Public forum debate
BIOFUELS FROM WASTE ARE NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE
Download 218.84 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 6. CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS THREATEN SURVIVAL OF THE EARTH a. THEY WILL CAUSE MASSIVE DEFORESTATION
- SK/C09. HYDROGEN IS DOOMED TO FAILURE 1. THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY IS A SHAM
- 2. HYDROGEN CANNOT REPLACE GASOLINE
- 3. HYDROGEN WILL INCREASE CARBON EMISSIONS
- SK/C10. ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE DOOMED TO FAILURE 1. ELECTRIC VEHICLES FAIL TO ACHIEVE ENERGY SAVINGS
- 2. HYBRIDS DISPLACE ONLY A MINISCULE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE
- 3. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS ARE A PASSING FAD
- SK/C11. LIQUEFIED COAL IS DOOMED TO FAILURE 1. LIQUEFIED COAL INCREASES CARBON EMISSIONS
- 2. LIQUEFIED COAL INCREASES WATER POLLUTION
- 3. LIQUEFIED COAL EXACERBATES WATER SHORTAGES
- 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS
- SK/C12. AUTO INDUSTRY WILL CIRCUMVENT MANDATES 1. AUTO INDUSTRY HAS CIRCUMVENTED PAST MANDATES
- 2. AUTO INDUSTRY WILL PAY PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING MANDATES
- SK/C13. AUTO INDUSTRY BANKRUPTCY WILL DESTROY ECONOMY 1. AUTO INDUSTRY IS ON THE VERGE OF BANKRUPTCY
- 2. MANDATING FUEL ALTERNATIVES WILL TRIGGER CATASTROPHE
- 3. GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREDICT VIABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR 2040
- 4. AUTO INDUSTRY BANKRUPTCY WILL DESTROY U.S. ECONOMY
5. BIOFUELS FROM WASTE ARE NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE SK/C08.07) Richard D. Firn, WORLD WATCH, May-June 2008, p. 2, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. "The future of biofuels is cellulosic fuels ... they do not compete for prime cropland ... and even restore degraded lands ...." I was saddened by these quotes from Raya Widenoja's response to Heinrich Smith's timely criticism of biofuels [January/February "From Readers"] because the quotes were based on the new hype that cellulosic fuels will simply use "waste" biomass. There is no waste cellulose. Every cellulose molecule is fuel for some organism and that organism undoubtedly lies at the bottom of some food chain. Consequently the use of crop waste, forest waste, or any other carbon source currently unexploited by humans simply increases the share of the global carbon cycle that humans use. Can you seriously argue that there would be no ecological consequences? 6. CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS THREATEN SURVIVAL OF THE EARTH a. THEY WILL CAUSE MASSIVE DEFORESTATION SK/C08.08) Mark Lynas, NEW STATESMAN, April 21, 2008, p. 24, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. The industry claims that "second-generation" biofuels, using by-products such as corn stalks and woodchip as a feedstock, will be able to redress the balance. But if this technological advance is achieved (and that is by no means certain) it could usher in an even worse scenario: the annihilation of the world's forests. If all plant life was seen as potentially convertible for transport fuel, there would be nothing to stop what was left of the planet's biosphere from being strip-mined to keep rich motorists on the road. b. DEFORESTATION WILL BE DEATH KNELL FOR THE PLANET SK/C08.09) Glen Barry [President, Ecological Internet], SYNTHESIS/REGENERATION, Fall 2007, p. 7, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Coal burning and forest loss have been the leading culprits in climate change to date, and should their continued use at any scale be pursued as the solution to climate change and energy security, it will prove the death-knell for the planet. SK/C09. HYDROGEN IS DOOMED TO FAILURE 1. THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY IS A SHAM SK/C09.01) Robert Zubrin [President of aerospace engineering & research firm Pioneer Astronautics], THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, March 2006, p. 16, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. The energy panacea of the moment is a concept called the "hydrogen economy." Theorists propose to transition U.S. energy usage to hydrogen--a common element which, when combined with oxygen, releases energy with only water as a waste product. With hydrogen, it is claimed, we can achieve not only energy independence but also an end to pollution and global warming at the same time. The concept is entirely fraudulent. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. In order to be obtained, it must be made--either through the electrolysis of water, or through the breakdown of petroleum, natural gas, or coal. Either process necessarily consumes more energy than the hydrogen it produces. SK/C09.02) Robert Zubrin [President of aerospace engineering & research firm Pioneer Astronautics], THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, March 2006, p. 16, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. While hydrogen could also be produced by nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, or wind power, the process would continue to be dragged down by the fundamental inefficiency of hydrogen production. Such power supplies could always do more to reduce fossil fuel requirements simply by sending their electric power directly to the grid. The bottom line is that hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a carrier of energy, and one of the least practical carriers we know of. SK/C09.03) Robert Zubrin [President of aerospace engineering & research firm Pioneer Astronautics], THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, March 2006, p. 16, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. In short, from the point of view of production, distribution, environmental impact, and ease of use, the hydrogen economy makes no sense. Its fundamental premise is at variance with the most basic laws of physics. The charlatans who are promoting hydrogen as a solution to our energy woes are doing the nation an immense disservice. 2. HYDROGEN CANNOT REPLACE GASOLINE SK/C09.04) Paul Roberts, MOTHER JONES, May-June 2008, p. 30, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. If we distilled our entire corn crop into ethanol, the fuel produced would displace less than a sixth of the gasoline we currently guzzle, and other candidates, like hydrogen, are even more marginal. 3. HYDROGEN WILL INCREASE CARBON EMISSIONS SK/C09.05) Robert Zubrin [President of aerospace engineering & research firm Pioneer Astronautics], THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, March 2006, p. 16, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Hydrogen produced from hydrocarbons instead of water also throws away 40 to 60 percent of the total energy in the feedstock. This method actually increases the nation's need for fossil fuels, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. SK/C10. ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE DOOMED TO FAILURE 1. ELECTRIC VEHICLES FAIL TO ACHIEVE ENERGY SAVINGS SK/C10.01) Peter Katel, CQ RESEARCHER, January 4, 2008, p. 14. The reliance on wall current, though, raises the question of whether the plug-ins wind up burning as much energy as the hybrid models now on sale. Alternative-energy advocatrs raise another objection. “If you start plugging in hundreds of cars all at once, you’ll be finding out what the limits of the electricity grid are real quick,” Paul Cass, a representative of Ballard Power Systems, a Canadian firm, told the LOS ANGELES TIMES at an alternative-vehicle convention. SK/C10.02) Peter Katel, CQ RESEARCHER, January 4, 2008, p. 19. But some energy experts sound a note of caution. Hirsch, who directed the peak-oil study for the Department of Energy, supports plug-ins but says they can create as many problems as they solve. "Imagine you have a lot of plug-in hybrids, enough to make a difference in U.S. oil consumption. Recharging them in off-peak hours - you can do that for a while. But if you're going to have a big impact, then you're going to have to build a lot of power plants.” 2. HYBRIDS DISPLACE ONLY A MINISCULE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE SK/C10.03) Robert Zubrin [President of aerospace engineering & research firm Pioneer Astronautics], THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, March 2006, p. 16, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Even if Americans were to buy only hybrid cars offering a 30 percent fuel saving over existing models, and none of them drove more, and there was no expansion in the U.S. vehicle fleet, this effort would result in only a 3 percent annual reduction in global gasoline use. 3. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS ARE A PASSING FAD SK/C10.04) AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, February 25, 2008, p. 4, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Auto executives lament what they call "technology du jour” - a tendency to keep seeking new cures for the automobile's ills. In the past 25 years, the list has been topped by methanol, all-electric power, hybrids, fuel cells, ethanol and now plug-in hybrids, they say. The constant changes in priorities are "extremely disruptive and wasteful,” says John German, manager of environmental and energy analysis at American Honda Motor Co. SK/C10.05) David Rotman [Editor], TECHNOLOGY REVIEW, January-February 2008, p. 42, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Climate change, he [Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems] says, is "by far the biggest issue" driving his interest in biofuels. If we want to head off climate change and