One of the men that works in my office recently showed up driving a Ford F-150 pickup. In the past he’d always driven a Chevy, so naturally I asked why the change. The response: "You know, government motors."
Apparently a lot of folks have the identical attitude and are avoiding General Motors products for that simple reason.
Not only that but now the union has a large ownership position in the company and that can’t be good.
One of the huge problems involved with the GM bailout by the government was the financial hit taken by its stockholders and particularly its bondholders who had their wealth stolen from them when the government took over ownership of the company.
Traditional property rights protection was shredded by the Obama administration making corporate investments in America riskier as a result.
The Obama administration strictly limited stock sales thereby delaying the day when government control of GM will end and depressing what GM’s stock was sold all for the simple reason politics, not standard business practices, will continue to determine many of GM’s decisions.
Indeed, politics has entered into many decisions made recently, from where the company’s headquarters is located in Detroit to where its cars will be assembled.
Individual congressmen such as Barney Frank (D-Mass.) intervened in whether a car plant in Massachusetts would be closed.
All of this leads one to wonder if General Motors’ recent epiphany has anything to do with political pressure.
Unfortunately it seems much of the upper management of many large U.S. companies are composed of left-wingers.
For example, General Electric is pushing "green" and "climate change" at every opportunity ad nauseum and since they own NBC you see it all over NBC programming, especially the news.
GM has "discovered" it "shares the planet with everyone" and wants "to do more to help keep it clean."
So, GM has pledged to buy carbon offsets representing one year’s worth of greenhouse gas emissions from the estimated 1.9 million Chevys estimated to be sold during 2011.
This expenditure works out to about $4 per car and that triviality will be matched only by the program’s minimal environmental impact.
GM’s $4-per-Chevy expense will be directed to the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, a non-profit based in Oregon that will "invest" the money in purportedly climate-friendly projects like planting trees, and solar and wind power. How sweet!
Let’s all get together, hug, hold hands and sing "Kumbayah" shall we?
GM’s offset broker, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), is run by a former employee of the radical National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
BEF’s offsets are "certified" by an organization called Green-e, the board of directors of which includes members of NRDC and the radical Union of Concerned Citizens – as well as BEF’s senior vice president.
So, not only are BEF and Green-e not independent of one another at the management level, they are joined at the hip by a philosophy of radical environmentalism, a movement whose members will say and do anything to advance their social and political agendas.
And GM is going to rely on assurances from these people about offsetting greenhouse gas emissions? Should consumers of GM autos really care if GM gets scammed for a few dollars per car? I’d say yes.
Especially since Chrysler and Ford as well as GM are all members of the NRDC-run U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a big-business-radical environmentalist coalition that pushed hard for cap-and-trade during the last Congress.
If that had passed millions of U.S. jobs and trillions of dollars in GDP would have vanished without a trace by now.
Bottom line is that GM’s Carbon Reduction program is nothing more than a wealth transfer from consumers to anti-consumer radical environmentalists and their ilk with GM as the conduit.
Does all this stink? You bet!
The good news? Well, I guess environmentalist wackos will get the warm fuzzies in the certain knowledge that should I buy a Chevy there might be a tree planted somewhere in my memory.