It is funny how the Chinese cannot take responsibility when they do something right, and the Americans cannot take responsibility when they do something wrong.

Washington bailed out GM rather then making sure first they change products and Beijing stopped companies from buying into the GM misfits but find ways to explain this without harming the feelings of GM. Good riddance to the Hummer monster – specially to the yellow one that used to cruise the New York Mid-town East Side and driven by some chief from the Department of Sanitation.

CHINA INSISTS A FLAWED APPROACH HURT GM DEAL
By Patti Waldmeir in Shanghai 2010-02-26, The Financial Times.

The collapse of General Motors’ plan to sell Hummer to a Chinese buyer reflects flaws in the deal rather than any reluctance by Beijing to sanction cross-border transactions, say Chinese government officials.

GM announced late on Wednesday that it had given up on efforts to sell its troubled Hummer operations to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, after nearly nine months of trying.

The Detroit carmaker said it would now wind down production of the heavy sports utility vehicle.

The collapse marks another difficult sales process for GM since it began to downsize its operations more than a year ago. The carmaker backed out of plans to sell its Opel business last year, while a deal to offload its Saturn brand fell apart.

But it this week succeeded in selling Saab, its Swedish marque, to Spyker, the Dutch boutique sports car maker.

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, which had never produced a passenger car, said the deal collapsed because it was “unable to obtain clearance [for] the transaction from the Chinese regulators within the proposed deal timeframe”.

The deal’s deadline had already been extended by a month while Tengzhong made a last-ditch effort to obtain Beijing’s blessing.

Analysts said yesterday that Beijing’s refusal to sanction the deal was scarcely surprising, given the central government’s recent strong emphasis on encouraging Chinese consumers to buy smaller, fuel-efficient cars.

To produce the hulking Hummer, with its image of wasteful excess, could hardly be less consistent with Beijing’s pro-green automotive policies, said Mike Dunne of Dunne & Co, an Asia-based automotive consultancy: “For them to approve the Hummer deal would be a big contradiction.”

A ministry of commerce spokesman said Tengzhong failed to provide a sound purchase plan. He reiterated China’s policy of encouraging development of a renewable, green and environmentally friendly economy.

The ministry has previously insisted it never received an application by Sichuan Tengzhong – but the company repeatedly denied it.

Yale Zhang, of CSM Automotive in Shanghai, said the deal violated not only Beijing’s environmental goals but also Chinese insistence on consolidation in the auto industry, which has about 50-100 carmakers.

“This was just the wrong group making the wrong purchase in the wrong way,” said an industry insider, noting Tengzhong did not obtain provisional clearance before announcing the deal.

Beijing is thought willing to sanction the much bigger $1bn acquisition of Volvo by Geely, the big private Chinese automaker. That deal is expected to be finalised by March’s end.

Last year BAIC, the Beijing automaker, acquired some assets of Saab from GM, with central government approval.

—————

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL

Goodbye, Hummer
Published: February 25, 2010

The world might be saved: It looks as if the Hummer is destined for the junkyard. The plan by General Motors to sell the muscular brand to a Chinese company went up in a puff of exhaust smoke on Wednesday after government officials in China said that they had never received the necessary application for approval and thus couldn’t grant it.

We suspect the deal collapsed because the Chinese Communist Party — which rarely shows much shame — is worried about China’s image as the most polluting nation on the planet. If true, that is good news.

There may be other good news. While some policy analysts have called — sensibly, in our opinion — for steeper gasoline taxes to encourage American drivers to embrace fuel efficiency, some economists have been skeptical. They acknowledge that drivers might decide to drive less and take public transportation more. But they warn that most could not afford to quickly dump their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars.

Yet given time, it seems, people change their ways. Americans drove 3.4 percent fewer miles in 2008 — when gas prices shot up to a peak of $4 a gallon nationally — than in 2007. And many who had bought the Hummer when a gallon of gas cost $2 decided that they couldn’t afford to tool around town in a small tank that would run, on average, around 10 miles on a gallon.

By last year, even as gas prices drifted downward, only about 9,000 Hummers were sold in the United States. That was a steep drop from 71,000 in 2006. In the spring of 2008, G.M. announced that it could not keep the sinking brand. The company is weighing two long-shot bids, but it is more than likely to wind down the brand.

Gasoline is back around $2.50 a gallon, and Americans are falling back on some of their old bad habits. Still, the Hummer’s tale is a vivid example of the power of gas prices to change Americans’ ways. It also suggests that, given the proper incentives and disincentives, all the world’s nations can embrace a greener future.

Daimler eyes alliance with Nissan, Renault.
DETROIT (Kyodo), January 13, 2010,  The head of Daimler AG says the German carmaker is considering forming a partnership with Nissan Motor Co. if it can reach a deal on a proposed technological tieup with Renault SA.

“We have confirmed that we are in discussions with Renault. It is not just discussion, but there are other discussions going on as well,” Daimler Chairman Dieter Zetsche said Monday at the North American auto show in Detroit.

“If the discussions (with Renault) would come to any results, then obviously the potential expansion with Nissan is something to consider,” he said.

Zetsche said Daimler wants to strike a deal with Renault in the first half of this year.

Nissan and French maker Renault formed a capital tieup in 1999. If Daimler ties up with Nissan, the two are likely to work together on environmentally friendly vehicles, including electric cars, according to industry watchers.

—————————–

Earlier in the day, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally said his firm will maintain the current capital and business alliance with Mazda Motor Corp.

“We treasure our relationship with Mazda. It’s been very useful and beneficial for both of us even though we had to take down our equity position,” Mulally said.

Ford has had an 11 percent equity stake in Mazda since selling part of its shareholding in fall 2008.

The share sale was due to Ford’s financial plight amid the recession, Mulally said.

“Our relationship with Mazda will keep going,” he added.

Electric Cars Shine at the 2010 Detroit Auto Show.
By Jeff Siegel, Green Chip Review, Monday, January 11th, 2010
In 1986, I bought my very first car. It was a red 1980 Chevy Chevette. And I loved that thing.

I drove it everywhere — from to Boston to DC to Atlanta, that little red Chevette gave me a sense of freedom that I had never before experienced. And I treasured that freedom.

Sure, I had to work a lot of overtime at the pizza shop to afford it ($600 seemed like a fortune back then). And insurance is never cheap for a 16-year-old kid…

But none of that mattered. Because as long as I had my car, I could go anywhere at anytime. And it’s that sense of freedom that I believe every 16-year-old feels the first time he gets behind the wheel of his very first car.

As an adult, little has changed for me.

Sure, these days I take the light rail to work. (Why pay for gas and parking if you don’t have to?) But I still love taking those long road trips from time to time. And I still love checking out all the new cars coming to market.

Especially the latest electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. And there’s certainly no shortage of them this year at the 2010 North American Auto Show.

* * *

GM’s Voltage Continues:

At this year’s 2010 North American Auto Show, a number of new electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and other fuel efficient offerings are being unveiled.

In fact, we’re even seeing the debut of a 37,000-square-foot feature called the Electric Avenue. It is here, on the main floor, where more than a dozen new electrified vehicles will be showcased.

Of course, everyone knows about the Chevy Volt, which is expected to roll out later this year. But GM Vice President Bob Lutz did announce yesterday that GM is now making a Cadillac version of the Chevy Volt.

Using technology developed for the Volt, the Cadillac Converj is expected to hit showrooms in 2013.

The Converj originally debuted as a concept car at last year’s Detroit Auto Show.

Nissan Electrifies:

Also expected to hit showrooms this year is the Nissan Leaf.

This is Nissan’s electric hatchback that boasts a 100-mile all-electric range, with a top speed of about 76 mpg.

While I’m definitely excited to see the LEAF zipping through the streets of Baltimore, it should be noted that this is an all-electric vehicle — not an extended range electric vehicle, like the Chevy Volt. So cost comparisons should be taken lightly when read in press releases.

Yes, the Nissan will likely cost about $15,000-$20,000 less than the Chevy Volt. But it is not really meant for trips longer than 100 miles… unless you have a few hours to stop each time and charge up.

The Chevy Volt, on the other hand, can road trip with the best of them; once the initial charge on the Volt is depleted, the gas engine kicks in.

That being said, if you’re not looking for anything more than local driving, certainly the LEAF could be an excellent vehicle.

A few other exciting vehicles on display in Detroit this week include:

An electric version of the Fiat 500 minicar boasting 150 miles per charge (according to British magazine AutoExpress.)

The Volvo C30 Electric Car — 90 miles per charge

BMW Concept ActiveE — 100 miles per charge

Mitsubishi MiEV — 80 miles per charge

Think City — 100 miles per charge.

In Another 10 Years…

Ten years ago, highlights at the 2000 Detroit Auto Show included gas hogs like the Chevrolet SSR and the Hummer H2.

There was only one electric offering back then, and that was the Think City.

As an interesting side note, the Think City was originally owned by Ford at the time of the 2000 Detroit Auto Show. But in 2003, the company sold it to a Swiss company called Kamkorp Microelectronics. Then in 2006, Norwegian investment group InSpire bought it.

Now, just last week, Think announced it would build its first car for the U.S. market in Indiana starting in 2011. The company plans on selling its vehicle in the U.S. in late 2011 by importing vehicles assembled in Finland. The import sales will arrive before U.S. production starts.

While it’s great to see these things built and sold in the U.S. — finally! — that was one hell of a runaround to get from point A to point B.

Nonetheless, here we are today at the North American Auto Show, and there are nearly 20 electric offerings.

