View Full Version : Biofuels Cause MORE Greenhouse Gas
Jay Zeno
02-15-2008, 12:33 PM
Well, the "law" of unintended consequences just is that things that aren't intended happen from an action (no surprise there) and carries the implication that the unintended results outweigh the intended ones. Generally, it's assumed that these unintended results are also unforeseen, so that makes the "law of unintended consequences" difficult to plan for.
For instance: Establish a War on Poverty. But by giving people enough money to get by, without them doing anything for it, you end up institutionalizing and expanding a poverty class. Noble purpose, bad result.
For instance: You drop a couple atomic bombs to end a big war quickly. The war ends, and 20 years later, you have countries in a cold war who are ready and able to destroy the world. Tough choice for the short term, questionable result for the long term.
I've stayed out of this one because I don't know the science involved. Whether it's nonrenewable or renewable carbon sources, you're taking carbon from the surface and putting it in the air. One difference with biofuels is that they've already taken a chunk of current carbon out of the air in order to produce the fuel, which is not so with fossil fuels. So it's not just output that matters. Plus, if destruction of rain forests are factored in, that's book cooking. We don't have to destroy rain forests to make biofuels.
The real solution lies outside of massive burning of carbon, but we've got a ways to go for that.
Paris
02-15-2008, 01:35 PM
I NEVER said that. I AM in favor of common sense and balancing costs which come in a variety of forms- monetary cost; environmental cost; political cost etc.You also have to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Shifting food to biofuel production is inefficiently creating more ethanol while driving up food prices and creating shortages.
Btw, the batteries used in most electric cars have disposal issues. They are highly toxic.
We are getting better technology all the time. I know that things are far from perfect. There was a time when passenger vehicles were extremely dirty and polluting. Go to a classic car show with cars that are in "original mint condition". Those cars STINK! Yuck! I feel ill just standing near an old car that is running. This didn't seem to stop automobile production until something cleaner could be invented and got America moving and the economy moving, hence providing more income for more research for better, cleaner cars.
Currently, we seem to be suffering analysis paralysis; meaning, our leaders are over thinking everything to the point of inaction.
I suggest an "Energy Race" not unlike the "Space Race" of the 1960's. Sure, we suffered some major failures on the way to the moon, but eventually we did it!
Maybe there is a fledging idea out there that is on par with a Tesla device. There is just no incentive to develop such an idea at this time and lots of disincentives for new energy development.
hockeybobby
02-15-2008, 09:45 PM
I like your idea Paris. Set a 10 year goal and pour some serious resources into it. Make it a point of National pride.
hb
Melonie
02-16-2008, 05:27 AM
I suggest an "Energy Race" not unlike the "Space Race" of the 1960's. Sure, we suffered some major failures on the way to the moon, but eventually we did it!
yes, we did it ... but for one reason. We did it without regard for actual cost. As I posted earlier, this approach is fine when it involves a very small number of people, and where the high costs can be shared among a very large number of people who derive no personal benefit from those extra costs. But this approach falls on its a$$ when the number of people involved starts to go mainstream. In regard to your example, even with 40 years worth of technology improvements, it still costs $20 million to put one person in orbit (or at least that's what the Russians are charging).
Just so I'm not misunderstood, I am 100% supportive of spending huge amounts of gov't money on energy research that actually offers the promise of a cost effective outcome without a ton of unintended negative consequences. For example I fully support ITER / Tokamak ... I am also hugely supportive of the US building as many new nuclear power plants as possible in as fast of a time frame as possible, so that existing coal / oil / gas fired power plants can be shut down ( along with their huge CO2 and pollution emissions) .
But biofuels offers no such promise of a revolutionary, clean, low cost alternate energy source - as well as introducing a whole host of negative unintended consequences (most notable being diversion of agricultural land from food to fuel). And regarding US gov't subsidies, the gov't has chosen to subsidize one of the LEAST promising biofuel sources i.e. corn ethanol, while ignoring the MOST promising biofuel source i.e. sugar cane - for reasons that have very little to do with biofuels.
