Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Nationalize GM — Or at Least Think About It
Robert Weissman, CommonDreams
With the U.S. government offering trillions of dollars in supports for the financial sector, it is startling to witness the casual way in which many policy makers and opinion leaders suggest the U.S. auto companies should be allowed to go bankrupt.
In considerable part, this attitude reflects an anti-union and anti-blue collar animus. It also reflects the diminished economic power of what was formerly known as the Big Three (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler).
The stakes are too high for policy to be influenced by misinformation and ideological bias. The auto companies need to be saved, on terms that protect workers and communities, and advance public objectives. Congress and the country should be debating those terms, not dithering with unrealistic discussions of bankruptcy or demands to reduce already shrunken union wages and benefits.
… But at least as important for those who want to see the industry aggressively adopt fuel efficient and zero carbon emission technologies is this: Bankruptcy would limit the automakers’ flexibility, and make it much harder for them to make expensive, long-term investment decisions. This is particularly true while oil prices are depressed. Things were different six months ago (and likely will be again in the not-distant future), but right now the market signals are wrong for investments in energy efficiency.
… The biggest advantage of buying the companies is that it would enable the public to exert control over the companies commensurate with its investment. There would be no need
to negotiate with management, or carefully monitor managerial actions, to review 9-point plans for viability, or create incentives to have them invest in fuel-efficient technology. It would make it possible to undertake long-term, transformative investments in R&D and new transportation technologies, irrespective of today’s oil price.
… On the other hand, nationalizing the companies would entail many complications and difficulties, including managing relations with workers and plants around the world, fair dealing with suppliers and workers at suppliers, and the inherent complexity of running multinational auto companies.
Is a true nationalization the best option? Maybe, maybe not.
Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action.
(3 December 2008)
Michael Moore: Saving the Big 3 for You and Me…
Michael Moore, Common Dreams
… Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three [automaker] companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl — ever — I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they’ll be back for another $34 billion next summer.
So what to do? Members of Congress, here’s what I propose:
1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.
2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You’re going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the “loan,” and because we know they will default on that loan, you’re going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)
3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.
This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I’m proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the ’70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.
This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure — and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.
(3 December 2008)
Bike like it’s 1929 with end-of-the-economy bicycle gear tips
Sarah Gilbert, WalletPop
Now that it’s official, and all, that we’re in a recession, it’s even smarter to sell all your earthly gas-guzzling possessions and buy bikes. Many proponents of Peak Oil, and even generally conservative folks who are becoming decidedly alarmist, are predicting enormous increases in gas prices sometime in the next decade. Bike folk hope it will happen sooner.
Be prepared. Even if it’s not Global Economic Gas Crisis, maybe (as in the scenario covered in this excellent blog post) you’re in debt, out of credit, and suddenly become under-employed, you may find yourself in need of a new reality that doesn’t include spending hundreds each month on gas, maintenance, and car insurance. What kind of bike do you need for your own personal End Times?
… TH refers to the bike culture of Cuba as an example; I often look to the example of Amsterdam, where a large portion of the population uses bicycles as their chief mode of transportation. The Dutch often patch their tubes dozens of times; they cycle for utility, not speed, so often don’t wear helmets (they’re not going that fast, after all); they prefer a bike that works than one that looks cool or has the hottest new technology.
(3 December 2008)