So just imagine where we’re going to be in another 10 years…

According to research firm CSM Worldwide, nearly half of all vehicle nameplates sold around the world (about 20 million vehicles) will offer some form of electrified propulsion technology by 2020.

Now, only one million are expected to be built with electrified propulsion systems in the U.S. — and most of those will be mild or full hybrids. But in Japan and Korea, electrified vehicles will account for about 3 million; in Europe, about 15 million!

Of course, the folks in Europe also have the unfamiliar burden of paying a more realistic price for their gasoline and diesel. And to be honest, until we start paying a more realistic price for our gasoline, the U.S. will likely lag and continue to hand off progress to other parts of the world.

As a U.S. citizen who loves to drive, this is certainly a point of frustration. However, as an investor, we know that borders don’t present obstacles for us when it comes to profiting from the electric car revolution.

From high-performance battery manufacturers in China to electric propulsion system companies in Canada, we will continue to profit from this movement every step of the way.

In fact, my colleague Sam Hopkins is heading to Peru tomorrow to investigate a new lead for us. I can’t wait to see how this one pans out. He’ll have an update for all of us from Lima later this week.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth. . . Jeff

Thursday, Jan. 7, 2010

Chinese car market world’s biggest in ‘09
NEW YORK (Kyodo) New car sales in the United States plunged more than 20 percent in 2009 to a 27-year low of 10.43 million vehicles, less than the 12.23 million sold in China during January-November, making the Asian giant the world’s largest car market for the first time, data released by a U.S. research firm showed Tuesday.

That marked a turning point in the global auto industry, which had been led by the Big Three Detroit companies since Ford Motor Co. began mass production in 1913, introducing the world’s first conveyor belt system.

Sales by all automakers operating in the U.S. totaled 10.43 million cars, a slide of 21.2 percent compared with 2008 and the smallest number sold since 1982, according to Autodata Corp.

In 2009, the U.S market was battered by the global recession. The market also shrank due to production cutbacks at General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC following their filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier in the year.

New car sales last year in the U.S. fell by about 2.8 million vehicles compared with 2008 and were 40 percent lower than the peak of 17.4 cars sold in 2000.

In 2009, sales declined 29.7 percent to 2.06 million vehicles at GM, the carmaker with the biggest U.S. operations.

Toyota Motor Corp.,  saw a drop of 20.2 percent, or about 447,500 cars, to 1.77 million, registering its sharpest decline in both percentage and volume terms in the past 40 years. Sales slid for the second year in a row at Toyota, suffering their largest drop in 40 years in both percentage and volume terms.

Nevertheless, Toyota outsold GM in the U.S. market for the first time, excluding fleet sales, with retail sales of around 1.61 million cars.

Third-ranked Ford saw its U.S. sales fall 15.3 percent to 1.62 million units.

Honda Motor Co. ranked fourth, with sales dropping 19.5 percent to 1.15 million vehicles, ahead of the 931,402 cars sold by Chrysler, down 35.9 percent.

“Full-body scanners on display at Reagan National Airport: Many experts say the full-body scanners would have detected the explosives carried aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, but the
machines have also raised privacy concerns over the detailed body image that is displayed as part of the screening.”

TSA – Transportation and Security Administration – tries to assuage privacy concerns about full-body scans.

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010
It has come to this.

Already shoeless, beltless and waterless, more beleaguered air passengers will be holding their legs apart, raising their arms and effectively baring it all as they pass through U.S. airport security
checkpoints.

Add the “full-body scan” to the list of indignities that some travelers are confronting in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era of vigilance.

Federal authorities, working to close security gaps exposed by the thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, are multiplying the number of imaging machines at the nation’s biggest
airports. The devices scan passengers’ bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes…….

- – - – - -

now add the “me-au” from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, ADC Legal Director   nshora at adc.org

Washington, D.C. | January 5, 2010 | www.adc.org |

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is deeply concerned by the new Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) directives, which went into effect on January 4th at midnight.  According to news sources, these directives will require citizens from 14 countries, all Arab or Muslim countries, with the exception of Cuba, to go through enhanced security screening. Such screening can include full pat-downs, scans, delays, and anything associated with secondary screening – an extra search of the passenger’s carry-on luggage may also be required.  News sources also stated that the directives are applicable to any travelers, including US CITIZENS, who have passed through one of these 14 countries, or who have taken flights that have originated from these 14 countries.

ADC is very troubled as such directives will have negative ramifications on Arab-Americans, citizens of the 14 countries, and all Americans who visit these countries. A disparate segment of the Arab-American community will be scrutinized because of these new guidelines. The blanket labeling of hundreds of millions of civilians based solely on their country of citizenship or travel is not only unfairly discriminatory based on national origin, but also improperly labels millions of innocent people as somehow suspect or possible terrorists.

The new directives came following the Christmas Day attempted airline attack that threatened our national security, and which ADC has strongly condemned. Implementing an effective and productive counterterrorism tool is paramount. However, casting a wide net against individuals based on their country of origin, race or religion is not an effective counterterrorism tool. During the past decade, similar racial, ethnic and religious profiling tactics and practices have time and again misdirected precious counterterrorism resources, damaged foreign relations with key allies, fueled the fires of extremists by giving them an excuse, stigmatized communities, and most importantly did not have any discernible impact on security. Based on precedent, these new directives will be no different than these past practices and their adverse consequences; and while such directives may appear to make us feel safer, the reality is that they discriminate against innocent persons and divert attention from real threats.

Resources must instead be focused on high-risk individuals based on proper intelligence, better coordination and communication between different governmental agencies. In addition, continued engagement with the Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian community groups must be strengthened, and must not be discouraged by ethnic profiling tactics.

ADC has been in contact with TSA and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) and is planning to file a complaint and request for additional information with the Department.  ADC urges all travelers affected by these new guidelines to always comply with the Transportation Security Officer’s (TSO’s) request.  In the event of any abuse or misuse of authority, please request the TSO’s name and badge number, and file a complaint with ADC’s Legal Department at  legal at adc.org.

==============

Honestly, I feel the pain of decent members of the ADC, but am appalled at the chutzpah to announce the complaints of that organization without a single word attached saying that as loyal citizens to this country they are ready to organize themselves in units of informers when it comes to transgressions by people from their country of birth, that are endangering the security of the country that gave to the ADC members the privilege of life under a secular democracy.

Yes, I know that the ADC has members that are Muslim, Christian or atheists. I know they have no Jews in ADC, but that is not the issue. The Arab countries, other Asian countries, and the African Arabized countries, on the list of 13, are all Islamic countries – in all of them Christians and Jews face very serious difficulties. Further, I know of good Muslims in the US and overseas, that participate with enlightened Jews in order to build bridges between communities. in Copenhagen I actually participated during the Climate conference at a pilgrimage that took us to places of worship that were Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim (that last meeting was held in the rooms of a Danish humanist society) – in this time sequence. Yes – good relationships are possible, but that will happen only when, and if, there is a clear understanding, and voiced recognition, that Islamic terrorism originates with Muslim individuals, and that in order to safeguard ourselves, profiling in search of instruments of terror is not a dirty word, but a means of self defense.

Also, in order to avoid needless friction, I suggest that the ADC moves front and center in the global effort to disengage from the addiction to oil.

And one more item – this website does speak up for Cuba as they surely are not part of the group of countries responsible for Islamicists performing acts of terror. So, they do not belong on that list of 14.

Learn about the advantages of the Cleantech Network and join today >>

Know someone else who should receive this? They can sign up here.
Questions? Concerns? Contact us.

North America
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94104                2250 Genoa Business Park Drive
Brighton, MI 48114
+1 810 224-4310
 info at cleantech.com

Europe/Israel
175-185 GraysInn Road
London, UK WC1X 8UE
+44 (0) 20 7812 0575
 europe at cleantech.com

China
2513 The Spaces International Center
No 8 Dongdaqiao Road
Chaoyang District, Beijing, China 100020
+86 10 8532 5734
 china at cleantech.com

India
S-352 GreaterKailash, Part 2
Delhi, India 110048
+91 (11) 4053 6943
 india at cleantech.com

©Cleantech Group, LLC. http://www.cleantech.com

Monday, Aug. 3, 2009

Nissan turns over new Leaf in EV wars – Full design of hatchback finally unveiled. Nissan Motor Co.’s new electric vehicle, the Leaf, draws the scrutiny of photographers Sunday at the company’s headquarters in Yokohama.

By HIROKO NAKATA
The Japan Times Staff writer

YOKOHAMA — Nissan Motor Co. on Sunday unveiled its new electric vehicle, the Leaf, which the automaker wants to start selling next year in Japan, the United States and Europe in its quest to become the leader in zero-emission cars.

To mass produce the medium-size Leaf by 2012, Nissan has said it will carry a reasonable sticker price in comparison with gasoline-powered cars.

The Leaf will go up against Mitsubishi Motors Corp.’s i-MiEV electric minivehicle, which heated up the country’s market for environmentally friendly cars when it debuted in June. But the i-MiEV at ¥4.6 million costs much more than gasoline-electric hybrid cars.

The Leaf, whose full design was revealed Sunday for the first time, is a five-seat hatchback, 444.5 cm long and 177 cm wide, boasting Nissan-developed high-powered batteries and an 80-kw motor. The cruising range is rated at better than 160 km, according to Nissan.

“For the first time in our industry’s history, a car manufacturer will mass market a zero-emission car — the ultimate solution for sustainable mobility,” Nissan President and CEO Carlos Ghosn said during an unveiling ceremony at the company’s new headquarters in Yokohama.

