New GM Shirks Responsibility for Old Toxic Dumps and Mercury Disposal

General Motors is working hard to establish itself as a leader in the market for high-tech eco-friendly vehicles, but its actions since coming out of bankruptcy raise doubts about the depth of the company’s environment commitment.

When GM emerged from bankruptcy, it was freed of responsibility for rehabilitating dozens of toxic waste sites in 13 states where it had manufacturing plants. In a ruling that is expected to apply to all communities with former GM sites, Judge Robert E. Gerber sided with GM in a lawsuit filed by New York’s Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne seeking $225 million in cleanup funds.

The Detroit Free Press reported that GM’s 270-acre Massena powertrain plant in New York, near the Canadian border, is probably the worst polluted site among the more than 100 properties shed by the automaker in bankruptcy. The site contains several areas that “received thousands of tons of PCB-contaminated sludge from the dumping of hydraulic oil” and includes an open dump “as well as millions of gallons of open waste lagoons,” according to paperwork filed in GM’s bankruptcy case.

The PCBs and other toxins close to the tribe’s reservations near the St. Lawrence and Grasse rivers are linked to the killing of wildlife, harm to plant species, and multiple threats to public health.

Judge Gerber’s ruling stated that “any Old GM properties to be transferred will be transferred free and clear of successor liability.” Since the “New GM” is technically a new company simply purchasing the assets from the old GM—renamed “Motors Liquidation Company”— it is cleared of legal environmental responsibilities associated with its former incarnation.

But in the court of public perception—where a green image can mean more sales of fuel-efficient cars like the upcoming Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid—GM could face greater scrutiny. Yet, the story in the Detroit Free Press in early August failed to reach the national stage, and was drowned out by front-page stories a few days later about the potential for the Chevy Volt, due out in late 2010, to get 230 miles to the gallon.

Public Money But Not the Public Good

Last December, former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner pledged to Congress to become a leaner and greener company—if the federal government rescued the company from financial ruin. Thanks to taxpayer money—the total tab is estimated at nearly $50 billion—GM was able to cast off a mountain of debt and its reputation for making gas-guzzling vehicles. But the company is expressing no interest in using any portion of those funds for cleaning up toxic sites. These costs are estimated at $500 million, or about 1 percent of bailout dollars. The Obama Administration and its Auto Task Force failed to ensure that GM’s toxic legacy was addressed as part of the company’s restructuring.

Given the shift of debt to Motors Liquidation Company, which has a little more than $1 billion to wind down its operations, it’s unlikely that “Old GM” will be able to meet its environmental commitments. Without the cleanup money, states and municipalities have little hope of opening large disused sites—such as Buick City in Flint, Mich.— to new development and new jobs, and the health risks and environmental damage to surrounding communities will indefinitely remain.

Mercury Rising

The New GM has also decided not to join a program that safely disposes of mercury from recycled automobiles, according to a recent report by Associated Press. Without GM’s participation, that program, called the End of Life Solutions Corporation, will have a difficult time safely disposing of GM vehicles under Cash for Clunkers—another taxpayer-supported effort that has benefited GM’s business. According to Department of Transportation figures, nearly 18 percent of new vehicles purchased under the $3 billion dollar Cash for Clunkers program were General Motors products. Exposure to mercury through contaminated air, water, and food can cause birth defects and nervous system damage in adults and children.

GM declined to support the program, claiming that the new company has not built vehicles with mercury switches and has no plans to do so in the future. But many of GM’s older vehicles that contain the switches have been sent to an early grave under the Cash for Clunkers program—and those vehicles will continue to get recycled for years to come. Approximately 750,000 vehicles will be recycled through Cash for Clunkers. The old GM manufactured more than half the cars on the road containing mercury switches.

The End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation is a partnership of automakers created in 2005 to prevent contamination from the disposal of mercury switches, which were used in cars until a few years ago. The program was designed to last until 2017, when it is estimated that most all of the cars containing the switches will be off the road.

GM’s contributions to the End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation contributions were less than $1 million a year—a relatively modest fee for a company that measures even short-term success in terms of billions rather than millions. But the new GM is holding firm to separating itself from legacy expenses of the old GM—even when the environmental stakes are high and the costs are low.

Our attempts to contact GM for a response have been unsuccessful so far.


