Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumGM now landfill-free at 100 sites worldwide
General Motors Co. now operates 100 facilities worldwide that do not send waste to a landfill after recycling or reusing 2.6 million metric tons at plants globally last year.
GM said today its customer care and after-sales operation in Lansing, Mich., now recycles, reuses or converts to energy all waste from daily operations.
Mike Robinson, GM vice president of sustainability and global regulatory affairs, was joined by Michael Compher, chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's indoor and voluntary programs section, for the announcement.
"Our landfill-free program continues to strengthen our business by creating efficiencies, generating revenue and inspiring innovation with products made from recycled content," Robinson said in a statement.
No other automaker has as many facilities contributing zero waste to landfill, GM, the world's biggest automaker said in a statement.
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20120619/OEM/306199801#ixzz1yM7xKLNP
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)It is a fact: GM won't carry its share of local tax burdens. And this freeloading policy continues even after the massive federal bailout.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts).
And it wasn't a bailout it was a loan which has been paid off.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/21/autos/gm_loan_repayment/index.htm
Your information is skewed and biased..
I POSTED THIS IN 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1118192
Since 1992, states where we have transplants have located have put in over $3 billion dollars in incentives and I would point out that is the money that the state settled for and I want to go specifically to Alabama if I could for a minute. We have Hyundai Motor Company that got $252 million in incentives. Toyota there got $29 million in incentives. Honda, $158 million and Mercedes $253 million in incentives. It just seems odd to us that we can help the financial institutions in this country and that we can offer incentives to our competitors to come here and compete against us but at the same time, we are willing to walk away from an industry that is the backbone of our economy.
And while I read these figures to you, which are the actual figures that we have been able to dig up. I want to go to one particular story and that is the plant in Mercedes, the Mercedes plant in Alabama.
As it turned out, as I said Alabama offered $253 million but the state offered to train the workers, clear and improve the sites, upgrade the utilities, buy 2,500 vehicles and it is estimated that that incentive package totaled somewhere around $175,000/per employee to create those jobs there. And on top of this, that state gave this automaker a large parcel of land-around $250-$300 million dollars. That was the same price or cost to them of building a facility.
So we can support our competition but we can't support an industry that is in need? And this need was not brought about because of what the industry has done.
Don't tell me GM is a leech.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)...what you can't do is spin that it wasn't a bailout.
It was far more than "a loan that has been paid off"
Heck... most of the banks that got a bailout were "loans that have been paid off". Was that not a bailout either?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)If GM and Chrysler failed, we'd be in a depression.
Those of you who hate GM just go bother someone else. I still ignore Union haters, and I just did again.
One more time, semantics, bullshit, those of you who question the validity of the GM and Chrysler loans are the same people who buy foreign, the same people who gave our manufacturing base to China, the same people who support Walker and Scott and Christie.
If you are a Democrat, you want strong Unions and want manufacturing owned by Americans not foreign interests who won't let us build plants and sell in their markets.
Merry Christmas yet again.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Whether it was the right thing to do or not has zero to do with whether or not it was a bailout... So you can't prove that it wasn't a bailout by claiming that it was a good idea.
You certainly don't score any points with the kneejerk childish name calling.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)You just hid it by editing the original post rather than replying.
One more time, semantics, bullshit,
Perhaps you don't understand what the word means? The "semantic BS" is the ridiculous nonsense that a bailout isn't a bailout if it takes the form of a loan. Once again... was the banking system rescue also not a "bailout" in your eyes? It too was made up primarily of loans... and loans that have turned out to be profitable for the taxpayer.
those of you who question the validity of the GM and Chrysler loans
You're just living in your own imaginary world, aren't you? Where on earth did I ever question the validity of the GM/Chrysler loans?
Answer? I didn't. All I did was correct your error. Get over it.
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)You are wrong again. Over the past 20 years I purchased 3 GM cars new. They were crummy cars that were poorly made and poorly engineered. They depreciated severly and quickly.
There is a reason GM lost 1/2 its market share over 30 years.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I guess you're easy to spot when you walk on a car lot............
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)x
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Can you provide a link? I can't find anything.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)they got MASSIVE givebacks to build in non-Union bumfuck states where they have a 'right to work'.
Another expert tries to makes shit out of shinola when it has NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH THE FUCKING OP.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I was not in that program, so I stayed at the "regular" high school