Ghosn drove a Leaf onto the stage, with former Primer Minister Junichiro Koizumi, whose home district is in Kanagawa Prefecture,sitting in the front passenger seat. In the back seat were Kanagawa Gov. Shigefumi Matsuzawa and Yokohama Mayor Hiroshi Nakada.

“It was more smooth and quiet than I had expected,” Koizumi said after emerging from the car.

The Leaf’s name symbolizes the car’s ability to take emissions out of driving, just as leaves purify the air in nature, according to Nissan.

The car has drawn attention because Nissan, Japan’s third-largest automaker, has said that to reduce the price it is considering selling only the framework and leasing the expensive battery pack. Nissan said it will announce the Leaf’s price just before the launch in 2010.

Nissan also said it is considering various other ways to limit the price, including a payment method in which the buyer would pay only the difference between the sticker price and a secondhand price set by the automaker.

Ghosn has said Nissan will reduce the monthly running cost for the new vehicle to less than the comparable monthly cost of gasoline to achieve widespread acceptance.

He predicted Sunday that electric vehicles will account for about 10 percent of global car sales by 2020.

But in any business model, one hurdle will be setting up sufficient infrastructure, especially chargers, to help bring about wide usage of electric cars.

Currently, there are only about 50 high-speed battery chargers across Japan, and only 37 of them are in Tokyo and Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba prefectures.

Moreover, most of those 50 chargers belong to Tokyo Electric Power Co. and are not open to the public.

With high-speed chargers, it takes 30 minutes to charge electric batteries to the 80 percent level, while it takes normal chargers about eight hours to fully charge the Leaf’s battery pack.

Nissan, Mitsubishi and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., which started to deliver the Subaru Plug-in Stella electric car in July, are planning to set up a committee this week to discuss promoting chargers.

Setting up and running chargers currently does not offer much in the way of profits, because electricity is much cheaper than gasoline, experts say.

“Whether electric vehicles will succeed depends on their business models,” said Kazuhiro Muto, a senior business producer who specializes in infrastructure for electric cars at Japan Research Institute Ltd.

He said one business model could be that a car rental company rents electric cars to central and local governments or companies on weekdays and the public on weekends to increase operating ratios and increase profitability.

Clinton says world must embrace diversity

WASHINGTON, June 14 ( as reported by UPI) — People must learn to take pride in their heritage without negating the heritage of others, former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a group of Arab Americans.
As the keynote speaker, Clinton Saturday night addressed the annual convention of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington.

“I hope you will tell everybody that your vision of America is one where you are deeply proud of who you are. And teach your children their ethnic heritage, their religious heritage, their cultural heritage, with no negative reference to anyone else.

“Because it’s the only shot we’ve got to make the most of our interdependent world,” Clinton told attendees at the event called “From the Grassroots to the Nation’s Capital: Change for Our Future.”

Clinton’s presence was a “stamp of legitimacy” for the 29-year-old Arab American organization, spokesman Yousef Munayyer told The Detroit News.

“To have someone who is part of the political elite at our convention is a high honor,” Munayyer said.

Democratic U.S. Rep. John Dingell and White House press corps dean Helen Thomas, both from Michigan, were honored at Saturday’s dinner with lifetime achievement awards.

 

From: CULTURE CHANGE

June 6, 2009

Pedaling Produce for Village Building Convergence, Portland
By Jan Lundberg

This is the time for petroleum-free, sustainable transport. What better
opportunity to do so when the motor-vehicle manufacturers are on the
ropes, as they should be? We have to take care of local needs with local
resources. Sorry you Big Money boys, move over for real community building
– to me, this is the spirit of the Village Building Convergence,
Portland, Oregon, in its ninth year, from June 5-14.

In February, on behalf of Culture Change, I offered the twin concepts of
sail power and pedal power at the vision-planning meeting for this year’s
Village Building Convergence (VBC). The enthusiasm in the room was
palpable. One of the attendees who came forward to exchange contact info
with me was Jeff Holiman. Over the months he and I visited farms and
rivers with other enthusiasts interested in integrating the VBC with Sail
Transport Network and Pedal Power Produce.

Taking heart from the excellent examples of the Puget Sound’s Sail
Transport Company, and the many pedal-power activists in Oregon and
beyond, we proceeded to chart what might be Portland’s future food
supply/distribution system.
…

Read the remainder of the report at http://www.CultureChange.org/go.html?448

* * * * *

Culture Change
P.O. Box 4347, Arcata, CA 95518 USA, tel/fax: 1-215-243-3144
 http://culturechange.org

Please send any feedback or questions via email to  info at culturechange.org
—————————

23 May 2009

No Stopping the Gravy Train of Car Support?

by Kurt Lesser
23 May 2009

We first present York, UK-based John Whitelegg’s recent editorial in the World Transport Policy & Practice journal (Volume 15, Number 1). He shows “Investing in the car industry is wrong.” Readers of our old incarnation the Auto-Free Times will recall his brilliance. Following Prof. Whitelegg’s editorial is Kurt Lesser’s Comment in the same edition that challenges us — with logic so pure you’ll laugh in delight — to stop the madness of throwing more good money after bad: at cars.

——–

Editorial by John Whitelegg
We live in interesting times. Almost all the largest world economies are assembling packages of financial support for the car industry and financial incentives to persuade citizens to throw away an older car and buy a new one. The recession and the rise in unemployment is a personal disaster for many and the pressure to “rescue” industries is intense. Sadly global thinking and decision taking on this matter is way out of line with evidence and with the need to identify opportunities out of the mess rather than continue on the same lines that created the mess.
Investing in the car industry is wrong. We need large scale investment in things that create real jobs in real communities and have a huge impact on the big things that we are all trying o address including peak oil, climate change, and poverty eradication.

Investing in renewable energy anywhere in the world is a “no brainer”. It will create lots of jobs in every community. Designing, equipping and retro-fitting every building with whatever is needed to reduce energy use by 50% is also a front-runner for climate and job creation success.

Investing in high quality streets for walking and cycling and public transport will do the same but throwing cash at an early 20th century industry based on moving objects that weight about 75 kgs in a metal container weighing about 1 tonne is not very intelligent.

We can restructure cities, mobility and accessibility and in one highly co-ordinated policy deal with road safety, health, obesity, climate change and peak oil but it looks like the answer is, as usual, “no”.

——–

No Stopping the Gravy Train of Car Support?
Kurt Lesser

For months now the auto industry has publicly been seen to be begging for financial help, with dour threats of jobs at risk and promises to ‘reform’ by committed research for a greener car.
Some nations and the European Union have shown themselves willing to provide aid, with certain conditions.

But how can jobs be guaranteed – if sales don’t pick up, if new robots are introduced, if the company or parts thereof are outsourced?
And what investments will go to the only effective reforms in transport, the only ones that are green – investments in public transport (also for transport in the off-hours), and for a greater re-organization of urban space, a de-mobilization that must involve housing and places of work and service?

Words about jobs and the greening of the car seem to have been accepted, with no questions asked by journalists, parliamentarians, and, oddly enough, by green organizations and parties.
Everyone seems to believe that benefits will result from handing money to the auto corporations, that there’s a fair tit for tat and it is all for our good. A worthy investment no matter the enormous sums.

The two points very loudly made by the auto industry and its adherents, about job security and ‘environmentally-friendly technologies’, must be examined, questions asked, and, arguments put from the material available with our past experiences of the industry in mind.
The great question for the unions is: what may we expect of job security from such an automatized and flighty industry? And for green organisations and parties: what can we really expect of an industry that prides itself in producing the one industrial consumer product most harmful for human life and the planet, and with a bleak record of past ‘reform’.

The following will question the two conditions for aid we hear most about, job security and green technology.
The conclusions may already be succinctly stated – that putting money in cars is wasting it, it will go towards prolonging our present misery. Let the auto industry embrace the tenets of letting demand shape the market, the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith, and let fall that which cannot stand.

Jobs

How many jobs are at risk? Bernie Ecclestone a few years ago told us that 50,000 jobs could be lost if Formula One folded. No-one, as far as I know, checked the jobs or even asked about them.

As with other jobs in the production of cars one must ask – what kind of job? Perhaps a contract ‘agent’, a one-man entrepreneur with no pension but, in some countries, with sizable tax-deductions that permit him to keep a car in style. Perhaps the shoemaker has been included in the tally, or the neighbourhood grocer. Where is the job? Is it with a national ‘supplier’ – or one in China or Argentina? The auto assembly line has grown since the days of Ford in Dearborn, it encompasses the whole world.

What kind of job would a green organisation or party think worthy of saving? Jobs in tobacco or arms? Is there a reason for special concern for jobs in carmaking? Why do jobs in this industry make politicians become generous? Woolworth with 27,000 employees (accounted for) was allowed to go to the wall; Wedgewood has moved most of its production to the Far East. National pride in the car industry? Didn’t Britain have pride in the textile industry that was allowed to fold or depart?

The condition for giving money is a demand for ‘restructuring’ – which sounds like the usual efficiency exercise, making slim and mean, whereby jobs are shed. What alterations in hiring may be expected? More contract labour, without pensions? Or expectations that the workers themselves provide support by doing extra time for less pay?

What plans does a company have for outsourcing? Has it already been done, or partially done?

Where are the director-jobs? In Detroit?

Green Technology

I’ve seen nothing specific on what may be sought, other than a means of reducing CO2 by fuel efficiency – which ought to please drivers, as they can believe they have a smaller climate footprint, while at the same time being able to drive more miles per gallon.