Solar cells and wind generators fall into exactly the same category as corn ethanol - i.e. they take approaches that will never be cost effective in the absence of huge government subsidies, and which will never produce enough power to make a significant 'dent' in the American grid power supply.
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 08:16 AM
But biofuels offers no such promise of a revolutionary, clean, low cost alternate energy source - as well as introducing a whole host of negative unintended consequences (most notable being diversion of agricultural land from food to fuel). And regarding US gov't subsidies, the gov't has chosen to subsidize one of the LEAST promising biofuel sources i.e. corn ethanol, while ignoring the MOST promising biofuel source i.e. sugar cane - for reasons that have very little to do with biofuels.
Solar cells and wind generators fall into exactly the same category as corn ethanol - i.e. they take approaches that will never be cost effective in the absence of huge government subsidies, and which will never produce enough power to make a significant 'dent' in the American grid power supply.
I can't argue with you about the biofuels...but I think the "cost effectiveness" of solar and wind energy is a direct function of favourable government legislation, and the resulting improvements in technology and economies of scale. This is usually the way of things.
hb
Melonie
02-16-2008, 08:49 AM
I can't argue with you about the biofuels...but I think the "cost effectiveness" of solar and wind energy is a direct function of favourable government legislation,
well, that's the 'dirty little secret' behind these technologies ... gov't tax money being paid to companies for R&D grants ... gov't tax money being de-facto paid to investors in the form of production tax credits against other tax liabilities ... gov't tax money being paid to companies in the form of facility tax abatements / job training grants / dedicated 'infrastructure' improvements etc. And finally, gov't tax money is used to fund tax credits to private purchaser(s) of solar panels and wind generators. The cumulative dollar value / cost to taxpayers of all of these subsidies is absolutely staggering ... but of course they are spread out among fed / state / local govt's as well as different agencies of those fed / state / local govt's for the precise reason of making a full public accounting of total subsidy costs next to impossible.
The economies of scale theory is good ... in THEORY. However, even if resulting improvements were to cut the cost of solar or wind power in half, this only offsets the current gov't tax money subsidy value !!! These two technologies are still subject to availability of sun / wind ... and nobody is going to accept a situation where everything shuts down when the sun sets or the wind stops blowing. Thus any practical use of these technologies either requires a huge additional expense (and environmentally unfriendly production and eventual disposal) of battery storage systems, or requires that electric utilities keep generators spinning in standby mode to pick up the load when the wind dies down or a cloud drifts by. Granted that there are, and will always be, 'niche' markets where the economics of solar / wind power do make sense. But not every part of America has steady high velocity mountaintop winds or 350 sunny days per year. Thus these technologies will NEVER be able to make an efficient contribution to America's mainstream energy requirements, any more than biofuels will be able to make an efficient contribution to America's mainstream motor fuel requirements. The numbers just don't add up.
We keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars every year on these particular programs while supressing a PROVEN ANSWER i.e. nuclear power. There IS a reason for this, but it's not related to energy !!!!!
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 09:39 AM
We keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars every year on these particular programs while supressing a PROVEN ANSWER i.e. nuclear power. There IS a reason for this, but it's not related to energy !!!!!
Yes Melonie...nuclear power is and will be a large part of the solution.
When I say "favourable legislation", I'm referring more to disincentives for polluting energy sources. Make it cost more to pollute, and you improve the outlook for non-pollutiing technologies. It's a proven model for bringing about change. IMO
hb
Eric Stoner
02-16-2008, 12:48 PM
well, that's the 'dirty little secret' behind these technologies ... gov't tax money being paid to companies for R&D grants ... gov't tax money being de-facto paid to investors in the form of production tax credits against other tax liabilities ... gov't tax money being paid to companies in the form of facility tax abatements / job training grants / dedicated 'infrastructure' improvements etc. And finally, gov't tax money is used to fund tax credits to private purchaser(s) of solar panels and wind generators. The cumulative dollar value / cost to taxpayers of all of these subsidies is absolutely staggering ... but of course they are spread out among fed / state / local govt's as well as different agencies of those fed / state / local govt's for the precise reason of making a full public accounting of total subsidy costs next to impossible.