  • hchIIluv

    I will never own a gm car, new or old. It is typical that a company that we, the tax payer bailout does not do what is right. Now we the taxpayer are going to have to fund so “cleanup bill” to fix what the “New GM” should have done.

    Just a thought if the new gm does this with the pollution from making cars, what are they going to do about a recall issue with the cars from the old GM?

  • jack miller

    This is so typical of this site. This site is so funded by Toyota. They would never have an article of the environmental mess of the prius plant. Which is far worse impact than these old plants not even taking anything. Just old land fills. If you look at what the Toyota did to Pearl harbor and all the oil spilled!

  • Oscar Sinmer

    I totally agree with the comments. Come on, the author is not educated. Lets go back to Japan where Toyota has made a mess out of the everything pollution. OR CHINA. China now is the largest polition generator out of any nation. Leave GM alone for a old Plant that is 100 years old. Back then, they didn’t know what they were doing and the effects of the chemicals.

  • Anonymous

    Are you guys saying that GM, or the federal government, doesn’t have a responsibility to clean up its old mess? Or that Detroit Free Press and Associated Press, which reported this story, are also in Toyota’s back pocket?

  • Anonymous

    “Since the “New GM” is technically a new company simply purchasing the assets from the old GM—renamed “Motors Liquidation Company”— it is cleared of legal environmental responsibilities associated with its former incarnation.”

    Something is very wrong about this picture. This should be as illegal as money laundering. Wow, this planet is doomed…

  • Samie

    Not to be a downer but yes its true the New GM has no responsibility in cleaning up these sites & I don’t see how anyone could have challenged them under our legal system to do so (but international law maybe different….) Where I would put some blame is in local, state, & Federal government for not using their tools available in forcing GM to clean up these sites years ago. I suspect but can’t be 100% certain that politics played a role in this & no politician wanted to create harm to the local or state economy so they turned the other way while this was happening or was cautioned, w/ a blind eye to these activities. This happens usually when local economies or even regional economies are not diverse & for the sake of jobs everyone turns the other way.

    As for the land I wonder who owns it? If tax-payers are stuck w/ the bill it may mean that they need to do something about it instead of complaining. You could look at how much lost tax revenue could be generated from the property or other economic actives surrounding dev. of a property take the valued dollar amount add it up each year & create a general fund to over time to pay for the cleanup, this of course would mean allocating general funds to do so. Also you could look at how much damage these sites inflict on local areas & put a value on that to. A review of local & state regulations may be need or even the threat of stricter regulation could make GM & others donate funds to help clean up these areas.

    I do find it a bit odd to run this article but what do I know. I wish they could have waited for GM’s response before running this.
    Also to be fair we really don’t know who contributed to The End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation or how much they donated. What I get out of this is the possible discussion of looking at the recycling process of vehicles & if car manufactures need to be required to help pay for safe ways in recycle their products or develop material or parts in ways that are easily recyclable or create parts that cause the least amount of harm to the environment.

  • Dj

    Two wrongs don`t make a right!!!!!! GM should clean up the site
    and if it was Toyota, they should do they same. Now where is the
    facts about Toyota`s wrong doing in Hawii.Remember people just the facts,not your opinion.Plus, Japan and China didn`t put GM
    into the mess they are in now.Japan and China didn`t tell GM to
    make SUV that get 2 miles to the gallon.GM did this so if love
    GM or hate them…….remember just the facts!!!!!!

  • sean t

    jack and Oscar,

    Please back up your claims w/ facts, not fiction.

  • Dave K.

    I would so like to forgive GM their past mistakes, Destroying the streetcars, throwing away PNGV, the EV1, Hummer, they were also the last automaker to quit using animals in crash tests. But they are making it very difficult! They’ve got a couple of years to convince me, this is not helping.

  • frank Overlera

    Well we forgave Toyota for making airplanes to blow up Pearl Harbor.

    The people at GM who did these things had no knowledge at the time 100 years ago.

    At the model T ford plant they used to dump lead paint in the ground.

    ITs not logical to hold GM now with totally new people responsible for things that people did that are now dead.

    Should we blame Microsoft for an employee who went wild creating the first virus and blame the entire company?

    The vast history of gm its great knowledge base and what positive it did for the country.

    Focusing on Negatives such as this article I find great fault with.