Where we can see that any fuel efficiency is spurious, as far as fuel use goes, miles travelled, the car is just cheaper to run.

Thus an inducement for car-use, as are scrapping schemes – where drivers get spanking-new cars at a reduction, and that’s always more fun than using the old banger.

The scrapping schemes themselves involve exchanging cars that work, and using energy to scrap them, and as part of the tally there’s the energy for making the new car. Having a fuel-efficient car does not mean that it will poison the environment less by CO and a whole spectrum of toxins from the tailpipe (we may assume that much of the money granted will go, as always, to lobbying for less strict pollution levels), that fewer than 9,000 children will be killed annually on Europe’s roads, or that any of the many other iniquities of the motorcar will disappear. It’s in the nature of the beast, to go to fast and to pollute.

What about electric and hybrid vehicles? They sound environmentally friendly, and are presented as such by governments and even endorsed by many greens – but why speak of them before there’s a real chance of mass production and selling?

The electric car is not a new concept; it’s been around as long as the infernal combustion model. The only thing missing so far in the electric has been the same ability to accelerate and go fast, and a net to provide the reach and omnipresence as of the gasoline/diesel car.

To attain mass sales the electric must possess the allure of the gasoline/diesel car. And that will leave us with the problems of speeding and congestion and even pollution. Pollution in the urban environment? You may well ask. Just to mention a few – there’s noise and the light and space pollution, asbestos from the brake linings and rubber particles from the tires, and electromagnetic fields.

Heavy investment will be needed for production and power points – and to develop sufficient capacity from a net that’s already overcharged.

Green organisations and parties ought to care about all aspects of the car – or have concerns for them become limited to the reduction of a single greenhouse gas? There’s human, animal, and plant health, as well as the more abstract one of planet health.

We may guess at where the public money is headed – a good portion towards advertising (more green-wash, more censorship of the media), more for lobbying, more for rewarding the directorship. Will we ever know?

Will anything that green organisations and parties say change the behaviour of politicians when engaging with the motorcar?

Harald B.Schäfer’s words from the 80s are only too true – that the price of petrol today is what the price of bread was before the French Revolution.

He also said that the key to the environmental issue is transport. Meaning that this is the hard knot that, when once unpicked, all else might perhaps be accomplished with less grief and opposition.

Whatever the problems of speaking out might be for politicians, who seem tramlined by the media into fearing many bad days in the papers if they do not act for the car – green organisations and parties need not keep silent, and ought to protest loudly enough to be heard in the media and by our politicians.

This is a forerunner of sorts to a study on the true cost of the car – that includes tax support, policing, the infrastructure, crime, the health service – where the first step must look at the direct forms of public support for the making of cars. Towards this everyone can help, by supplying information, either from the media or from other sources. (An appeal to whistleblowers)

• How much has been or will be handed to which companies by which states?
• In what form has aid been given, as loan or grant?
• What conditions, specifically, were stipulated?
• What is known of previous gifts or loans – and what came of them?
On gratitude, a fable from Aesop – ‘The Farmer and the Snake’.

One frosty snowy winter a farmer found a snake under a hedge almost frozen to death with the cold.

He couldn’t help feeling sorry for the poor stiff creature, so he took it home, put it on the hearth near the fire and went on about his business. Before very long there was such a shouting and screaming from his wife and children that he came running back to find out what was wrong.

There was the wretched ungrateful snake, hissing and chasing the farmer’s wife and children all around the room.

“So!” said the farmer, “this is how you pay me back for being kind to you! Well then, take this little bit of help too”, and he picked up a mattock and chopped the snake in two. The point – Returning evil for good is not the way to show your thanks.

The next time you hear a motorist complaining of being soaked, mention the enormous sums in support that is handed to the industry by all taxpayers – where everyone pays for the privileged choice of the driver, directly and indirectly – and that includes paying with lives in fighting the wars for cheap oil.

Kurt Lesser is a Writer and a Photographer. Email him at kurtlesser AT yahoo DOT fr

State Energy and Climate Actions: Lessons for Federal Policy

Thursday, May 28, 2009
2:00 – 3:30 p.m.
2168 Rayburn House Office Building

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) invite you to a briefing to learn about state actions on climate and energy, and how they can inform the current Congressional debate on climate policy. Over the past six years, more than 30 states have begun to address climate change, primarily through mitigation measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and saving energy within their states. Some have considered adaptation measures to respond to impacts from climate change.

More than 20 Governors have appointed Climate Commissions or Advisory Councils with broad representation to work through consensus approaches.

This briefing will feature representatives from states in the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, who will share their experiences about garnering support in their states, and offer their perspectives on how the federal government and states can best coordinate actions to provide effective climate and energy policies.

Speakers for this event include:

George S. “Tad” Aburn, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department of Energy;

Stephen Adams, Staff Director, Governor Crist’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change and Florida Department of Environmental Protection;

Steve Chester, Director, Michigan Environment Department; Chair, Michigan Climate Action Council;

Tom Peterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) who will provide an overview of the dozens of approaches that have garnered near unanimous support among diverse bi-partisan groups of stakeholders and also will address the cost savings and employment/stimulus impacts. The state representatives will describe which state actions already have been effective and which need stronger federal support; how a comprehensive “bottom up” approach can aid federal policymakers; how states have addressed carbon pricing; and the benefits of looking beyond the traditional targets of energy generation and transportation to include opportunities across all sectors.

This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required.

For more information, contact Amy Sauer at (202) 662-1892 or  asauer at eesi.org.

—————–
The Center for Climate Strategies is a nonprofit that supplies technical and analytic services to states. This briefing is the first in a series co-sponsored by EESI and CCS. Future briefings will address a variety of energy and climate topics, including the economics of climate change, agriculture, forestry, waste management, transportation, land use, and adaptation. Details will be posted at www.eesi.org as they become available.

—————

EESI is a national nonprofit that works to advance a cleaner, more secure and sustainable energy path. EESI was established in 1984 by a bipartisan group of Congressional environmental and energy leaders to meet the critical need for rigorous, informed debate, independent analysis and innovative policy development related to energy and environmental issues.

Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Laura Parsons
Communications Coordinator

The Washington Post News About the Environment, Special Report: Green – May 19, 2009.
Vehicle Emission Rules to Tighten: U.S. Would Also Raise Fuel Mileage Standards by 2016.

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Obama administration today plans to propose tough standards for tailpipe emissions from new automobiles, establishing the first nationwide regulation for greenhouse gases.

It will also raise fuel efficiency targets to 35.5 miles per gallon for new passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2016, four years earlier than required under the 2007 energy bill, sources close to the administration said.

The measures are significant steps forward for the administration’s energy agenda by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change and by easing U.S. dependence on oil, most of which is imported.

The administration is embracing standards stringent enough to satisfy the state of California, which has been fighting for a waiver from federal law so that it could set its own guidelines, sources said. Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.) will be among a variety of state and industry officials who plan to attend an announcement today, according to sources close to the administration.

The deal has been under negotiation since the first days of the administration. It represents a compromise among the White House; the state of California; and the auto industry, which has long sought national mileage standards and has waged an expensive legal battle against the California waiver. The industry will get its national standard, but at the price of one that approximates California’s targets. Industry officials said they would drop all related lawsuits.

David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said that the agreement reached late Sunday night would provide the industry with “clarity and predictability.”

That predictability won’t come cheap. A senior administration official said the new standards would raise the cost of an average car by $1,300, $600 of which could be attributed to the rules being announced today. The remaining increase would stem from previous energy policy.

“Consumers can retain choice but for more fuel-efficient cars. Every single category of car will be more efficient,” the official said, noting that fuel savings would offset much of the higher cost.

The announcement planned for today marks a major change in tone from the Bush administration, which had rejected California’s waiver in March 2008, barring states from setting their own limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. At the time, 13 other states and the District of Columbia were also seeking permission to impose standards similar to California’s. Obama had ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the ruling.

Under the compromise, the federal government would establish two sets of standards, one for mileage and one for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would set the new fuel-economy standards, which would raise the average fuel efficiency of a new car by 30 percent. Cars, for instance, would need to average 39 miles per gallon by 2016, while light trucks would need to reach 30 mpg.

The EPA, using its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, plans a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said. The EPA needs to go through a rulemaking process to allow responses before the standards would go into effect.

One person involved in the negotiation said the Supreme Court’s ruling on regulating emissions helped push companies to bargain because they feared the prospect of having to comply with separate EPA standards in addition to those from NHTSA and California. “That’s what brought the companies to the table,” the person said.

In addition, many of the automakers that originally fought California’s standards are now struggling for survival and in a weaker position to fight. Their opposition also waned after last year’s high gasoline prices and consumers’ newfound frugality shifted the mix of vehicles being sold toward more fuel-efficient models. General Motors said yesterday that in 2008, its cars got an average of 29.7 miles a gallon, higher than the 27.5 requirement; its new trucks got 23.2 mpg, higher than the 22.6-mpg requirement for last year.

“We are pleased that President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will be good for the environment and the economy,” Ford said in a statement.

The EPA is also expected to impose restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from leaks of air-conditioning coolant in vehicles. The automakers would be able to use some credits for complying with those regulations to offset a small part of fuel-efficiency requirements, sources familiar with the talks said.

California made modest concessions in the negotiations. From 2012 to 2015, the new mileage standards will be slightly less stringent than required under California’s rules, which will be amended. In addition, EPA and NHTSA will use the federal approach of pegging standards to the “attributes” of vehicles, such as size and engine type, said sources familiar with the negotiations. California, by contrast, used just two broad categories of vehicles.