The economies of scale theory is good ... in THEORY. However, even if resulting improvements were to cut the cost of solar or wind power in half, this only offsets the current gov't tax money subsidy value !!! These two technologies are still subject to availability of sun / wind ... and nobody is going to accept a situation where everything shuts down when the sun sets or the wind stops blowing. Thus any practical use of these technologies either requires a huge additional expense (and environmentally unfriendly production and eventual disposal) of battery storage systems, or requires that electric utilities keep generators spinning in standby mode to pick up the load when the wind dies down or a cloud drifts by. Granted that there are, and will always be, 'niche' markets where the economics of solar / wind power do make sense. But not every part of America has steady high velocity mountaintop winds or 350 sunny days per year. Thus these technologies will NEVER be able to make an efficient contribution to America's mainstream energy requirements, any more than biofuels will be able to make an efficient contribution to America's mainstream motor fuel requirements. The numbers just don't add up.
We keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars every year on these particular programs while supressing a PROVEN ANSWER i.e. nuclear power. There IS a reason for this, but it's not related to energy !!!!!
Um Melonie : I hate to be a wet blanket and nuclear IS a relatively "green" technology, at least as far as carbon emissions,BUT - WHAT do you propose doing with the waste ?
We still haven't got our nuclear "suppository" ( sorry, a little tribute there to the late Senator Chick Hecht of Nevada ) up and running. Even the French are stuck storing TONS of glass encased nuclear waste underwater "temporarily" because they can't figure it out either.
Melonie
02-16-2008, 12:54 PM
Make it cost more to pollute, and you improve the outlook for non-pollutiing technologies. It's a proven model for bringing about change. IMO
yes this has been an agent for change. It has caused lightly polluting US industries to change into heavily polluting Asian industries !
Um Melonie : I hate to be a wet blanket and nuclear IS a relatively "green" technology, at least as far as carbon emissions,BUT - WHAT do you propose doing with the waste ?
sell it to the Iranians ? Seriously, nuclear 'waste' is simply not dangerous if properly stored and isolated. If the NIMBY games would stop, so would the implied problem. Keep in mind that the same amount of nuclear 'waste' is currently being stored in 100's of different sites around the world with far less stringent storage and security measures. And if there IS any scientific validity to the CO2 based global warming, trading off the CO2 emissions of fossil fueled power plants for a few truckloads of lead containers that do not emit CO2 seems like a fairly no-brainer deal to me.
Eric Stoner
02-16-2008, 12:55 PM
A LOT of alternative energy solutions already exist- converting coal to cleaner burning gas; solar ; wind - except off Nantucket, of course BUT many are NOT cost-effective and others like nuclear and wind have their own political problems.
If you want to read something truly tragically amusing check out the Kennedy talking points against building a wind farm off Nantucket which has as one of it's "costs" the ALLEGED spoliation of the oceanview from Hyannis where by an amazing coincidence the Kennedy compound is located. Every single one is total and complete BLARNEY with no basis in fact like supposed disruption to the "fishing fleet".
Melonie
02-16-2008, 01:03 PM
^^^ just one more example of NIMBY - the needs of the few, or the ONE, overruling the 'needs of the many' (with credit to Star Trek writers).
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 01:19 PM
^^^ just one more example of NIMBY - the needs of the few, or the ONE, overruling the 'needs of the many' (with credit to Star Trek writers).
That was a classic scene man. The Wrath of Khan my favourite ST movie.
hb
Paris
02-16-2008, 02:39 PM
yes, we did it ... but for one reason. We did it without regard for actual cost. As I posted earlier, this approach is fine when it involves a very small number of people, and where the high costs can be shared among a very large number of people who derive no personal benefit from those extra costs. But this approach falls on its a$$ when the number of people involved starts to go mainstream. In regard to your example, even with 40 years worth of technology improvements, it still costs $20 million to put one person in orbit (or at least that's what the Russians are charging).