  • DC

    Sorry Frank, Toyota had nothing to do with makeing the aircraft that ‘blew up’ Pearl Harbor. Typical american. The GM today is just as culpable as the GM 50 years ago that conspired to destroy the mass-transit systems in US and elsewhere. The GM of of the 1940′s and 50′s that bribed city managers to tear up there transit systems and lobied your central government to create a vast unstainable highway system with your own tax dollars is the same one that crushed the EV-1 and yes, is currently dodged its responsibiltes to clean up its mess by hiding behind a 50 Billion dollar bailout, again courtesy of your tax dollars. Shillls-0 , Facts 1

  • Dan L

    There seem to be a lot of people having difficulty with the concept of bankruptcy here.

    Old GM’s liabilities (like their obligations to clean up their various toxic messes) outweighed their assets (like their brands). And the situation was getting worse.
    So, the people who owned old GM walked away. They let the people who were owed figure out how to sell off the assets and recover pennies on the dollar from the proceeds.

    New GM is owned by the people who bought the assets at the fire sale, not the people who walked away from the debts. New GM does not have any legal or moral obligation to clean up old GM’s messes.

    Except, of course, new GM is actually the US government. So the american taxpayer is going to pay for these messes, one way or the other.

  • Anonymous

    Dan L says: “New GM does not have any legal or moral obligation to clean up old GM’s messes.”

    Agreed they have no legal obligation. Disagreed that they have no moral obligation. Maybe something they have lost that long time ago.

    Everyone will screws up one way or the other. What you do after screwing up will say a lot about the company.

  • Dan L

    I have a question for you anonymous:
    Suppose I hit someone with my car, then I sold the car to you. What obligation would you have to pay the medical bills of the person I hit? Visit them in the hospital? Serve jail time?

  • Anonymous

    Dan L says:
    “I have a question for you anonymous:
    Suppose I hit someone with my car, then I sold the car to you. What obligation would you have to pay the medical bills of the person I hit? Visit them in the hospital? Serve jail time?”

    None, because i have no legal obligation. In this case I have no moral obligation either because I’m not the original person who caused the damage.

    A closer analogy would be: Suppose I hit someone, somehow changed my identity by declaring my death and re-birth, what obligation do I have? None legally, plenty morally.

  • Austintatious

    Proof positive that the mentality of GM’s management will never change, that GM will continue to be a “loser”, and that, in retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the governments of the U. S. and Canada to resuscitate this dying dinosaur so deserving of extinction. Once again, corporate America gets a free ride and the taxpayer gets to clean up the mess. It’s a hell of a system.

    As for the folks posting here in defense of GM’s position, they exemplify the remarkable capacity of the American people to not only endure, but to rationalize and explain away, the sociopathic conduct of corporate America. It’s very difficult for a society to hold its coporate citizens accountable when the society’s human citizens are unwilling to insist on accountability.

    It ain’t a difficult question. It may be that, under a legal system increasingly favorable to corporate America at the expense of the American people, they are absolved of legal responsibility; however, as some have rightly pointed out, here, whether or not GM is off the hook, legally, is NOT the only question.

    Another and perhaps more important question is whether or not they will assume responsibility for the messes they created, simply because they can. After all, even in the corporate world, there are few responsible actors out there.

    Most of us human citizens choose to meet our moral, ethical and social responsibilities, even when not required by law to do so. It’s clear that GM has chosen to avoid its responsibilities to society, and it’s only fair that GM pay a price for that choice.

  • RKRB

    Austintatious: Nearly every word you said about GM could be applied to the Federal government as well. It ain’t just corporate America, buddy, and that applies to this case as well.

  • Austintatious

    RKRB, if you’re saying that the government has been in collusion with corporate America in fostering the worst in corporate citizenship, shirking the responsibilities of good government, I couldn’t agree more. Indeed, I believe a heavy dose of collusion and irresponsibility is rightly assigned to the good citizens of America. That very collusion is why we find ourselves in such a complex and comprehensive mess, today.

    No, it’s not just GM but, that said, we still have a GM acting irresponsibly. As citizens, we still have options, however limited, to express how we feel about such corporate conduct. We can either accept it as business as usual, the inevitable; or we can “vote” with our words, our actions and our purchasing power, the latter being the most meaningful to an entity like GM.

    If you wish to bring the other culprits into the discussion, by all mean, do so. Certainly, it becomes a much healthier discussion, but that still doesn’t let GM off the hook. It was GM that dumped tons of toxins into the only environment we have. GM should be held accountable, one way or the other.