Sources close to the administration said the EPA would still grant a waiver to California at the end of June, but that the state would not exercise it in light of the new national standards.

Proponents of tougher fuel-efficiency standards hailed reports of today’s announcement.

“If media reports are true, after years of oil price inflation, policy stagnation and automotive industry litigation, President Obama has solved the energy and economic policy equivalent of a Rubik’s Cube,” said   Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who was a principal author of the 35-mpg standard that Congress adopted in 2007.

“In addition to dramatically reducing the global warming emissions from our vehicles, this move will slash our dependence on oil and make us more energy independent,” Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said in a statement. “Congress put us on the road toward more fuel efficient vehicles two years ago when it passed the first increase in fuel economy standards in more than 30 years. Now President Obama is dramatically accelerating our progress.”

—————

At least 10 Republican Dinosauri on Capitol Hill are expected, with the help of the Heartland Institute, to try to reopen the question on global warming and man-produced CO2 impact on climate.

The most pathetic case is:

“Perhaps most head-scratching were comments by   Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) suggesting that limiting emissions might starve the world’s plants. ‘If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?’ he asked in a hearing.

That’s a bold statement, even in the skeptical camp. Patrick J. Michaels, a fellow at the Cato Institute who has challenged the scientific consensus on climate change, said plants would have plenty of carbon dioxide, even if the cap-and-trade bill passes. ‘I don’t think that’s really germane,’ Michaels said. “
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

From:      beledeles at yahoo.com
Subject: Rush Limbaugh Wants to Know Why Women Don’t Like Him
Date: February 27, 2009
To:      pj at sustainabilitank.com

Recently, Rush Limbaugh said he’d convene a “summit” to determine why he’s not popular with the ladies. Rush, however, is a guy thing, and here’s why:

Everyone has known an older person who longs for simpler days when up was up and down was down, when life was slower and gentlemen wore hats and you would hold the door open for a lady and she wouldn’t think you were a chauvinist. It was a time when everyone understood who the bad guys were, and someone didn’t get it, well, they were the misfits.

They were the misfits and everybody knew it. It was a time when people obeyed the boss, and the boss was white.

The boss was white, and the boss was a man.  

You know that old saying, “You learn something new every day.” Well, there was a time, so the legend goes, that you didn’t have to learn something new every day. You could stick with what you had always known, the things you’ve known since you were a young white boy, and as such, it was understood that people like you, people who looked like you, were going to get the biggest piece of cake. That was your world, and that’s how it had always been.

And suddenly that saying, “You learn something new every day,” is everywhere you go.   Nowadays, you can’t count on anything. This Indonesian guy named Osama Hussein is President of the whole f**king United States. Not Vice President, but President. Suddenly, that pantsuit-wearing baby killer wife-of-a-cheat Hillary is Secretary of State. So you want to wake up in the morning and start the day by screaming “Stop. Just stop, right now.” There was a time that a white man of means could stand up and say “Shut the f*** up” and get some respect.

Not long ago, the men who did the work, the men who built this country, who drove the trucks and laid the pipes and built the cars and fixed the roads and fixed the toilets – we got respect. We didn’t have to wade through all this political correctness just to get what was ours without some pinhead whining about it.

And there was a time when you knew where the communists were. They were in Russia, not in the White House.

And you could count on the respectable people to ferret out the rest. Now you got socialists and communists running everything, telling us we have to spread the wealth, telling us that what is ours is not really ours. Who the f*** let them in, anyway?

The above rant is the product of a mind who cannot grasp that black-and-white, us-and-them viewpoints no longer work. The world of simple questions (“Are you for America or against it?” “Do you love free enterprise or hate it?”), has been replaced by shades of grey. Now you have to deal with people that say, “I love my country enough to criticize it, I love my country, but can’t support it when its wrong.” The Rush Limbaugh mind rejects these equivocations as signs of moral laxness. You either love America or you hate it.

The rush Limbaugh mind does not have to participate in the world of nuance, the world of qualified support, the Limbaugh mind despises the politics of “yes, but except….”, or anything that reeks of compromise. The rush Limbaugh mind lives in the bliss of absolute certitude. Certitude is a powerful anesthetic. Certitude provides almost a physical “high” because all of one’s energies can work towards pushing a cause, rather than having to rethink it, or having to pause long enough to consider you might be wrong about something. The Rush Limbaugh mind never has to stop to consider much of anything. The Rush Limbaugh mind can scream and yell and rant and swear at its enemies because it is very clear who the enemies are.

In Rush’s world, the enemies never “have a good point or two.” They are always wanna-be politically-correct socialist commie cowards with pussies for dicks. The Rush Limbaugh brain embraces a type of certitude that never lets any air in. It is a closed system. If you question one of the basic tenants, for example, thinking that in some cases, higher taxes might be needed, or that, in some cases, a Democrat might have a good idea, then according to the Rush Limbaugh mind, you are showing weakness. Self-questioning is not seen as a healthy way to check your facts, to improve and mature your viewpoint, but rather, as sign of a weak will, of being contaminated by the vacillation of little men. To the Rush Limbaugh brain, if you are a leader, then you never question.

———-

(As editor of www.SustainabiliTank.info I did not change even a coma in this article, all what I do is to break up paragraphs and use highlighting for emphasis. I hope that both – the author and Rush Limbaugh – who years ago ranted for a whole day against a letter of mine printed in the New York Times – dealing with ethanol as the octane enhacer of choice to gasoline – and on taxing the use of oil products – will find that our representation of their views is completely accurate.

My thanks to Barry Edeles for his contribution – Pincas Jawetz, editor SustainabiliTank.info)

The original article continues:

———

In the post-consumer age, which is where we are headed, hierarchical thinking is doomed. The mindset of “I am right and you are wrong, I am high and you are low,” is not compatible with the epoch we are entering. Our problems are universal, and not limited by boundaries. The crises we must solve are never again going to stay on one side of the tracks. Fortress America cannot hide from overproduction of manufactured goods, global warming and deforestation, a dwindling oil supply and overpopulation. Everyone will have to weigh in, everyone will have to participate, and everyone will have to feel vested in and be part of the solutions.   Leaders in today’s world must view themselves as the center of a web, like the hub of a bicycle wheel with spokes moving outward. This mindset is vastly different from the traditional hierarchical style of leadership. Hierarchical leadership, with power imposed from the top downward, is no longer a good model for solving the world’s problems. Rush Limbaugh’s thinking resembles the out-of-control male parent who comes home from work, says to the family “My word is law. If you don’t like it, then get the hell out.” The leadership we need today is more maternal, recognizing that what matters in family disputes is the outcome, what matters is that the next morning, people can still look each other in the eye and live peacefully under the same roof. To the maternal mind, “winning” a dispute is measured only by the degree to which family members are able to cooperate after the dispute is over. Such is the kind of leadership required for human survival in an age of dwindling resources, which is our future. Leadership Limbaugh-style is a vestige from a soon-to-be dead age, the age of consumption, and much like the early hominids you see on those ape-to-man evolutionary charts, as transitional as an ape with a spear.

News: Labor Pained – Labor Secretary Not on Econ Team.
Tuesday 25 November 2008

Ben Smith, The Politico

After actively campaigning for Obama, union members await a decision on who will be the next Labor secretary.

{WE BELIEVE THAT THE NATIONAL ECONOMY SHOULD NOT BE RUN BY THE UNIONS, AS WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD NOT BE RUN BY THE INDUSTRIALISTS OR BY BUSINESS – AND THE TRAVAILS OF DETROIT SHOW PLAINLY HOW UNIONS BECAME PART OF THE DISASTROUS FALL IN THE US ECONOMY BECAUSE OF THE JOINT MANAGEMENT AND LABOR OPPOSITION TO MODERNIZE THE INDUSTRY.

YES, WASHINGTON MUST GET THE GUTS TO TELL LABOR THAT THE NATIONAL INTEREST REQIRES CHANGE   – AS IT HAS TO TELL MANAGEMENT THAT WITHOUT CLEAR PLANS FOR CHANGE THERE IS NO BAILOUT! }

The markets rose on the news of Barack Obama’s economic policy team Monday, but some labor spirits fell.

Obama’s team of treasury secretary and four top economic advisers, introduced as the hands that will steer America’s economy, had no particular ties to the labor movement. And Obama’s secretary of labor was not introduced as part of that team – a suggestion that that post will retain its second-tier status and quiet voice in matters central to economic policy.

“I wish that [the secretary of labor] would have been among them,” former Michigan congressman David Bonior, a labor stalwart and member of Obama’s transition team, said of the group at the Chicago press conference. “I hope they take that job seriously.”

Labor’s low profile in Obama’s transition is striking because of unions’ vital role in the general election campaign. While Wall Street split its contributions between Obama and John McCain, labor, after dividing its efforts in the Democratic primary, united behind the Democrat and emerged as by far the strongest outside force in the general election. Unions reportedly spent well over $100 million communicating with their members and other voters. The Service Employees International Union alone spent more than $30 million on an independent campaign for Obama, while many of the AFL-CIO unions played key roles in overcoming potential prejudice among their older, white members.

“You can make the case that Obama wouldn’t have won without the labor movement – troops, money, key states,” said the executive director of the pro-union Labor Research Association, Jonathan Tasini, reflecting a widespread view in the labor ranks. “But when it comes down to it, they don’t have the kind of juice to say, ‘This is how we want the economic team to look.’”