Just so I'm not misunderstood, I am 100% supportive of spending huge amounts of gov't money on energy research that actually offers the promise of a cost effective outcome without a ton of unintended negative consequences. For example I fully support ITER / Tokamak ... http://www.iter.org/ I am also hugely supportive of the US building as many new nuclear power plants as possible in as fast of a time frame as possible, so that existing coal / oil / gas fired power plants can be shut down ( along with their huge CO2 and pollution emissions) .
But biofuels offers no such promise of a revolutionary, clean, low cost alternate energy source - as well as introducing a whole host of negative unintended consequences (most notable being diversion of agricultural land from food to fuel). And regarding US gov't subsidies, the gov't has chosen to subsidize one of the LEAST promising biofuel sources i.e. corn ethanol, while ignoring the MOST promising biofuel source i.e. sugar cane - for reasons that have very little to do with biofuels.
Solar cells and wind generators fall into exactly the same category as corn ethanol - i.e. they take approaches that will never be cost effective in the absence of huge government subsidies, and which will never produce enough power to make a significant 'dent' in the American grid power supply.
This is the exact thing I meant by "analysis paralysis". Okay, so all of those things are flawed. But, sometimes great discoveries come out of mediocre stop gap measures. Post its, for instance. The chemist that invented the glue used on Post its was trying to invent the worlds strongest adhesive. Boy, was that glue so far from what he was aiming for, but instead he got a wonderfully handy application for the glue he wasn't even looking for!
Ditto with antibiotics. Those were discovered totally on accident by a scientist with deplorable housekeeping habits.
It is Purple Cow style thinking that will get us there. Instead of saying "No way, that won't work" we should be asking "What else is this good for?" instead. I'm no engineer, so Ive got nothing in the biofuel ideas department. But someone else might have a better solution.
Eric Stoner
02-16-2008, 02:49 PM
This is the exact thing I meant by "analysis paralysis". Okay, so all of those things are flawed. But, sometimes great discoveries come out of mediocre stop gap measures. Post its, for instance. The chemist that invented the glue used on Post its was trying to invent the worlds strongest adhesive. Boy, was that glue so far from what he was aiming for, but instead he got a wonderfully handy application for the glue he wasn't even looking for!
Ditto with antibiotics. Those were discovered totally on accident by a scientist with deplorable housekeeping habits.
It is Purple Cow style thinking that will get us there. Instead of saying "No way, that won't work" we should be asking "What else is this good for?" instead. I'm no engineer, so Ive got nothing in the biofuel ideas department. But someone else might have a better solution.
Both examples you cite were done PRIVATELY without any government grant or help.
The title of this thread refers to environmental damage resulting directly from GOVERNMENT policies i.e. subsidies for ethanol and other biofuel production that encourage conversion of rainforest and natural grassland to agriculture.
Jay Zeno
02-16-2008, 02:55 PM
Both examples you cite were done PRIVATELY without any government grant or help.Then let's look at the space program, which was entirely government subsidized over its first few decades, still mostly is, and has reaped uncounted harvests in computerization, communications, scientific advancement, and so on.
Melonie
02-16-2008, 03:01 PM
^^^ again, the huge majority of technological advancement was the result of NASA putting out bids for items with far reaching specs, but where the price doesn't matter. You will get exactly the same effect if the pump price of gasoline in America is arbitrarily raised to $10-$20 per gallon ! Unfortunately, as I tried to point out earlier, the US gov't raising the price of American gasoline to $10-$20 per gallon will affect far more people than NASA putting out a bid for 10 specially constructed communications systems.
Jay Zeno
02-16-2008, 03:11 PM
Well, I don't believe that the only way for the gummint to have the energy production equivalent of a "space race" is to have such a raise at the pumps.
For instance, let's cut our Iraq involvement in half, but pretend monetarily that it's still going, and sink that $300 billion (or whatever it would be) into cleaner, lower carbon, higher output efficiency energy solutions. Now, that's kinda silly in terms of the source, but I'm semiserious. I'd venture that we could get somewhere with that investment, and the scientific side benefits would be profound.
