>> so gm just had a good year. where is it now? where are you trying to take the company in the years ahead? >> actually, we had the best year ever we had. we posted record profits. i hope that's not the only applause we get. where are we today? you know, i've been ceo of a couple companies, as you mentioned. income private equity actually helped coming into this industry. first i was criticized for not being a car guy. and that's okay. there are three noncar guys in detroit today. and i think it's the first time in 20-odd years since all three of the major american manufacturers are profitable.

we had to go through some difficult times. and there's been a lot of political dialogue on that to and froe, anti-and pro. where we are, we are at the two year hiatus, general motors is the largest auto manufacturer in the world. as i said, we had the most profitable year. between '10 and '11 alone, we grew revenue $15 billion. that will put us in the fortune 250. so our revenue today is about $150 billion which would be larger than the gross national product of 100 countries in the world. so it is a huge, i think, it's an american company. it's a global company in the sense that we compete in 117-odd countries. we export around the globe. we're very successful in most of

the high growth markets. we have the largest market share of any manufacturer in the world, auto manufacturer. we can't be as internally focused as we were before. are we better than the last model we made? are we looking at the aspiration or competition and saying where do we think they'll be in three to five years? we would often say we have a car and it's going to be xyz and the obvious question is, yeah, but by the time we get to market, are they still going to be static and they won't be. we're much more external. we benchmark against the best in the industry. and we're producing great stars. you see it -- one of the things that keeps me awake at night, first of all, we can't rest on our laurels. it is very easy to say great

year. we have to make sure that we're viable and producing cash. our margins are not what our primary competition is. over time you say well you're still making a lot of money. if the other guy is more efficient over a long time, companies don't fail in a year or two. it takes 10 years, 20 years, 30 years for the deterioration and the rot to real impact the viability of the company. so we can't be sitting here in 2030, 2035 and say what happened? the decisions made in 2012 are dedepartments of the future of the country. so we're in pretty good shape. we have a lot of work to do. and we still have many issues that need to be addressed and resolved. the bailout has become quite a national political issue in this election season. you came from a private equity

firm. what do you think about the -- was there private capital available that do ko hacould had out the company instead of taxpayers? did they give a deal over bond holders? do you have any critiques of the bailout package? >> i don't want to be defensive. having come from private equity, we experienced and were part of many restructurings. and there are multiple options, multiple avenues to successful restructuring. and i know we come somewhat of a punching bag in this political season. i don't want to get into the political arena but i'll say this much -- if you were in private equity and we had $130 billion portfolio aren't globe, front row seat, it was coming off the

wheels. and as americans, we are very proud. our government stood up regardless of party affiliation and just like blood is critical to the body, liquidity is critical to the economy. and, yes, we liquidate -- we provided liquidity into the financial markets. were they going to be viable? and it was a different set of circumstances in the financial arena than it was in the manufacturing specifically in the automotive. but at the end of the day, regardless, i don't want to debate it, i wouldn't have joined the board if i didn't agree with it. i think pragmatism has to enter into the economic dialogue. i went to graduate school to lond

london school of economic ands political science. you can't separate politics and economics on a macro economic scale. this company -- my opinion, in george bush and, by the way, this two presidents of divergent political perspectives put money into this company. it wasn't just one. and they weren't running for office at the time. they were in the arena. they had to face the hard facts. and in my opinion, they made the pragmatic decision to save this company. because it's now been estimated a million jobs were at risk. that's million households. and on a personal level, this is a wealthy state and a wealthy community and you all look very prosperous and wealthy to me. but when you go to detroit and ohio and pennsylvania and indiana and illinois where a

good share of the automotive industry resides, whole communities have been negatively impacted just by the down turn. it would have been significantly worse. and president bush said a million jobs and $150 billion in tax united states alone and we've invested almost $10 billion. i know against trillion dollar deficits sounds like peanuts. it's not. and the ability to build new cars.

we're focused on -- what is the evolution of the industry? we can't afford to focus on the near term. what's it going to be like in 2030? whe why are we spending so much money on electric, hybrid, hydrogen fuel cells which we're a leader on in a global basis. if i name companies you would say wow, that german company is looking at your technology? it's because this company is a repository of a huge amount of intellectual private property. and this country now has an industry that's been totally revitalized. they can make the necessary investments to transition our economy to a higher tech and more efficient cleaner industry. >> one way to separate politics from economics is pay back the remaining money that is lent by the u.s. treasury.

