? I think never.
Again, do you have any actual thoughts of your own?
If you don’t have the brain power to add your own thoughts, why waste the “carbon emissions” powering Grok (not that I give a frack about “carbon emissions”)?
Grok seems to write things with a distinct anti-reality LEFTIST bias, doesn’t it.
This risks alienating readers seeking objective understanding.
“the 20% drop in global wildfire CO₂ emissions from 2003 to 2025, which suggests climate policies may have broader benefits.” Huh? The climate policy leading to fewer wildfire emissions is due to more CO2? I can’t make sense of this. If there are fewer global wildfires it is due to better forest management, not climate policies (which have had the opposite effect).
Oh and , WUWT are not “climate sceptics”…
… they are climate realists, basing their arguments on provable science.
Grok is brain-washed.
Grok’s evaluation of this article:
The article argues that GM’s decision reflects market realities and political pushback against Biden’s EV agenda, which it claims ignored consumer demand and infrastructure limitations. It highlights the Senate’s repeal of California’s waivers and the Trump administration’s moves to eliminate EV-focused regulations, presenting these as restoring “true consumer choice.” GM’s CEO, Mary Barra, is quoted emphasizing the investment’s role in strengthening U.S. manufacturing and improving fuel efficiency for traditional engines, aligning with customer preferences for trucks and SUVs.
Strengths:
The article accurately reflects GM’s announced $888 million investment shift, corroborated by Reuters and The Daily Caller, and ties it to the Senate’s repeal of California’s waivers, a verifiable event.
It effectively taps into skepticism about EV mandates, resonating with WUWT’s audience by framing the policy reversal as a pragmatic response to market and infrastructure challenges, such as the high costs and grid demands of EVs. For instance, a 2023 WUWT post noted that electrifying 30 trucks in Illinois required more power than an entire city, illustrating practical barriers.
The piece leverages GM’s pivot to question the feasibility of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which mandates 70% renewable electricity by 2030, aligning with broader critiques of ambitious climate targets.
Weaknesses:
The article’s tone is overtly celebratory, using phrases like “GOP nukes Dems’ mandate” that prioritize political point-scoring over nuanced analysis. This risks alienating readers seeking objective reporting.
It lacks discussion of the environmental or economic trade-offs of prioritizing V-8 engines over EVs. For example, while internal combustion engines may meet current consumer demand, they contribute to higher CO₂ emissions, with global transportation accounting for about 25% of energy-related emissions per the International Energy Agency. The article sidesteps this.
It does not address why GM initially committed to EVs or the potential long-term market trends favoring electrification, such as declining battery costs (down 80% from 2010 to 2020 per BloombergNEF). This omission paints an incomplete picture.
The claim that EV mandates ignore consumer choice oversimplifies the issue. While EV sales in New York (90,221 new registrations in 2024) lag behind Climate Act projections, consumer adoption is influenced by infrastructure, cost, and awareness, not just preference.
Bias and Credibility:
WUWT’s history of climate skepticism shapes the article’s framing, presenting EV mandates as a failed experiment without engaging with data supporting electrification, like the 20% drop in global wildfire CO₂ emissions from 2003 to 2025, which suggests climate policies may have broader benefits. The reliance on The Daily Caller, a conservative outlet, reinforces a partisan lens, and the article’s lack of primary data or counterarguments limits its credibility in mainstream scientific or policy discussions. Conversely, Governor Hochul’s support for GM’s investment suggests a pragmatic acceptance of market realities, complicating the narrative of a clear partisan divide.
Broader Sentiment:
X posts reflect enthusiasm among skeptics, with @Anthony Watts framing GM’s pivot as a rejection of Biden’s policies. However, mainstream outlets like Reuters provide a more neutral account, noting GM’s strategic flexibility and Hochul’s endorsement. The article’s narrative aligns with Project 2025’s push to reduce federal climate funding, as outlined by The Heritage Foundation, but ignores the project’s controversial Christian nationalist undertones, which critics argue threaten broader governance principles.
TL;DR
The WUWT article celebrates GM’s $888 million shift from EV production to V-8 engines at its New York plant, tying it to the GOP’s repeal of California’s EV mandate waivers. It accurately reports the investment and political context but adopts a biased, celebratory tone, ignoring environmental trade-offs and long-term EV trends. While resonating with skeptics, its lack of data and partisan framing limits credibility against mainstream climate science.