And I'm not talking about simply throwing money at it. You get quantifiable targets, RFP/bid out for systems to hit those targets, while keeping a small side budget for pure energy R&D.
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 03:12 PM
^^^ again, the huge majority of technological advancement was the result of NASA putting out bids for items with far reaching specs, but where the price doesn't matter. You will get exactly the same effect if the pump price of gasoline in America is arbitrarily raised to $10-$20 per gallon ! Unfortunately, as I tried to point out earlier, the US gov't raising the price of American gasoline to $10-$20 per gallon will affect far more people than NASA putting out a bid for 10 specially constructed communications systems.
What if you were to raise the price of gasoline & diesel just one dollar per gallon, and use the money raised to fund a super-agency whose 10 year mission is to completely eliminate the U.S. need for foreign oil?
hb
Paris
02-16-2008, 03:22 PM
Then let's look at the space program, which was entirely government subsidized over its first few decades, still mostly is, and has reaped uncounted harvests in computerization, communications, scientific advancement, and so on.
Hehe! That's what I thought when I read Eric's post, too.
Paris
02-16-2008, 03:28 PM
What if you were to raise the price of gasoline & diesel just one dollar per gallon, and use the money raised to fund a super-agency whose 10 year mission is to completely eliminate the U.S. need for foreign oil?
hb
First, we would have to create publicly funded elections here. Right now, our politicians have to go door-to-door begging for money to fund election campaigns. Of course, they knock on the doors of billionaire corporations, first::)...
If our elected leaders actually had time to LEAD instead of spending the vast majority of their time hustling for cash, this would be a big step toward getting some real solutions to our national problems.
Eric Stoner
02-16-2008, 03:29 PM
What if you were to raise the price of gasoline & diesel just one dollar per gallon, and use the money raised to fund a super-agency whose 10 year mission is to completely eliminate the U.S. need for foreign oil?
hb
This just highlights the absurdity of a "government energy policy". We could be totally independent of foreign oil IF we had the political will. It would involve running pipelines through Canada instead of through Alaska; drilling in ANWAR and offshore ( we have a good offshore safety record and instead are letting the CHINESE do it ! ); building more modern and efficient refineries; switching from corn to sugar cane for ethanol and methanol production; mining low sulphur coal & converting it to methane and building MORE nuclear power plants and encasing the waste in glass and dropping it into geologically stable oceanic "mud flats" in the Pacific Ocean. Oh, and not worrying about Uncle Teddy's oceanview when siting wind farms.
We have plenty of technologies. Travel the Caribbean and check out how each house has a big black SOLAR hot water heater and then explain to me WHY we can't require every new house in Florida, Arizona and So. Cal. ( At Least !) to have the same or similar ?
Paris
02-16-2008, 03:49 PM
This just highlights the absurdity of a "government energy policy". We could be totally independent of foreign oil IF we had the political will. It would involverunning pipelines through Canada instead of through Alaska; drilling in ANWAR and offshore ( we have a good offshore safety record and instead are letting the CHINESE do it ! ); building more modern and efficient refineries; switching from corn to sugar cane for ethanol and methanol production; mining low sulphur coal & converting it to methane and building MORE nuclear power plants and encasing the waste in glass and dropping it into geologically stable oceanic "mud flats" in the Pacific Ocean. Oh, and not worrying about Uncle Teddy's oceanview when siting wind farms.
We have plenty of technologies. Travel the Caribbean and check out how each house has a big black SOLAR hot water heater and then explain to me WHY we can't require every new house in Florida, Arizona and So. Cal. ( At Least !) to have the same or similar ?
The answer? see my previous post.
Melonie
02-16-2008, 04:56 PM
What if you were to raise the price of gasoline & diesel just one dollar per gallon, and use the money raised to fund a super-agency whose 10 year mission is to completely eliminate the U.S. need for foreign oil?