do you have a time frame for when that 30% stake -- the stock is still below the ipo price. do you have any idea when the other half will be paid back? >> well, not to parse words, you say lent. okay, they lent us money. we paid all that back. they provided preferred interest -- preferred stock with a 9% coupon. we paid all that back plus dividends and interest. and we held the largest ipo in the history of the world. and most of that went to the federal government. they own 27% on a fully diluted basis. and they're like every other sharehold shareholder, they can sell when it they want. it is perverse. i have some understanding of capital markets. although we produce record profits, why isn't the stock at record levels? well, part of it is because we have a big shareholder and we

don't know when they're going to leave? as part of the bankruptcy, you heard that the structure and the financial world that was let's take the good assets of the bank called good bank and bad bank. we have liquidation motors. and liquidation motors was -- we left all the toxic assets behind, if you will, and there were hundreds of millions of shares that went to -- there was a complicated -- i won't draw any conclusions or make judgments about who got a good deal and who didn't. it had to be done quickly. and, again, there are many paths to the solution. did it work? but we had to give those several hundreds of millions of shares to the liquidation motor shareholders. and some of those largely were our holders. when the stock really swooned late last year is because we dropped a couple hundred million shares on them and they flushed them to the market. a lot of the big shareholders look at the federal government and say when are they going to exit? and the answer is candidly, i don't know. >> you can understand the human

cry in congress though if the u.s. government sold shares that are 30% below the ipo price, the scream is ahhh, tax holders sold at a loss. bad move. >> again, i asked -- i won't tell who you i asked the question. is the federal government private equity firm or were they acting on behalf of we, the people? we are the government. so did our -- was our economy, was our citizenship properly served? what if we didn't collect that $150 billion in taxes? by the way, if we failed we had a 23, $24 billion pension short fall. we now work down to about 12 or $13 billion. that would have gone to the pvgc. the government would have had to take up that liability. it's much more complicated than you get in a 20 seconds blush on the evening news or a quick thing in an article. it's complicated. this is a complicated bankruptcy on the scale that i think the

average citizen in this country doesn't have the interest, quite frankly. so i would say h-- >> how would you like them to sell? >> how would i like them to sell? recognizing this may show up in washington -- i think it ought to be very controlled. i mean i think a good way is to say we own 500 million shares and sell 50 million shares every quarter for the next ten quarters. something -- >> dollar cost averaging. >> i would just say they're not there to get the last dollar. by the way, there's only -- when you say owe, there is only one automobile dmp thcompany that oe government any money. that's ford. ford -- we were offered $12 billion. michigan delegation was working on our behalf. when i came in, we could apply and i'm sure we would have been grant e$10 billion for clean an

high-tech. i said we're done with that. and we nixed it. so did chrysler. ford has taken -- i don't fault them. i just say perverseness of it all is that governments helped their companies to kind of shape and mold without too much of a heavy hand, shape and mold the direction of technology and how the economy evolves. i don't see anything -- it's not a religious issue. it's something that's pragmatic and companies are -- it's done for companies around the globe all the time. >> another pragmatic issue for a lot of americans is high gasoline prices. and you said last year, told cnn that gasoline at $450 would affect people going into showrooms. so how are high gasoline prices affecting car sales and the kinds of cars that americans are buying? >> well, just in my tenure,

we've shifted, if you look at the type of trucks, crossover suvs, sedans, we've seen a shift of almost 12% of our production to small to medium sized sedans away from large trucks. and that's a function of energy cost and us producing better cars in the low end of the market. i don't mean low end price but lower, smaller cars, more fuel efficient cars. for example, i remember president obama and i was in private equity and i think in that -- in an unguarded statement of xand said why can' they build a car like the corolla? well, we did. the best-selling compact car in america today is the cruz, the chevy cruz. and it makes about 40 miles a

gallon. >> do you make money on the cruz? >> yes, we do. >> so the feeling is bigger cars, bigger margin. >> yes. but you make a lot more cruzs than do you some other ones. we don't -- you know, we don't make money on the volt on an incremental one off basis. but the volt and we sold the volt and the priuses in the first year. sometimes you have to be the pioneer to do the right thing and shape and mold our own future. so we'll make investments where we think the long term future is in our interest. >> last year you said that a dollar a gallon gasoline tax would be preferable to the efficiency standards that were being talked about at that time. and subsequently became law in california and the united states. do you still think that increasing the 18 cent a gallon gasoline tax is a good idea? >> i think there are a number of