That doesn’t mean labor has no agenda in the transition. They’re expecting a pro-union labor secretary – a shift from Bush’s low-profile Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who was often at odds with organized labor. (Chao is best known as the answer to a trivia question: Who is the only Bush cabinet secretary who will have served all eight years?) Labor is also focused on the job of United States Trade Representative. And they’re debating how hard to push Obama on the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make organizing easier.

Some unions are pushing former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt for labor secretary, though his lobbying and his staunch skepticism of trade may disqualify him; Bonior is backing a lesser-known union operative, Mary Beth Maxwell. Some unions are pushing Leo Hindery, a left-leaning business executive and donor, as trade representative, though many in labor expect Obama to choose a former Clinton Administration technocrat, Lael Brainard, who has pushed for more enforcement of trade agreements.

In maneuvering for the top job, the labor movement is crippled by its internal split. Though leaders would like a pro-labor figure with national stature in the job – “someone with the stature to get into Larry Summers’ face,” Tasini said – the leading candidates seem to have been disqualified. Bonior and SEIU President Andy Stern have taken themselves out of the running. Other large figures are deeply rooted in the feuding sides – the AFL-CIO and Change to Win. Richard Trumka, who played a key role in selling Obama to AFL unions, is the federation’s secretary-treasurer; SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, who was the face of the service unions’ pro-Obama efforts in the general election, is the chair of Change to Win.

“If we believe this election was about rebuilding the middle class and reclaiming the American Dream, the next secretary of labor should be somebody who is passionate about workers and the issues confronting a 21st century workforce,” Burger said in an email.

Labor leaders on both sides of the divide said they expect Obama to choose a neutral, like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who would be a high-profile friend of labor, if an outsider. They’re also hopeful that Obama will pick a trade representative who has committed to introducing enforceable labor standards into trade deals.

“If it’s Sebelius, [union leaders] will pretend to be pleased, but they will simultaneously be disappointed,” said Clete Daniel, a labor historian at Cornell University, who pointed out that she’s a relative outsider from a state whose “right-to-work” laws make union organizing harder. (She has, however, generally backed a labor agenda in Kansas.)

Daniel noted that the power of the position had risen and ebbed since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s high-profile labor secretary, Frances Perkins, reaching lows of obscurity in Republican administrations, and perhaps its highest modern point under Jimmy Carter, whose labor secretary, Ray Marshall, was a well-connected union figure and an important inside player.

President Clinton’s first secretary of labor, Robert Reich, battled Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin for restrictions on trade and additional government spending, but lost.

“Whoever is selected will have a stature not unlike that of Reich, which is a position of secondary influence,” said Daniel.

Unions are also debating what they will ask of the labor secretary. Some have suggested pushing Obama to institute a long list of rule changes and to push hard for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would change the rules in organizing campaigns to favor unions. In a September memo leaked to Politico, John Wilhelm, a close Obama ally who is co-president of Unite HERE, argued that they should eschew specific demands and instead push Obama for key appointments and his bully pulpit.

“We should have only one demand of an Obama administration: that the President of the United States publicly, repeatedly, and strenuously advocate that workers have unions, because unions are necessary to build a good America; that he apply that advocacy to specific worker fights and not just general statements; and that he put people on the [National Labor Relations Board] and in his cabinet who share that view and are committed to implementing it,” Wilhelm wrote.

And labor leaders continue to hope that unions have earned themselves a meaningful voice in Obama’s administration.

“In this kind of environment, with the economy we have, I think this will be a big job,” said Tom Balanoff, the president of SEIU Local 1 in Illinois and an old Obama ally. “I’m sure he’ll pick somebody who understands that that’s a job to promote the interests of labor or workers.”

Nissan to skip Detroit, Chicago auto shows.
The Associated Press, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2008. Reported on Japan Times online.

Nissan Motor Co. said it is pulling out of the Detroit and Chicago auto shows, citing the tough economy and the lack of new vehicles to unveil.

“Based on the fact that we have no major new products to show at the 2009 Detroit and Chicago auto shows, as well as the current economic conditions which will impact the shows’ marketing effectiveness, we have decided to cancel our involvement and participation,” Japan’s third-biggest automaker said.

The announcement comes after Nissan made a splash last week at the Los Angeles Auto Show, where it unveiled the Cube, an updated 370Z roadster and a low-priced Versa. Its Infiniti luxury line unveiled its G37 convertible at the show.

Nissan is the latest and biggest automaker to withdraw from Detroit’s North American International Auto Show, scheduled to take place in January. Mitsubishi, Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and Suzuki have all said they will not attend.

“I certainly respect Nissan and any of the other companies that have to make a decision — hopefully a short-term decision,” said Carl Galeana, cochair of the Detroit show. “It’s tough for everyone right now.”

Although relatively small in terms of consumer attendance, the Detroit show tends to get the most media exposure among the major U.S. auto shows, especially from foreign journalists. The 2008 show attracted about 700,000 attendees last January.

Chris Denove, vice president of J.D. Power & Associates, said Nissan had little reason to spend the money on an appearance in Detroit, given that it already made its big product announcements in Los Angeles.

“Detroit consumers tend to be domestic buyers who typically are connected to one of the Big Three,” Denove said. “Ergo, (there are) not a whole lot of actual customers to reach out to in Detroit (for Nissan), relative to the cost of the show.”

The L.A. Auto Show, which is open until Nov. 30, attracted almost 1 million attendees last year, a spokesman said. The New York Auto Show claims the largest attendance at about 1.2 million. The Chicago show, scheduled for February, does not report attendance figures but claims it is the largest show in terms of space, with 117,000 sq. meters.

Automakers have been cutting back on car shows as they seek to trim their budgets during the difficult economy. General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC scaled back their presence at the L.A. show, where they unveiled no new cars and held no briefings.

Natives Hope Obama Will Be Their President, Too.

By Haider Rizvi from IPS

NEW YORK, Nov 24 (IPS) - During his election campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly said that he cared about the issues facing Native American communities and insisted that they could trust him — pledges that Native leaders are now watching closely as the president-elect appoints a new cabinet and fills other key federal posts.

So far, Obama has named six native political figures to his transition team — half of them assigned to assist in Interior Department policy, budget and personnel changes.

“We’re lucky to have such stellar representatives with people with whom Indian Country has really good relationships,” said Jacqueline Johnson-Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, a nonprofit organisation that represents more than 250 tribes.

Native advocates Mary Smith, Mary McNeil and Yvette Robideaux have been assigned to work on justice, agriculture and health issues, while three current and former attorneys with the Native American Rights Fund — John Echohawk, Keith Harper and Robert Anderson — will advise Obama on changes proposed within the Interior Department.

The Natives, also known as “American Indians”, have their own sovereign governments, which the United States recognises in accordance with its constitution and under treaty obligations. However, as the Native leaders observe, their communities have always suffered from inattention during the transition and early years of past U.S. administrations.

“If appointments and major policy decisions are delayed for extended periods, the long-term issues in Indian Country are left unaddressed and handed on to the next administration,” said Johnson-Pata. .

In her view, “any significant reform efforts must be planned during the transition and start at the beginning of an administration if they are to succeed.”

As he continued to reach out to new voting blocs past summer, Obama made a campaign stop at an Indian reservation in Montana, where he told the audience that, as an African-American, he identified with their struggles.

“I know what it’s like to not always have been respected or to have been ignored and I know what it’s like to struggle and that’s how I think many of you understand what’s happened here on the reservation,” Obama said.

In his speech, Obama added: “A lot of times you have been forgotten, just like African-Americans have been forgotten or other groups in this country have been forgotten.”

Statistics show that the indigenous communities, which constitute about one percent of the U.S. population, are among the most marginalised sections of society with regard to health care, education and employment.

In March 2006 and again in March 2008, a panel of U.N. experts analysed the U.S. government’s treatment of indigenous Americans and ruled that it was guilty of racial discrimination.

In its 2008 report, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) also urged the U.S. to sign onto the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the current administration has continued to reject despite the fact it has been approved by a vast majority of the U.N. member states.

Indigenous rights activists say they hope that the Obama administration would endorse the declaration, which recognised the rights of the indigenous peoples around the world to control their lands and resources and be able to freely practice their belief systems and traditional values without interference from outside forces.

During the Nov. 4 presidential election, a vast majority of Native people voted for Obama, according to Frank LaMere of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, who led the American Indian delegation to the Democratic Convention.

“Obama has stood with us and it is now time that we stand with him,” he said in a statement, describing the Natives’ interest in the political process as unprecedented. “Indian country has responded to the Democratic message of change and the need for urgency.”

“We have many who go without because our leaders have failed us. This election means much to them. Obama understands this while others remain oblivious. Let us, as Native people, help him.”

On the campaign trail in Montana, Obama was adopted as an honourary member of the Crow tribe, a ceremony that native activists say is reserved for special dignitaries. On that occasion, he was given a new name, “Barack Black Eagle”.

Many activists fighting for the rights of indigenous people say they are hoping that the Obama administration would also re-examine the case of Leonard Peltier, the legendary hero of the American Indian Movement who has been behind bars for nearly four decades.

Peltier was arrested after a shootout between American Indian militants and federal agents in Pine Ridge in 1975. Some 60 natives were killed along with two FBI agents. Peltier has consistently refused to claim his innocence and considers his imprisonment an act of racism.

Over the years, a number of world-renowned figures, including the South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have called for Peltier’s release, but in vain. According to Amnesty International, Peltier is a “prisoner of conscience”.

Just three months before the election, Peltier sent a letter to the president-elect from his jail cell, expressing his interest in Obama’s candidacy. “Your election as president of the United States, where slaves and Indians were long considered less than human under the law, will undoubtedly constitute a historic moment in race relations in the United States,” he wrote.