You'd wind up with a trillion dollars swirling down the porcelain bowl ... well actually, flowing into the pockets of uber-rich investors (via the inevitable production tax credit incentives), flowing into the pockets of Wall St. investment banks who could get back into the IPO business etc. This is the problem with ANY gov't funded research and development effort ... the LAST thing that any of the companies / investors want to see happen is to actually come up with a solution, because that would cause the gov't funded tax credits, grant money and subsidy money spigot to be shut off.
and after the 10 years we'd still be facing the same options we already have i.e. overrule the NIMBY objections and build nuclear power plants, replace some portion of imported oil with domestic oil from the ANWR and coastal shelf, dump corn ethanol in favor of sugar cane ethanol both homegrown and imported (i.e. get rid of the import quotas and stealth ethanol tax), cut a deal with Canada to build oil and natural gas pipelines between Alaska and the lower 48 states (so that trillions of cubic feet of natural gas byproduct from oil wells can be USED instead of blown off), restrict gov't tax credits on electric / hybrid vehicles to apply only to AMERICAN MADE electric / hybrid vehicles, get rid of the production tax credits for wind / solar etc. so that owners / investors aren't guaranteed a profit by the US taxpayer thus they MUST be efficient and innovative ...
The answer? see my previous post
however, big oil isn't the only deep pockets lobby. You might also recognize that 'rich liberals' lobby heavily for the continued existance of their corn ethanol / wind / solar production tax credits - which legally allow them to sidestep other tax liabilities. You might also recognize that trial lawyers lobby heavily for the continued existance of ridiculously complex permitting procedures for new oil wells / new power plants etc. because they are getting incredibly rich working both sides of these issues. You might also recognize that big investment banks lobby heavily against new oil wells, because they want to continue profiting from Arab petrodollar recycling. Despite the fact that mainstream media typically paints a one sided picture (i.e. record profits for Exxon Mobil) there are in fact two sides to this equation.
~
Melonie just picking out one thing from your post, I liked your idea (if we are going to subsidize hybrids) to limit the subsidies to US manufacturers only. GM is going live with technologically competitive 2-stage hybrids at both ends of the spectrum. An efficient Malibu hybrid and a not so efficient but much improved full size SUV in the Tahoe/Yukon and later this year a hybrid Escalade! (methinks thats an oxymoron of sorts but I'm thinking about one for my next vehicle }:D )
But as you so often state, there can be unintended consequences. If we limited the subsidies to domestic brands, the Japanese (Toyota and Honda) who are very invested in hybrids could take such offense to the preferential treatment towards our domestic brands that they could decide to build their next billion dollar North American plant in Mexico!
FBR
Melonie
02-16-2008, 05:15 PM
But as you so often state, there can be unintended consequences. If we limited the subsidies to domestic brands, the Japanese (Toyota and Honda) who are very invested in hybrids could take such offense to the preferential treatment towards our domestic brands that they could decide to build their next billion dollar North American plant in Mexico!
Arguably, America would be better off without these 'assembly' plants which in point of fact cost us $100,000 per job in grant / subsidy money + lost tax revenues + 'free' infrastructure upgrades ... and which are likely to be closed down anyhow by Toyota and Honda before their workforces can reach retirement age thus saving Toyota and Honda a fortune in retirement benefit costs (and shifting that burden to future US taxpayers).
I propose that if the Japanese automakers are pissed about unequal treatment, that the US should institute complete congressional hearings .... as soon as the Japanese gov't allows US made vehicles to be sold in Japan without astronomical tariffs.
^^ Melonie, I believe you and I both have argued (in PP back in the day) about legacy costs and suggested that the Japanese might shut the plants down once those costs become an issue down the road.
But, considering that few people look forward more than a few years, I thought the idea that if we did institute domestic only subsidies it would create quite the hubbub. And trust me, while it may not be true in NY (you guys are too cynical) here in the midwest if any major global manufacturer throws out the offer of building a large manufacturing plant, you couldn't hear anything above the sounds of the government and labor leaders unzipping their pants in preparation for bending over.
FBR
Jay Zeno
02-16-2008, 09:18 PM
these 'assembly' plants which in point of fact cost us $100,000 per job We've debated this before, with no clear resolution.
1) Those incentives would've been offered whether GE, GMC, Intel, or Goodyear came in, saying, "How much to build our plant here?"