approaches to how you want to impact consumption. there are laws, economic laws just like there are physical laws. one is you don't tax production. you tax consumption if you want to change behavior. and so there are a number of ways to get to that. that was an example. one of several. but i do think you can affect consumer behavior by a number of different ways. >> so maybe a gasoline tax increase? >> i think it ought to be some -- it's on a list of potentiality earntives, yes. >> we put this program on -- announced this on facebook and immediately got a bunch of questions about a particular issue. i'd like to read one of the questions we got from facebook today. please ask mr. ackerson why gm sfundz the heartland institute, a group that tried to push

misinformation about climate change into our public schools. is this funding consistent with the company's message and marketsing of the chevy volt? >> well, i actually glad you asked me that. i wasn't awear of this until the last day or so. a couple things in terms of good governance. i cannot sit on the foundation's board or steer anything because -- >> you're saying it was the general motors foundation that gave the money to the institute? >> yes, not the company. the first time i was interviewed by the press, i was stunned with the following reaction. some guy says do you believe in global warming? i said yeah, i do. several gm executives said, you don't say that in public. well -- this may surprise you, my underwear doesn't have gm stamped on it and i am an individual and i have my own convictions and sometimes they agree and sometimes they don't. i think it's actually health dwroi have different points of view and perspectives around the

table. let's talk about -- i always say actions matter more than words. so just last week the epa named us the star energy provider because of the reduction of emissions controls. 60% of our plan -- we are 60% more efficient in the use of fuel than we were just five years ago. landfill usage coming off of our plants is essentially zero. you can put it in a coffee can. that's how we're trying to improve, [ applause ] we have plants run completely off landfill methane. we have plants that are the size of small farms, 200, 300 acres under one roof. we put $40 million behind the heavy program with the cruz and said we would reduce eight

million metric tons of co 2 in this country and we did. we bought and paid for a forest the size of the state of connecticut. this is $15,000 committed to before i came in. i also think the heartland institute, i'm told, does other things. and i find this interesting. i won't go any further. i'm going to take another look at it when i get back to detroit. i'll leave it at that. >> we've had a lot of conversation, is there a price on carbon some day. you're going to pass on carbon very low. australia recently put in a carbon tax. china is moving in that direction wlchlt do you think there will be a price on carbon and enough and how that will effect your planning for general motors selling cars around the world? >> i always -- you know, whether i was a midshipman in the naval

academy, we were taught yes, sir, no, sir and we'll find out, sir. i don't know. >> no one does. lots of people have metrics and scenarios? >> all i got to say is -- i try to be very pragmatic. and we have to allow for all possibilities. and we have significant -- we were an active participant and willing participant in cafe standards this year. we're going to do our level best to be a responsible corporate citizen and if the wisdom of our political leadership is to put in a carbon tax, we're going to react to it and we're going to react to it as best we can in the interest of our shareholders. >> in the past, california's also putting a price on carbon pollution through ab 32, a law that governor schwarzenegger passed, signed and other legislators wrote. in the past, general motors spent a lot of time litigating

against those sorts of things and lawyering and rather than getting the engineers out there to say how do we meet these goals? so, the auto industry signed up for the current round to increase mileage standards to 55 miles a gallon. >> no. we didn't sign up. we actually were parties to it. and we could have. believe me, there were factions in the company that -- this is -- >> the lawyers wanted to go at it? >> this is today as -- this is the new gm. and rather than sit in the corner and be like this we want to be part of the solution. we do not want to be part of the problem. we live in this country. i have grandchildren and children and i want them to inherit a better earth than we did. i think quite frankly our generation was 1970 the epa was put in the water and the air in this country is cleaner than it was when i was growing up in the '50s and 60s. i think it ought to be cleaner

next year than it is today. we're not going to get there for free. [ applause ] i don't think other companies cannot question our goals to be. we weren't dragged to it. >> not because the government owns 27% of gm you couldn't sue your boss so you had to go along? >> what he said. >> from 2010 to 2025, they will go up -- they will double from about 28 miles a gallon to 55 miles a gallon. here in california, there is a law to increase -- decrease the carbon intensity of liquid transportation fuels 10%.