However, at the same time, he did not hesitate to warn Obama against opportunism. “Symbolism alone will not bring about change,” wrote Peltier. “Our young people, black and Native alike, suffer from police brutality and racial profiling.”

“I am, however, concerned that your recent statement on the Sean Bell verdict, in which the New York police officers who fired 50 shots at a young man on the eve of his wedding were acquitted of criminal charges, displays a rather myopic view of the law,” said Peltier.

On April 26, when asked to explain his views on the case, Obama said: “Well, look, obviously there was a tragedy in New York. I said at the time, without benefit of all the facts before me that it looked like a possible case of excessive force. The judge has made his ruling, and we’re a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down.”

That is not how the hero of the indigenous peoples of the land looks at how the U.S. political and legal system works.

“Until the law is harnessed to protect the victims of state violence and racism, it will serve as an instrument of repression, just as the slave codes functioned to sustain and legitimise an inhuman institution,” Peltier wrote in the letter.

***

Still, Obama has reached out more to the Native community than most others with presidential aspirations.

“We will never be able to undo the wrongs that were committed against Native Americans, but what we can do is make sure that we have a president who’s committed to doing what’s right with Native Americans, being full partners, respecting, honouring, working with you,” Obama told the Native crowd back in May.

“That’s the commitment that I’m making to you, and since now I’m a member of the family, you know that I won’t break my commitment.” he said. The question many Natives are now asking is: Will he?  

Waxman’s Win Marks Seismic Shift in House.

The clash between Reps. Henry Waxman (Calif.) and John Dingell (Mich.) was notable in the recently quiet and stable House Democratic caucus.

By Ben Pershing, The Washington Post, November 24, 2008.

Democrats have a comfortable majority now in the House, and they will again in January. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker now, and she will be again in January. In a capital that is in the midst of a titanic change, House Democrats have been a relatively calm sea of stability since Election Day. Until this morning.

Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) defeat of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) for the Energy and Commerce Committee gavel represents a huge shift in the way the Democratic Caucus runs itself, and in the broader culture that has developed over decades around a few hard and fast rules governing the distribution of power on Capitol Hill.

What does Waxman’s victory really mean going forward? Given the shear scope of the panel’s jurisdiction, and how long it’s been since anyone other than Dingell was the committee’s top Democrat, it will be weeks or months before all of the effects of Waxman’s win are known. But here are three implications that are clear right now.

1) Seniority Is Dead. In a way, the House Democratic Caucus has long operated like a public employees’ union. Seniority ruled the day, and if you stuck around long enough — meaning you had a safe enough district to get reelected cycle after cycle — you would keep moving up the committee ladder, almost without regard for merit. That’s not to say the current crop of chairmen are necessarily bad at their jobs (though some probably are), only that the people who hold gavels don’t necessarily have them because they are the agreed-upon masters of their field.

In theory, Democrats did away with seniority as the determinative principle for chairmen back in 1974, but in practice the longest-serving committee member has nearly always gotten the gavel.

Notably, since Democrats captured control of the House in the 2006 elections, Pelosi has kept on the books a Republican-authored rule mandating six-year term limits for chairmen, so many of the current chairs would be termed out in 2012. But there have been rumbles from Dingell and his ilk that they would try to get that rule scrapped, a step that appears highly unlikely given today’s events.

Now, there are some nervous chairmen out there. If Dingell can be beaten, why not Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) or Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.)? Yes, those chairmen will support each other, just as most probably voted for Dingell. But there are a lot more members in the Democratic Caucus who aren’t chairmen than members who are, and many of them would like their own shots at a gavel someday.

Also nervous today — lobbyists. The seniority system has made it easy for K Street to know who will be in charge of a committee tomorrow, and the day after that, and thus where to put its money and whose former aides to hire. The system begat a cycle: The longer chairmen stayed in place, the more allies they had on K Street and the more money they raised, thereby cementing their power and helping them stay even longer.

Dingell has been the top Democrat on the Energy panel for 27 years. Is that really fair to the other members of the committee? The most common argument made in favor of the seniority system is that it allows chairmen to build up expertise. But Waxman has been on the committee for more than three decades himself. Is he really not an expert? Obviously, the “seniority = expertise” argument didn’t fly today with the majority of the Democratic Caucus, which means it probably never will again.

After this morning, seniority isn’t out the window altogether — no freshman will chair a committee anytime soon — but it’s hurting.

2) Ideology Matters. The fact that seniority was the deciding factor in handing out chairmanships for so long meant that ideology wasn’t. Members didn’t get and keep their gavels because the majority of their colleagues thought they were right on the issues, they got them because their constituents did and kept sending them back to Washington for another term.

The lawmakers who can be reelected for decades tend to be from the safest districts. Which has generally meant that the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats have accrued seniority. Dingell is an unusual case, in that he is actually to the right of his Caucus on a few issues, notably on abortion and, most importantly, on the environment. His district has a massive auto industry presence and his wife, Debbie, is a senior executive at General Motors; she is actually a descendant of the company’s founders.

So for years, Dingell has resisted efforts to force auto companies to make cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Though there are other Democrats who represent industrial states and share Dingell’s concerns, most members of the party lean toward the environmentalist side. Dingell simply does not represent the majority of Democrats’ views on environmental issues, and until today, he suffered no consequences for that.

Now, he’s suffering, and the next time a chairman decides to use his committee to advance the interests of his district while ignoring the interests of most of his colleagues, he might think twice.

3) Pelosi Rules. Lest anyone doubted who was in charge of House Democrats, today’s vote provided a helpful reminder.

Pelosi was publicly neutral in the race, but her silence spoke volumes. Her unwillingness to back the longtime chairman or publicly back the seniority system made it clear where she stood. Generally, if journalists write something that Pelosi or her staff think is wrong, they will hear about it in short order. Many reporters wrote that Pelosi was believed to be silently backing her fellow Californian Waxman, and Pelosi’s office made no effort to dissuade the press from that storyline.

(House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), meanwhile, tried to broker a deal between the two gavel contenders and then spoke out in favor of Dingell at Wednesday’s Steering Committee meeting, and Dingell lost that vote anyway, before losing today’s as well.)

Pelosi has made it clear to chairmen since becoming Speaker that they answer to her. Most of the time, their interests and hers coincide, but her battles with Dingell have been the most high-profile exception. The Speaker created a special panel on global warming issues specifically because she knew Dingell wouldn’t move a bill she found acceptable, and then Dingell mocked and tried to stymie the creation of that special committee. Pelosi is a committed environmentalist, and Waxman’s win has cleared away her biggest internal obstacle to passing more stringent regulations on that front.

Beyond Dingell, the erosion of the seniority system means that Pelosi’s hand is stronger than it was yesterday. Whereas before chairmen were able to defy their leaders largely without fear of losing their jobs, now they know that’s no longer the case. Pelosi was already shaping up to be one of the most powerful Speakers in recent history. Now, with chairmen less likely to freelance and a larger majority being sworn in next January, she’s even stronger.

By Ben Pershing |   November 20, 2008

Obama, the Senate, and China … All Eying the Big 3
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 11:09 AM on November 21, 2008.

“If I was GM’s CEO, I’d be on a plane to China.”

I see the Obama team is already denying this:

“President-Elect Barack Obama’s transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry’s financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Obama’s team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy- law firm to say that Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school who heads Obama’s economic policy working group, would call to discuss the workings of a so-called prepack, according to this person.

Since the election, Team Obama has become “trial balloon central” (if they were genuinely serious about firing the leaker, Rahm Emanuel would hit the Chief Of Staff revolving door post-haste).   They have been strategically using the media to test public opinion, but in this case I’d imagine they also did so with the intent to force the unions, bond holders and other stakeholders in the Big 3 into a more pliant negotiating position.

It was interesting to watch how quickly the chess pieces moved yesterday in the Senate.   As soon as the Senators from Big 3 states called a press conference to announce their bipartisan plan to repurpose the Energy Bill money as a bridge loan, Reid and Pelosi stepped on their press conference and said they were calling a special lame duck session to deal with the problem.   They usurped the cameras and demanded the delivery of a restructuring plan to Dodd and Frank’s committees on December 2 — something Obama had quietly called for in his 60 Minutes appearance only last Sunday.

If I was Waggoner, I’d be on a plane to China right now (probably coach).   The Chinese have announced their desire to buy the Big 3.   Why not?   It would allow all their debts to be paid off so their suppliers and other creditors won’t go under in a domino effect, their stockholders won’t get shafted (which should make Wall Street happy), and they could easily make both interest payments to bondholders and   the $35 billion payment to the VEBA fund that will take UAW pension and health care legacy costs off their books.

However, there are some long-term implications that could make this less than appealing for the US.   As Ian Welsh has pointed out, there’s a reason the Chinese are so keen to buy a US automaker:

The moment when China becomes a consumer driven society is the moment when the US loses its leadership of the world, and when if it’s economy isn’t in good shape, it crashes out.

[]

Why?   Because the US needs massive inflows of money from nations like China and Japan in order to finance both the government and private consumption.   China and Japan, and other countries, for that matter, have amassed holdings of US securities, cash and so on, in the many trillions, as a result.   They have been willing to buy assets that they know they will probably not see a full real return on because the US buys their exports, and in China’s case, is busily shipping American jobs to China, thus industrializing China.