decrease consumption of gasoline, "there are no alternatives" to using cellulosic biofuels for transportation. "Biomass is the only feedstock in sufficient quantities to cost-effectively replace oil," he says. "Nothing else exists." Hybrid and electric vehicles, he adds, are "just toys." SK/C11. LIQUEFIED COAL IS DOOMED TO FAILURE 1. LIQUEFIED COAL INCREASES CARBON EMISSIONS SK/C11.01) Lamar Alexander [U.S. Senator], ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, Summer 2008, p. 39, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Turning coal into liquid fuel is an established technology but expensive and a producer of much carbon. SK/C11.02) David Hawkins [Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council], CQ RESEARCHER, October 5, 2007, p. 833. Coal is a carbon-intensive fuel, containing double the amount of carbon per unit of energy compared to natural gas and about 50 percent more than petroleum. When coal is converted to liquid fuels, two streams of CO2 are produced: one at the liquid-coal production plant and the second from the exhausts of the vehicles that burn the fuel....[E]ven if the CO2 from the synfuel production plant is captured, there is no prospect that liquid fuel made with coal as the sole feedstock can achieve the significant reductions in fossil carbon content that we need to protect the climate. SK/C11.03) David Hawkins [Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council], CQ RESEARCHER, October 5, 2007, p. 833. EPA's analysis finds that without carbon capture life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-to-liquid fuels would be more than twice as high as from conventional diesel fuel (118 percent higher). Assuming carbon capture and storage, EPA finds that life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-to-liquid fuels would he 3.7 percent higher than from conventional diesel fuel. SK/C11.04) Matthew Brown, THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, March 22, 2008, p. 8, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Custom Newspapers. In addition, coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some leading lawmakers reject claims it can be transformed into a clean fuel. Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil. "We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said. SK/C11.05) Darrin Younker, E, March-April 2008, p. 10, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. According to Rich, fuel produced at his plant would reduce greenhouse gases and provide a ready source of American energy, in sharp contrast to the instability of Mideast oil. "We are cleaner, we are safer and we are cheaper," Rich says. "We are cleaning up the atmosphere." Those claims are hard to support. Although the plant would produce fuel that is virtually free of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, the process of making it would spew more than 2.2 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year. A Department of Energy (DOE) review of the project concedes that the facility would emit CO2 at levels 80 percent above those produced by oil refining and automotive exhaust. 2. LIQUEFIED COAL INCREASES WATER POLLUTION SK/C11.06) Darrin Younker, E, March-April 2008, p. 10, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. John W. Rich, Jr., president of Waste Management and Processors, believes the solution to America's energy crisis lies in this heap of waste. Since 1997, Rich has pursued an $800 million coal-to-liquids (CLT) plant in rural Mahanoy Township, Pennsylvania. He was the first to propose building a CLT plant in the U.S. Using South African technology, the plant would take coal waste and transform it into a fuel Rich claims is more environmentally friendly than conventional gasoline. But environmental groups charge that this "clean" technology is downright filthy. SK/C11.07) Darrin Younker, E, March-April 2008, p. 10, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Mike Ewall, director of the Philadelphia-based ActionPA, has fought Rich's proposal since its inception. Besides CO2, Ewall points out, the plant would produce toxic coal ash, 400 tons of sludge, and discharge 1.6 billion gallons of wastewater into local creeks. "This is the worst way we could produce liquid fuels," he says. 3. LIQUEFIED COAL EXACERBATES WATER SHORTAGES SK/C11.08) David Hawkins [Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council], CQ RESEARCHER, October 5, 2007, p. 833. According to the Department of Energy's Idaho National Lib, approximately 12-14 barrels of water are used for every barrel of liquid coal. Therefore the water requirement necessary to meet the needs of an 80,000 BPD [barrels per day] liquid-coal plant could require sourcing about 40 million gallons of water per day (14 billion gallons per year). The 40 million gallons of water per day needed for an 80,000 BPD liquid coal facility is enough water to meet the domestic needs of more than 200,000 people. . . . There are already serious water-supply problems in Western states such as Montana and Wyoming, where most of our cheap coal supplies are located. . . . 