and all companies are fighting that tooth and nail. i would like your comment on that juxtaposition. they increase efficiency 100% and they're at the table voluntarily. the oil companies are fighting 10%. your response? >> i'm in a car company. and, you know, i respect they've got to serve their owners as their owners want them to behave in the marketplace. we take out a lot of emission. we want to be better. so what are we doing? we're producing cars like the volt. we're producing cars like the

bev, the spark which will be here next year. this week -- this week we came out with a new engine that will burn liquid gasoline, as you see it at exxon or chevron or anybody else today and it also -- the same engine -- not two engines, the same engine will also burn compressed natural gas. we had to spend a little bit more on lifters, sealants and piston and what not, and it will cost us -- i'm not going to give you a number but it's not prohibitive. it allows us to migrate away to a cleaner form of energy over time. so we're not sitting still. we want to be part of the solution. and that come in many different levels. when we looked at cafe, for example, you probably didn't know this, but if your mercedes, as long as you produce 24,999 of a particular model, you weren't subjected to the gas guzzler tax. in other words, if you stay below 25,000, well, i don't ghaet break in germany.

so why in the hell did someone agree to that back in the old days and -- you know, i just said well, we're at the table. we're ready to talk turkey. and i said but why give an advantage to a foreign competitor? we're not getting it in germany. by the way, guess who didn't show up at the announcement of the new cafe standards? which i thought was a mistake. i don't think i would have done that. >> and some of the european companies, they pay a slap on the wrist fine and go about their merry business, right? penalties for noncompliance -- >> we're pushing everything on cleaner energy, more fuel efficient. we have many cars now that are epa rated at 40 and above, 42. the new eco cruz is 42. we're coming out a clean diesel for the cruz. the collateral impact, positive impact of all of our work on volt, we're putting in what we

call e-assist on trucks and mid sized sedans and small cars. for example, the new next generation if you really want a good car that will get good mileage is the new melva coming out. i mean this car just got rave reviews. we put a battery string in the back and a congested city like san francisco or make any big city in america, we estimate that one in every five minutes you're sitting still or in traffic or stop light. well, you go to -- you got your 12 volt battery that will run your radio and everything else. but we go to a string of batteries in your trunk and your mileage will drop anywhere from 25% to 33%. again tshgsz cleaner. you're in the city when on that mode. so you're seeing the evolution here. you can see where it's going over time. and the more creative we are and the greater energy density that

we can give, the better off we're going to be. the new gm, we put $100 million into gm ventures. sounds like a private equity firm, doesn't it? we decided, look, we don't have -- we don't have all the answers. and you have these entrepreneurs, these wonderful entrepreneurs that their life and soul and grand mothers invest in everything and they live and die with that. so i like that intensity. and get the opportunity to kind of walk around the technology and see if it has an automotive application. so here in california, the envy of korngcorporations, that's a promising technology. we don't know if it's industrialized yet. but we have seeded the money. >> we should clarify, it's a company that claims to have made a breakthrough in energy density in car batteries. >> yes. lithium ion. the battery in the volt is a 400 pound battery. that is a lot of weight.

what happens if it's so dense that it's four times as dense? we have 64 kilo watts. do what does that do? the car can run a lot further. instead of 40 miles, it will run 140 miles. so i believe in my lifetime technology there's this ever escalating improvement and you have to be optimistic about it. battery technology will improve over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years. >> hearing that, it sounds like away from petroleum and batteries and mix of fuels. >> yes. i think the holy grail will be hydrogen fuel cells. by the way, we have a fleet of hydrogen -- this technology works. it's just very, very expensive. the chemistry is extraordinarily complicated. quite frankly, we're spending -- takes about -- first it costs about two ounces of platinum. you have looked at platinum prices late sfli now we have it down to a half to a quarter ounce of platinum.

but that -- when i was with general instruments, you mentioned we were the company that literally invented digital definition television. the first copy cost us $350,000 to $400,000. you buy them now at -- wherever you're buying your televisions for a couple hundred dollars. it would take a while. but you're going to see costs of hydrogen fuel cells -- today we've got -- we put three million miles on hydrogen fuel cell cars today. they cost $300,000, $400,000, now we're down to $350,000 and maybe we'll get it down to 35 or 40. >> dan ackerson is our guest today at climate one. i'm greg dalton. the chevy volt is the centerpiece of a lot of gm 's brought something of a hail yoe effect to the company. recently the company announced it was suspending production. you sold less than you wanted to