2) I do not believe that Marysville/Ohio/US is out $100,000 (assuming that figure is accurate anyway) per job when you factor in the employment taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, general economic benefit, and multiplier effect brought in by the plants, not to mention the money that is staying in the country rather than flowing to Tokyo. Or Mexico City.
and which are likely to be closed down anyhow by Toyota and Honda before their workforces can reach retirement age thus saving...That's just a little bit of hubris, criticizing employers for something they haven't yet done and with no proof that they'll ever do. "Likely assumption" might sound good, but is there any practice within those corporations to support it?
Melonie
02-17-2008, 05:39 AM
"Likely assumption" might sound good, but is there any practice within those corporations to support it?
Anecdotal mostly. Lots of state / provincial labor board records clearly show a pattern of Toyota and Honda fighting 'tooth and nail' to avoid having to pay disability benefits to fired former workers, of Toyota and Honda following a pattern of pressuring less productive workers or workers with developing health problems to quit via negative job transfers / shift changes etc.
And trust me, while it may not be true in NY (you guys are too cynical) here in the midwest if any major global manufacturer throws out the offer of building a large manufacturing plant, you couldn't hear anything above the sounds of the government and labor leaders unzipping their pants in preparation for bending over.
New York isn't immune to politician a$$-reaming in exchange for major headlines ... although they prefer to do it for nanotech / chipmakers rather than auto / heavy industry. At the moment Advanced Micro Devices is mulling over a New York subsidy offer to build an new chip plant which will cost New York taxpayers $243,000 per new job created.
Jay does bring up a valid point that there is a payback on such 'investments' in the form of worker income taxes / sales taxes, in the supposed multiplier effect i.e. the new plant also stimulates growth in other local service industries etc. However, it is impossible to accurately account for this payback.
There is also a fair amount of 'history' in regard to northern manufacturing plants which moved to southern states in the 1980's - and who were granted 20 year tax abatements and other financial incentives by those southern states. In a large number of instances, as soon as the 20 year 'perks' expired, the plants packed up and moved elsewhere ... which also allowed these employers to lay off their local employees at the point where they were still 10 years too young to be eligible for company retirement benefits ! So yes there are a lot of American companies that have played / are playing the same game.
- sorry about drifting WAY off topic ... but ultimately this discussion can circle around. The major reason that Honda and Toyota created assembly plants in the US in the first place was due to the existance of gov't regulations requiring that divisions of gov't / armed forces / states etc. only purchase vehicles which have a 'majority' of American content. Sometimes this principle of American content is also applied to the purchases of gov't contractors. This market sector is therefore a huge dollar cow, as well as being relatively stable from year to year. Honda and Toyota achieved their percentage of American content via American labor and low-tech American fabrication (like sheet metal / paint / glass), while reserving the high value added stuff (like research, engineering, motors and transmissions) for their home country. Thus Honda and Toyota's multiplier effect is far lower than that of GM or Ford. However, Honda and Toyota's ultimate US energy consumption thus CO2 emissions are also far lower than that of GM or Ford - precisely because the high value added but very energy intensive motor and transmission fabrication etc. are still mostly taking place in Asia rather than America.
~
Jay Zeno
02-17-2008, 07:17 AM
Anecdotal mostly. Lots of state / provincial labor board records clearly show a pattern of Toyota and Honda fighting 'tooth and nail' to avoid having to pay disability benefits to fired former workers, of Toyota and Honda following a pattern of pressuring less productive workers or workers with developing health problems to quit via negative job transfers / shift changes etc.Wal-Mart, that born'n'bred American institution, is well documented, not just anecdotal, in doing that, but that doesn't mean they're closing stores because of it.
Eric Stoner
07-08-2008, 11:43 AM
From today's NY Times : "European officials proposed scaling back drastically on their goal of increasing Europe's use of biofuels .... a new report by the British government cast fresh doubt on fuels made from crops as a way to fight climate change." The allure of biofuels has "dimmed amid growing evidence that ( European biofuel goals) are contributing to deforestation which speeds climate change and helping force up food prices."