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS SK/C11.09) David Hawkins [Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council], CQ RESEARCHER, October 5, 2007, p. 833. The impacts that a large liquid-coal program could have on global warming pollution, conventional air pollution and damage from expanded coal production are substantial - so substantial that using coal to make liquid fuel would likely create far worse problems than it attempts to solve. SK/C12. AUTO INDUSTRY WILL CIRCUMVENT MANDATES 1. AUTO INDUSTRY HAS CIRCUMVENTED PAST MANDATES SK/C12.01) Harry Stoffer, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, February 11, 2008, p. 3, Online, GAGE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. One example of unintended consequence: The law's milder standards for "work trucks” open a loophole through which automakers can drive an array of big, luxurious pickups, says environmeal activist John DeCicco. "Manufacturers have proven adept” at exploiting legal definitions, says DeCicco, a longtime student of the corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE. Analysts identify other possible unanticipated outcomes of the CAFE law passed late last year: Automakers may take advantage of planned sliding scales for fuel economy targets by pushing wheels out to vehicles' far corners to qualify for softer regulations. Although the law aims to encourage higher mpg through new technology, automakers instead could rely on cutting vehicle weight to meet standards, with a possible negative impact on occupant safety. SK/C12.02) Harry Stoffer, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, February 11, 2008, p. 3, Online, GAGE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. The first federal fuel economy law, enacted in 1975, had much tougher standards for cars than for trucks. The different treatment spawned new classes of vehicles: minivans, SUVs and crossovers. Many consumers were unhappy with scaled-down and underpowered, if more efficient, cars. So the industry responded with vehicles that met the loose legal definition of trucks and qualified for the milder standards. The result: the truck boom that effectively ended fuel economy gains 20 years ago. 2. AUTO INDUSTRY WILL PAY PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING MANDATES SK/C12.03) Harry Stoffer, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, February 11, 2008, p. 3, Online, GAGE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Cohen [chief Washington lobbyist for Honda North America Inc.] also suspects that more companies may choose to pay fines for CAFE violations than in the past, because the cost of compliance with the new, tougher standards will be higher. Traditionally, only makers of premium vehicles notably Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche - have paid such fines. SK/C12.04) Harry Stoffer, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, February 11, 2008, p. 3, Online, GAGE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. The nation's new fuel economy law could have unintended effects on vehicle design and safety, industry analysts say. And some industry executives suggest that more automakers may choose to pay penalties for breaking the law rather than build vehicles the companies fear customers may reject. SK/C13. AUTO INDUSTRY BANKRUPTCY WILL DESTROY ECONOMY 1. AUTO INDUSTRY IS ON THE VERGE OF BANKRUPTCY SK/C13.01) Jamie LaReau, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, November 17, 2008, p. 1, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. In two to four months, GM will run out of cash and turn out the lights. Only government money can prevent that. Every other alternative is fantasy. The $25 billion in loans that Congress approved to partially fund improvements in fuel economy? Irrelevant. Dead automakers do not invest in technology. The collapse of credit has crushed the American car market, dried up revenues for the Detroit 3 and highlighted their weaknesses. Each of the Detroit 3 is in crisis. SK/C13.02) Bill Saporito, TIME, November 24, 2008, p. 35, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. For months, General motors had been telling everyone who would listen that bankruptcy was not an option. It had a $30 billion cash pile and plans to restructure the company as the economy rebounded and 2007 U.S. auto sales topped 16 million units. Then came October. Sales plummeted an astounding 45% over the same period last year, a result of a slowing economy and a dearth of financing for would-be car