  • Samie

    Interesting comments I would go to the root of the problem that Austintatious is talking about w/c in my opinion is campaign finance reform & how much access lobbyists have w/ politicians (especially those who serve on powerful committees) , & if there really is a conflict of interest in former congressional staff working for lobbying firms. I’m not naive in thinking that reform would solve all problems or think that currently there are not some constitutional problems w/ this due to the some Supreme Court decisions but if it could be done in a meaningful way it would be a start to balance power back just a bit…

    I do have to say again the New GM has no responsibility in cleaning up these sites. Usually “The Public” & private firms try to reduce their costs involved in pollution matters especially when it comes to clean-up or pollution reduction blaming each other is common & along w/ placing non-rational un-edu. blame on each other . In this case it may feel good to ask a question of morality but the fact remains that the public needs to shell out the costs in this that is if it wants to benefit from reducing the envr. hazards & gaining property tax revenues along w/ the possibility of new wages. So again if we know all the info being presented here you need to find ways in w/c the public cleans this up. If you fail to realize this how do people learn from past mistakes or question those who look the other way in the name of short-term economic prosperity?

  • Samie

    RKRB

    I don’t disagree in that Obama did not follow his original agreement for matching gov. campaign funds along w/ the restrictions that would have occurred to finance his campaign but lets live in the real world both McCain & Obama were playing political games w/ clear advantages in both cases so that was no surprise, also Obama did not break any campaign finance laws in how he raised funds for his campaign also I would look at how most of Congress raises funds but your point was in a case where it was arbitrary not a requirement to raise funds in the same manner. But as I said I think real reform is needed & it clearly would have to pass both legal issues along w/ tough resistance from lobbying interests (w/o loopholes) to actually make a difference.

    As for your second point it comes down to public pressure say from a media report from a TV show like 60 min. or if local politicians start to threaten GM w/ new regulations. So for your point it comes down to public pressure to do something about it meaning bad PR that does not end in a day or two of news cycle events. This is the only way the New GM will respond but as the article said this problem has gotten very little play from the major media outlets.

  • IMAmike

    This is one of the more ignorant comments I’ve seen in a long time. The environmental hazards of the supposedly disastrous mining for Ni in Canada have long since been proven to be unfounded, and the Buick City plant is obviously a part of the “old” GM and contributed to the environmental issues at hand. The catch-all “this HAS to be funded by Toyota” and references to Pearl Harbor show nothing more than the ignorance and lack of research and intelligence of the poster if the best argument that can be made is a baseless accusation and a reference to a world war from nearly 70 years ago. Everyone ahs a right to their own opinion and a right to express their opinions, including anti-environmentalists and those who still insist on buying “made in the USA.” Expressing an opinion in an educated and informed manner, rather than throwing out baseless and inflammatory statements with no evidence to support them, goes a long way in being taken seriously in the marketplace of ideas, as this poster will obviously not be.

  • Austintatious

    Happily, I’m not (yet) an expert on the intricacies of bankruptcy proceedings, but let’s just assume that the “New GM” is freed of any legal obligation to clean up its environmental messes. I suspect we can also safely assume that GM, especially in its current financial state, is not interested in committing money and other resources to such an expensive endeavor.

    Though there have been exceptions, refusal to assume responsibility for clean up has been the typical response of corporate America over time, even when the corporate entity has been in the best of fiscal condition. This is not surprising, considering the typical mentality of corporate management. In general, the concept of good corporate citizenship has simply not been a factor. The typical corporate mentality is mildly to severely sociopathic, focused primarily, if not solely, on profit. It’s just the nature of American capitalism as it has evolved. The best interests of humanity and its environment, and the distinction between right and wrong, ethically, morally and, sometimes, even legally, are simply not meaningful considerations.

    It certainly does not have to be that way, and there have been examples of kinder, gentler and, I submit, smarter, corporate mentalities, entities choosing to make the human condition and the environment matters worthy, not only of serious consideration, but of committing corporate resources. I have to believe that, in the long run, this is the better way, that it is smarter, and that it will pay off for the corporation. When educated, people will favor this kind of enterprise.

    Question: Would GM have been better off, in the long run, if it had simply assumed responsibility, at least to some degree, for its environmental messes, and made genuine effort to resolve them, even if only partially?

