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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.