The world needs the US because the US is the “consumer of last resort”.   It buys everyone else’s stuff, issues a pile of securities and dollars in exchange, and exports industrialization to China in exchange for deindustrialization and cheap consumer goods at home, which kept down inflation for a very long time.

[]

At the current time, China is not ready to have a consumer society.   As Stirling points out, it’s about 2 economic cycles away from being able to switch to one.   If it gets to buy up a US car company, it’s probably one cycle away.   Since the US is in a really really deep hole and currently digging deeper at a ferocious rate (the five trillion spent on the financial crisis will add to the US’s outstanding debt) when this happens is a big deal.   Two economic cycles gives America longer to get its house in order and fix things so that when China does take off, it doesn’t find itself unarmed with every major nation in the world able to annihilate its economy whenever they feel like and take only minor losses themselves.

I’m supportive of Obama’s idea that there needs to be a plan going forward for Big 3 viability before they get a bridge loan, but “viability” may not mean “profitability.” If we’re serious about converting to a green economy, when gas prices are low people want to buy the gas guzzlers that Toyota and BMW and Mercedes are still making in Richard Shelby’s right-to-work state.   You can’t demand that the Big 3 be profitable and make fuel efficient cars that people don’t want to buy, so you’ve either got to levy an unpopular gas tax or give people other incentives to make the cars attractive.

The fact is that the Big 3 and the UAW   have already made a lot of the structural changes and compromises that they need to make going forward, and holding the threat of “organized bankruptcy” over their heads when a buyer is standing there waiting in the wings seems unrealistic.

If we’re playing chicken here, let’s let Richard Shelby and Jim Inhofe go back to their states and tell their constituents that Chevy is being sold to the Chinese (Inhofe visibly bristled at the very suggestion on CSPAN the other day).

That’ll go over well.

Tagged as: china, obama, gm, green economy, economic crisis, the senate, the big 3
Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.

Bailout or Bust: How to Save the Big Three From Themselves?

Opinion by: Titus Levi, Truthdig, Thursday, November 29, 2008.

CEO’s of the big three automakers were on Capital Hill Wednesday requesting a bailout. (Photo: Getty Images)
The American automobile industry occupies a near-mythic status in the nation’s cultural and economic imagination. President-elect Barack Obama echoes the sentiments of many when he says that Detroit is “the backbone of American manufacturing.” If it is-Detroit’s economic importance is great but now occupies a lesser role than it did before it entered a slow-but-steady decline in the 1970s-then it suffers from acute and advanced damage that will require major surgery. And like any major surgery, treating Detroit’s malaise will be a complicated affair with no assurance of success. However, doing nothing may be worse, especially for the state of Michigan.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics’ figures for September 2008, Michigan’s labor force was about 4.9 million, with about 4.5 million holding jobs. That’s a significant decline from September 2007, when the labor force numbered just over 5 million, with 4.6 million employed. The state lost roughly 149,000 jobs in the period and saw unemployment rise from 7.3 percent to 8.7 percent, which is 2.2 points higher than the national average. The rate would have been even higher if people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force altogether.

The Big Three trimmed thousands of jobs in the state during that period, which no doubt triggered additional job cuts among automotive subcontractors and suppliers, various retailers, and even homebuilders and home improvement firms. These job losses keep politicians, business leaders and citizens up late at night. As Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm recently quipped: “Forget ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ Here it’s ‘Jobs, baby, jobs.’ “

All told, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler employ somewhere around 500,000 people, many of them outside Michigan. However, these figures underestimate the total employment impact, since at least 3 million Americans rely on the U.S. auto industry for their jobs, with the highest concentration in and around Michigan. The Center for Automotive Research calculates much higher estimates: about 7 million jobs directly and indirectly tied to the industry, with 2.5 million hanging in the balance in the event of a 50 percent contraction in output from the Big Three.

This brings us to a simple cost-benefit analysis: $25 billion in loans for the industry that will save millions of jobs and about $150 billion in economic activity in 2009 alone. So it’s a no-brainer, right? Well, not exactly.

There is no guarantee that throwing money at Detroit will save these companies and the network of jobs that they sustain. Even if the companies do survive, we can almost certainly anticipate steep job losses anyway. Job losses will be increased if GM and Chrysler’s parent company, Cerberus Capital Management merge. But will cutting jobs now spare jobs in the long run? That question dominates all others in the conversation.

Focusing on jobs moves us from an argument about nostalgia for American manufacturing prowess and bailouts of large, and largely incompetent, firms to the more meaningful conversation about livelihoods. Doing so takes us beyond purely economic analysis, since the value of a job exceeds its economic value to individuals, their families and their communities. Livelihood includes paying for basics like food and shelter, but also touches upon important, if hard to measure, assets like one’s sense of identity and the health of neighborhoods and towns.

Applying a cold, hard economic calculus would probably throw cold water on the idea of a bailout for Detroit. First, the companies may well be beyond hope. They have been slow to change, they repeat the same mistakes and they turn out products that too often do not compete successfully with imports. Quality, safety, durability and customer satisfaction numbers remain spotty. Moreover, the so-called “bridge” funding that Detroit hopes to receive may be a bridge to nowhere: It will take years to work off the debts that weigh down consumers and governments, which will constrain spending for several quarters if not years.

Once we emerge from this hole, Americans may renounce our spendthrift ways and that could leave the entire automobile market much smaller over time. In short, the demand side of the market may not rebound sufficiently to resuscitate Detroit. The supply side looks no better: Over time, Detroit will face tough competition on many fronts. Japanese, German, Korean-and it had to happen-Chinese and Indian automakers will battle American carmakers tooth-and-nail. Simply put, the amount of money that Detroit can earn over the next 10 years may not cover the “loans” they want from the Feds. Taxpayers will likely end up footing the bill.

But if Detroit doesn’t get an infusion of cash, then what? The companies could declare bankruptcy, but so far they have stubbornly refused to consider that possibility-with good reason. Market research shows that 80 percent of consumers will not buy cars from insolvent firms. Therefore, GM’s leadership equates bankruptcy with liquidation. However, this view may well be somewhat overwrought. Bankruptcy would likely allow some leaner, meaner and more durable versions of GM and/or Ford to survive. (Chrysler looks like a dead duck; the only reason GM has any interest in the firm is its $11 billion cash stash.) Overcapacity could be pared back more rapidly under the watchful eye of bankruptcy courts and the companies could shed various obligations. This bodes ill for livelihoods and communities and must be carefully managed to lessen the damage to both. However, while going the bankruptcy route may make short-term economic sense, it may be too high a price to pay in terms of the devastation it would inflict on jobs, families and communities.

So what to do? No shortage of ideas have floated through the media, the blogosphere (The Huffington Post has been especially active on the subject, including articles by Neil Young, GM family man Ricky van Veen, and Raymond J. Learsy), broadcasters’ letters’ sections, and probably over many a kitchen table conversation, including my own, where friends engaged in a spirited examination of Detroit’s tendency to confuse novelty-releasing “new models” each year-with genuine innovation.

First, let’s put together a careful cost-benefit analysis. To begin with, Detroit must open its books to thorough scrutiny, and that includes the tight-lipped Cerberus. As a taxpayer, I’m sick and tired of the leap-before-you-look approach to taking action. I’m equally exasperated with Detroit’s tired claims of “trust us, we’re professionals” in demonstrating genuine recalcitrance to changing its organizational culture.

Second, we need to produce a no-holds-barred assessment of the managerial dysfunction at these firms and come to terms with what needs to be done to improve performance and change organizational cultures for the better. Given the track record of these firms, and their reaction to the bad news that immediately had them pulling back on innovation and new product development, I’m not sanguine about the quality or nimbleness of the current leadership. They have to go as part of this process.

Third, jettison utterly hopeless brands and initiatives like Hummer while focusing on integrating innovative ideas into GM’s R&D, design and production systems.

Fourth, engage in a thoughtful analysis of what individuals, families and communities lose in an environment of sweeping job losses and what can be done to ease the pain. This is especially important in places like Michigan, which will suffer near-Great Depression levels of unemployment and disruption, at least in the short run.

Fifth, Detroit could become a public-private partnership built around encouraging innovative and viable ideas in transportation technology. This would allow the automakers to readily leverage the research going on in the U.S. on various fronts and to create systems for developing ideas into commercially viable packages and processes. Even if the Little Two lose some money, they will provide jobs and harness economic benefits that will accrue across the country and even the world.

Finally, if GM and Ford do go into bankruptcy, they probably need to be given some federal support in the form of debtor-in-financing, since financial markets will not back Detroit given the conditions of banks and the auto industry.

My instincts as an economist tell me to cut the Big Three loose, letting them go into bankruptcy so that “the market” can decide their fate, but my heart tells me that we must do something to assure that communities most dependent on the automotive industry and its jobs do not suffer as post-Katrina New Orleans-or pre-Katrina New Orleans-has. After all, that city suffered through a century of decline before its final humiliation and abandonment. Parts of Michigan have endured long-term decline as well, and this experiment in market adjustment has produced far too many losers to regard as anything like a successful treatment.

As a nation and as an economy, we probably can survive the loss of cities like Detroit and Flint, but letting that happen will likely bring on human losses that do not show up in economic statistics. As we decide the automobile industry’s fate, we need to consider something else in this process: What kind of lives will we consign the people of Michigan to living? What kind of people have we become when we plan for, and perhaps execute, the demise of whole cities and even states? How can we prevent genuine harm from coming about and begin the healing process for those who have been and will continue to be displaced by the shrinking of the U.S. automobile industry? How can we, to borrow a sentiment from Albert Camus, strive our utmost to be healers?