buyers. Total U.S. car and light-truck sales this year could come in at 13.5 million, 2.6 million fewer than last year. "That's in nobody's business plan," says Kimberly Rodriguez, an automotive specialist with Grant Thornton. "The best planning in the world cannot survive that fluctuation." It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. SK/C13.03) Amanda Ruggeri, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November 18, 2008, pNA, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. General Motors, for example, may have to file for bankruptcy within weeks, and yesterday sold its 3 percent stake in Japanese carmaker Suzuki to try to raise cash. Meanwhile, Ford announced today that it will sell its 20 percent stake in Japanese auto company Mazda. 2. MANDATING FUEL ALTERNATIVES WILL TRIGGER CATASTROPHE SK/C13.04) Craig S. Marxsen [Associate Professor of Economics, U. of Nebraska-Kearney], INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Spring 2008, p. 537, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Devotees of the collapse hypothesis have helped propel a regulatory campaign to discourage investment in petroleum-refining capacity, naively hoping both to head off exhaustion of fossil resources and to prevent an alleged global-warming crisis they fear will come after the lifetimes of people now living. The real threat of economic collapse, however, springs from the fright-induced failure to invest in refining and fuel-synthesizing capacity. Belief in the catastrophists' collapse hypothesis thus itself threatens to bring real catastrophe to our modern industrial world. SK/C13.05) AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, March 3, 2008, p. 12, Online, GAGE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Meeting CAFE will be expensive. Meeting California standards, too, could be crippling. Automakers might be forced to build a single fleet that meets California standards, even though they already say they may have trouble selling vehicles to Americans that meet the less stringent federal standards. 3. GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREDICT VIABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR 2040 SK/C13.06) James B. Meigs [Editor], POPULAR MECHANICS, February 2008, p. 54, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. In fact, governments generally have a bad track record when it comes to picking technologies. In the midst of an earlier oil crunch, President Jimmy Carter seized on "synfuels"--refined from oil shale deposits--as a panacea. Oops. Synfuels turned out to be woefully uneconomic, environmentally disastrous and feasible only with massive government subsidies. It took years to kill the program off--and the last of the multibillion-dollar tax credits just expired in 2007. SK/C13.07) David Rotman [Editor], TECHNOLOGY REVIEW, March-April 2008, p. 90, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. History provides a lesson about the messiness of predicting the market for an energy technology. Almost three decades ago, as the price of oil reached $40 a barrel and many expels worried that it was headed for $80 or even $100, President Jimmy Carter signed the Energy Security Act of 1980. As is the case today, the high price of oil was straining the U.S. economy, and the Middle East was unstable. One key provision of the 1980 legislation created the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which was meant to establish a domestic industry that produced liquid fuel from tar sands, shale, and coal. Despite the unknowns surrounding the economics of producing synthetic fuels on a large scale, engineers estimated that they could be produced for $60 a barrel. An initial production target was set at 500,000 barrels a day. But in the early 1980s, the price of oil fell to $20 a barrel. With no prospect of producing synthetic fuels at a price competitive with that of oil, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation was finally shuttered in 1986. SK/C13.08) David Rotman [Editor], TECHNOLOGY REVIEW, March-April 2008, p. 90, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Deutch [former U.S. Undersecretary of Energy, and now Professor of Chemistry, MIT] believes that instead of targeting specific production levels, government should participate in the development of alternative fuel technologies by helping to assess their economics and determine whether they meet environmental expectations. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation and today's Renewable Fuels Standard differ in many ways. But the efforts behind them do reflect a common theme: the federal government's attempt to select a particular technology and create a market for it. The "harsh reality" is that such measures "are unlikely to be effective over the long term," Deutch says. "And nowhere is this more obvious than in ethanol." SK/C13.09) Paul Roberts, MOTHER JONES, May-June 2008, p. 30, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. First, because the transition will require so much old energy, we may get only one chance: If we find ourselves in 2028 having backed the wrong clusters of technologies or policies, and are still too dependent on oil, there may not be enough crude left in the ground to fuel a second try. 4. AUTO INDUSTRY BANKRUPTCY WILL DESTROY U.S. ECONOMY SK/C13.10) Jamie LaReau, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, November 17, 2008, p. 1, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Let's be clear. The alternative to government cash for GM is not a dreamy Chapter 11 filing and reorganization that puts dealers and the UAW in their place, ensuring future success. No, even if GM could get debtor-in-possession financing to keep the lights on (which it can't), Chapter 11 means a collapse of sales and a spiral into a Chapter 7 liquidation. GM's 100,000 American jobs will die. Health care for a million Americans will be lost or at risk. Hundreds of GM's 1,300 suppliers will die. Their collapse could take down Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, perhaps even North American transplants. Dealerships in every county of America will close. The government will face more people unemployed, without health insurance and even without pensions. SK/C13.11) David Sedgwick, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, November 10, 2008, p. 1, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. The view in many Detroit offices: Like falling dominoes, the collapse of GM or Chrysler would force many suppliers out of business. In turn, those bankrupt suppliers would knock out Ford Motor Co.'s production, cripple transplant automakers' assembly plants and shut down thousands of dealerships. SK/C13.12) David Sedgwick, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, November 10, 2008, p. 1, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. If one or more of the Detroit 3 lurch into bankruptcy, the ripple effect would knock out many of their suppliers and the North American assembly plants of Asian and European automakers that buy components from those suppliers. Last week the Center for Automotive Research, a consulting firm in suburban Detroit, released a study estimating that the bankruptcy of one or two of the Detroit 3 automakers would trigger the loss of nearly 240,000 automaker jobs, 795,000 supplier jobs and 1.4 million jobs in the general economy. John Wolkonowicz, an analyst for Global Insight in Lexington, Mass., questions whether suppliers could survive unscathed after a Detroit 3 bankruptcy. "If GM goes down, it will take down companies like Lear and Johnson Controls, Wolkonowicz says. "That will shut Ford down, and it would shut down production at Toyota and Honda. They would go down like dominoes. One supplier CEO, who asked not to be identified, said a Detroit 3 bankruptcy would be a death blow to the industry. "If GM filed for bankruptcy, the impact would be so catastrophic that it would make the current industrial downturn look like a walk in the park.” SK/C13.13) Bill Saporito, TIME, November 24, 2008, p. 35, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three, and even if you discount the figures because of CAR's allegiance, it's a big number. Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry. SK/C13.14) Bill Saporito, TIME, November 24, 2008, p. 35, Online, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Even if just one of the Detroit Three--and GM is the most likely, as Ford is in better shape and Chrysler is much smaller--spiraled into a free-fall bankruptcy, the systemic effects, at least initially, would be huge. The whole industry would not be able to build cars in the U.S., because of the lack of parts. "Unlike the airlines or steel, when you look at the automobile industry and the fact that the whole supplier base is connected--to Ford, Chrysler, Toyota--it will have a ripple effect on the entire industry," says Nicole Y. Lamb-Hale, a bankruptcy expert at the Detroit office of Foley & Lardner, a law firm that represents some GM suppliers. Directory: cms -> lib -> PA01000427 -> Centricity lib -> Chem I honors Unit 2 Notes: Numbers in Chemistry Measurement lib -> Sanderson High School ap human Geography Summer Assignment 2016 lib -> Find fantastic ousd elementary music programs lib -> American Studies Pacing Calendar 2014-2015 lib -> The ap history Timeline 8000bce-the Present lib -> Absolutism in Europe Centricity -> Chapter 11 Learning Guide – Industry Key Issue 1 – Where is Industry Distributed? Centricity -> Understanding the Global Economy: Case Study in Global Assembly Lines Centricity -> Improv on the 12 Bar Blues Download 218.84 Kb. Share with your friends:
|