    GM’s goes to great length to tell us what innovative, fuel efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles it will be producing and, in the same breath, refuses to take responsibility for having polluted our environment. Why not run the same campaign about all the innovative products but also promote the corporation as the enlightened and responsible corporate citizen they are to be, bellying up to the bar and genuinely helping out with the clean up? To get there, all they need do is add a bit more to the price of their products. From a PR perspective, which way is better?

    It will not be enough for GM to emerge from bankruptcy, leaner, meaner and freed from legal liabilities such as its environmental pollution. If GM is to get back on its feet, it must demonstrate to the consumer that it really is “rehabilitated”, and that is the right word. Most importantly, it must demonstrate a completely new, 21st century mentality. All I’m seeing is the same old GM. The GM I see offends and disappoints. For me, it fails to instill confidence or an inclination to buy.

  • AP

    WHY is this story even on this website? If Toyota has a toxic waste issue in Japan, are you going to take them to task for it? Or since it foreign made, are they absolved? If you export the jobs, it’s OK to export the pollution? If this is the case, it’s best for PR to only produce in foreign countries (no local issues for idiots to gripe about).

    But back to the main point: WHY is this here?

  • AP

    I have found the perfect solution to this site’s posting an irrelevant and negative story about GM. I have found one that is just as irrelevant, and just as disturbing, about Toyota.

    This is done in anticipation of the “fairness doctrine” that the Democrats favor in getting both sides of the issue out (however irrelevant).
    _____________________________________
    Toyota Accused of Hiding Evidence
    CBSNews.com
    By Myron Levin
    Aug. 29, 2009

    A former attorney for Toyota has accused the automaker of illegally withholding evidence in hundreds of rollover death and injury cases, in a “ruthless conspiracy” to keep evidence “of its vehicles’ structural shortcomings from becoming known….”
    ______________________________________

    Of course, since there are many other car companies, it will only be fair if I find similar articles about Honda, Ford, Subaru, Smart, etc. I will apologize in advance if this takes a while.

    If anyone else would like to contribute their own irrelevant, damaging story about a manufacturer who hasn’t yet been named, I would appreciate their help. It would only be fair.

  • DC

    I found an answer to your irrelevant and logic-free comments too, stop posting them. In case you had not noticed, this article does not deal with the very broad issue of consumer and product liability in the global auto-industry. It deals with a specfic issue with a specfic company. You also seem to have a problem with the democratic party in the US. Maybe it takes someone from outside the US to point out to you it was a DEMOCRATIC president and a DEMOCRATIC adminstration and DEMOCRATIC congress that handed GM that 50billion USD bailout that amoung other things is allowing “new” GM to walk away from its enviromental legacy? GW Bush and Dick Cheny would be hard-pressed to do any better!

    Why not just admit all this new-found Toyota hate comes from. GM is no-longer one of the worlds top industrial companies(in fact it ceased to be long before this). That irks some americans. And when a symbol of americas(former) dominance is laid low, well, a lot of amercans have a hard time dealing with that. This blog is under no obligation to report only happy tales of GM or anyone else for that matter. Nor is it under any obligation afaik to implement a “Fairness Doctrine”, whatever that is suppoed to mean. Only to report things as accurately and honestly as possible. And when that does not happen, there is no shortage of well-informed people that are prepared to jump on any articale that does not measure up. This is fine, deal with it.

  • AP

    DC,

    You said, “this article does not deal with the very broad issue of consumer and product liability in the global auto-industry. It deals with a specfic issue with a specfic company.”

    You’re right, it does. It deals with a specific issue that has nothing to do with the specific topic of this website, which is hybrid cars. Which is what I complained about.

    You also said, “You also seem to have a problem with the democratic party in the US.”

    I do have a problem with them (as well as the Republican party). They should have let GM go bankrupt in the first place, which is what ended up happening anyway. Both sides of the aisle seem inept and incompetent. God help us if they select our health care!

    You also said,” Why not just admit all this new-found Toyota hate comes from. GM is no-longer one of the worlds top industrial companies(in fact it ceased to be long before this). That irks some americans. And when a symbol of americas(former) dominance is laid low, well, a lot of amercans have a hard time dealing with that.”