“While resonating with skeptics, its lack of data and partisan framing limits credibility against mainstream climate science.”
Does Grok have anything to say about the credibility of mainstream climate science?
Is main stream climate science credible? Grok says:
“Mainstream climate science, as represented by institutions like the IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, is grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research, extensive data collection, and rigorous modeling. It draws on multiple lines of evidence—global temperature records, ice core data, sea level rise, glacier retreat, and extreme weather patterns—that consistently show human-driven warming, primarily from CO2 emissions. The basic physics of greenhouse gases trapping heat isn’t seriously disputed; it’s measurable in labs and observable in planetary atmospheres.
That said, skepticism persists, often fueled by complexity and uncertainty in long-term predictions. Models have limitations—cloud feedback, regional impacts, and tipping points like permafrost melt aren’t fully resolved. Critics on X and elsewhere point to historical overpredictions, like early 2000s sea level rise estimates, or cherry-pick data to argue natural variability (e.g., solar cycles) dominates. These critiques don’t negate the core findings but highlight gaps in precision, which science acknowledges through uncertainty ranges.
On the flip side, dismissing mainstream climate science entirely often leans on misrepresentations or outlier studies that don’t withstand scrutiny. The consensus—around 97% of climate scientists agreeing on anthropogenic warming—isn’t a conspiracy; it’s a reflection of accumulated evidence. But consensus doesn’t mean infallibility. Science thrives on challenge, and credible minority views, like those questioning feedback loops, deserve debate.
So, credible? Largely, yes—built on solid data and physics. But it’s not gospel; it’s a work in progress, open to refinement. If you want specifics on a particular claim or dataset, I can dig deeper.”
_______________________________________________________________
The 97% claim is based on two questions from the original Kendal Zimmerman survey:
Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Yes and Yes* puts me in the 97% What Kendall and Zimmerman didn’t ask:
Does a changing climate represent an existential problem?
*Depends on the definition of significant, which K&Z didn’t define
Why does nobody re-do this survey correctly?
Has anybody re-done this survey correctly?
Google results are overwhelmed by politics.
The UN has an agreement with Google to promote UN publications at the expense of we the “deplorables” and “deniers.”
Mainstream climate science, as represented by institutions like the IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, is grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research, extensive data collection, and rigorous modeling.
Grok discredits itself immediately with this obvious lie.
What was used to train Grok – the WaPo, the NYT, CNN, and The Atlantic?
“… rigorous modeling….”
Thanks, needed a good laugh his morning.
Thanks for reminding me, I saw it on the first scan but forgot when I posted about the K&Z Survey omission to ask if it were a problem or not.
Sorry, I posted before scrolling down.
Spot on, in any case.
Rinse, Spin, Repeat?
We do not need repeats of this.
“ they contribute to higher CO₂ emissions,”
Since there is no evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has any measurable effect on “climate”…
…it appears Grok is just as brain-washed as most other climate alarmists.
As I have maintained for years, nothing that can’t continue will continue.
But an awful lot of damage can be done.
A couple of years ago the CEO of Toyota said that given free customer choice, the maximum penetration of EV’s would be somewhere around 30%. He was excoriated vociferously by the tree huggers, MSM and politicians, but I believe he is correct.
EVs are a technology that has its niche. Golf carts. Low speed, close to home errands, and possibly conjected urban areas although I will done vote that application based on a number of factors including inability to recharge and fires.
EVs have been around a long time. I still have an EV model Leopard Tank, radio controlled acquired in the 1960s.
While EV’s are indeed niche vehicles, that niche has become much larger over the last 30 years. Having said that, my opinion is that the choice of vehicle should be left to the customer.
30% is on the high side most studies have put it at 20% assuming both were the same price and with no major technology changes.
VROOOOM
The Governor’s principles appear to change from day to day. One day, Net Zero, with EV mandates is the idea, then the next, V8s are great. But then, she is a politician.
Just recently also, Honda put a 2-year hold on its planned building of an EV plant in Ontario citing the all-too-familiar reasons; namely, lagging demand from consumers who refuse to pay the higher prices for these cars as well as questionable cruising ranges, inadequate recharging structure, low resale value, and reliability levels well below their gas/diesel counterparts. So maybe saving the environment is not so much a priority as the climate alarmists would have us believe.
Since NY is still dismantling their industrial electricity production, how will this have an effect on manufacturing costs and electrical reliability?
I live in the Buffalo area. This is a true blessing.