    I’m not so much upset by Toyota a I am with this site (I don’t think I said anything bad about Toyota!). My point is that many Americans have a hard time saying anything good about American companies, and will even bring up unrelated transgressions to make their point. Now that you bring it up, any “hate” I have for Toyota is based on their hyprocrisy of “selling” the biggest, poorest fuel economy pickups and SUV’s, while eagerly accepting their “green stamp” for selling a Prius. The two shouldn’t cancel out.

    You also said, “This blog is under no obligation to report only happy tales of GM or anyone else for that matter.”

    No, they’re not, and I don’t except them to do that. But I would hope they’d limit their negative stories to those on hybrids, or perhaps other high MPG vehicles, i.e., something relevant. They went out of their way on this one. This story was muck-raking, senseles, and in poor taste.

    You also said, “Nor is it under any obligation to implement a “Fairness Doctrine”, whatever that is suppoed to mean.”

    You should know what this means if you like the Democrats. This is a law they want to push in order to make every news outlet or broadcast channel include a liberal and conservative view. They don’t like the popularity of conservative talk radio, and can’t field a competitive liberal option, so they want to shut it down. I agree with you that no one should be obligated to air both sides (unless they want to be considered legitimate). However, the Democratic Party disagrees with you.

    You also said, “there is no shortage of well-informed people that are prepared to jump on any artical (sic) that does not measure up. This is fine, deal with it.”

    That’s what I did. I dealt with it by parodying them (a type of sarcasm). My posting an irrevelant article about Toyota was totally pointless. That was exactly my point.

  • RKRB

    Austintatious:
    You’re right that we all should (indirectly) bear much of the blame for this situation (with perhaps the least blame being borne by the Akwesasne Nation, whom I presume lived on the neighboring land years ago and who as usual seem to be getting the short end of the stick). “Let one who is without sin cast the first stone.” We are the ones who demand the consumer goods and we are the ones who demand the government that we have deserved over the last 17 years.
    Of course, we’ve also benefited from corporate America (i.e. personal computers), the Federal government (i.e. the space program), and their cooperation (i.e. the internet).

    Samie:
    Campaign reforms? Hard-won reform efforts (i.e. McCain-Feingold) were intentionally trashed during the 2008 election by one of the campaigners, who rejected public financing reforms from characteristically self-serving expediency, and no one should be willing to roll that rock up the mountain again. As imperfect as it was, McCain-Feingold took tremendous work and was a foundation, and to see it so easily tossed should discourage others from making similar hard efforts to reform the present system.
    Legally, the “New” GM may have no responsibility but law is categorically different from ethics. You simply should not dismiss the ethical responsibility of the “New” GM (and the UAW, who made out best in the deal) to do what they can to clean up the pollution. We shouldn’t just stop at what the lawyers tell us to do. Character counts, too, and not only what is legally required.

  • RKRB

    Thanks for the informative article.

    Nevertheless ….
    could you please tell us how the so-called “new” GM has been working hard to “establish itself as a leader in high-tech eco friendly vehicles,” and how has it been “able to cast off its reputation for making gas-guzzling vehicles” after the bailout?? Perhaps you refer to the freshly canceled semi-hybrid Saturn and Malibu lines, the 20-mpg semi-hybrid pickups, or the much ballyhooed but unproven Volt? The “new GM” still gets most of its sales from low-tech low-mileage pickups and SUV’s and probably will into the future (although these vehicles seem to work well in the relatively few cases they are needed).

    Although the Federal government is collaborating with GM to ignore current cleanup laws, the ethical responsibility seems very clear. Even if the plants were built decades ago, GM has been aware of environmental updates for decades, too, although I agree with Samie about waiting a while for GM to respond to this article.

    Still, it’s sad to see the remains of Buick City being torn down or shipped to China to build Buicks over there (apparently GM builds more Buicks in China than the US, and that’s fine). Looking at your map (presumably one of the toxic sites) and the nearby Akwesasne Nation’s borders, it appears, as usual, that our government’s ethical and treaty commitments to the Native Americans remain shamefully worthless — “let them clean it up.” This should be fair warning to China: if GM builds better Buicks in China, don’t take their word that they will clean up the mess after they build them.

  • tapra1

    But the company is expressing no interest in using any portion of those funds for cleaning up toxic sites. These costs are estimated at $500 million, or about 1 percent of bailout dollars. The Obama Administration and its Auto Task Force failed to ensure that GM’s toxic legacy was addressed as part of the company’s restructuring.Surface News