"EPA Looking to Change Air Quality Rules"

In the Wednesday, Nov. 19 issue of The Sun News there is an article about the EPA finalizing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, and other major polluters in close proximity to national parks and wilderness areas. Half of the EPA's regional administrators have protested this move in dissention and another four criticized it in writing. The rules that are being changed and weakened are part of the Clean Air Act.

Currently, pollution levels are measured over 3 hour and 24 hour increments in order to capture emission spikes during periods of energy demand. Under the new rules levels would be averaged over a year. Spike pollutions would no longer violate the law.

The EPA regional administrators argue that the switch would undermine critical air quality protection in such places as Virginia's Shenandoah National Park. In the 1930's, visitors to Shenandoah's Skyline Drive could see the Washington Monument 70 miles away. Today visibility on some days is barely one mile. These administrators fear that the new testing will underestimate the emissions both for existing power plants and those that are proposed.

I can understand the importance of building more coal-fired power plants in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. BUT, the regulations still need to be followed. They shouldn't be weakened. By weakening the rules it will encourage these power plants and oil refineries to push the limits of the rules. What happens to the responsibility these companies have toward citizens? Does it simply disappear? We've seen this pattern play itself out locally with AVX corporation. If the rules are weakened and these players are allowed to pollute more, then where is the line drawn for other polluters?

"The Automakers Crisis"

If you pick up any newspaper or go to any news website you will find news stories concerning the crisis facing the big three American automakers. They are on the verge of going bankrupt and now are looking for the government to bail them out much like Wall Street has been bailed out. At this point, no decision has been made regarding the automakers and opinions vary as to how to aid them, if at all. Some experts believe they should be allowed to fail, re-organize and learn from their mistakes. Others are of the belief that a bailout is necessary to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs.

The situation is like a double-edged sword. If these corporations are bailed out with taxpayers' money, they will be less inclined to change procedures and will most likely fail again. If they are allowed to fail, there is a risk that they may not recover. However, it is more than likely that a judge would allow them to file for bankruptcy, settle debts, and reorganize. There is a risk here in that they could very well return to the policies that got them into trouble. What has to happen is that there has to be major compromises and sacrifices made both with union members and management. Automakers can simply no longer afford paying union members what they demand. If union members want a job, then they are going to have to sacrifice some of their luxuries. If they refuse to do that, automakers are going to be forced to relocate to right-to-work states.

This becomes a question of loyalty. Who owes who the most loyalty in this situation?

"Further Info on AVX"

I know I am writing a lot about AVX, but this company is really making a lot of ethical blunders. According to the Nov. 2 issue of the Sun News the partners of JDS Development are suing AVX for ruining their plans to build a 60-unit condominium complex near the AVX facility.

In court papers filed in Federal Court David and Steve Nance state that they had all permits and financing for the project needed to begin construction in Sept. 2007. When the groundwater test was done it showed contamination with TCE thousands of times greater than the federal safe standard set by the EPA. At this point, the bank yanked back their financing and the project was denied because of the contamination. The Nance's were forced to return deposits on pre-sales of the condo units and in turn had no money to pay engineering bills already encountered. The engineering firms have taken the Nance's to court and the property is in foreclosure. The Nance's cannot sell the property. It is worthless. This is an example of how the contamination has frozen real estate sales in the area. Believe it or not, AVX is still not taking responsibility and is blaming the former military base.

Once again AVX is giving us another example of why companies should actually internalize their externalities. It just seems to me that if they would just assume responsibility they would save time, money, and most of all, their image. This situation should be made into a 101 course on how to make sure that one's company is not around for any length of time. Hopefully, at some point, AVX will find their ethical compass and begin heading in the right direction. Here's a hint to them: Just turn around and start walking in the exact opposite direction that you came from.

"DHEC Just As Guilty As AVX"

In the October 26 issue of The Sun News, there is a very interesting article pertaining to AVX and the pollution problem and its relationship to S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). According to the article, DHEC has never required testing of pollution control equipment at AVX. DHEC has not tracked AVX pollution and is not certain how much hazardous air toxins are being emitted into the atmosphere. DHEC allows AVX to use the "honor system" when reporting facts and figures regarding pollution. Their reasoning is that "AVX would never falsify those figures and risk negative publicity."

This is incredibly naive. Expecting a company to follow the rules is no excuse to not have a method in effect to make sure that's what they are doing. It seems as though DHEC has forgotten their responsibilities to their other publics. Perhaps AVX is providing DHEC some sort of incentive to give them as much leeway as they have been....

"Local Steelworkers Reach Deal"

In the Wednesday, Oct. 22 edition of the Sun News there is an article about the union negotiations and new contract reached at the local Georgetown, SC steel mill owned by ArcelorMittal in Luxembourg. A new 4 year contract was approved which will help ease the financial burden of about 100 workers who were placed on a 3 week suspension due to a "global economic slowdown" resulting in a decrease in the demand for steel. As a result of the new contract, all 14,000 members of the United Steelworkers union will get a $6,000 bonus. This will certainly help those who were temporarily laid off in Georgetown. A strike was averted through negotiation and as a result workers receive a $1 hourly increase for the first year and 4 percent per year in each of the following 3 years. Health benefits and other benefits increased. Retiree benefits were cut by 35%. The contract also requires ArcelorMittal to make capital investments in its U.S. plants. ArcelorMittal is the world's largest steel producer and employs more than 320,000 people in over 60 countries. Eighteen thousand of those employees are in 17 U.S. locations.

This is an example of how union contract negotiations should take place. It appears as though both sides left the table happy. Had a strike occurred the company and the union would have been cast in a negative light resulting in negative consequences for both. A decline in employee moral was avoided and more importantly the agreement gives both the union and the company the benefit of a positive image to society.

"AVX Shifting Blame"

Once again AVX is in the news. In the Oct. 14 issue of the Sun News there was an article pertaining to the on going controversy about AVX's responsibility in the pollution of aquifers surrounding its Myrtle Beach location. To this day, AVX has not admitted its role in the pollution problem and is still trying to diffuse responsibility. This time they claim that the former air force base holds some share of the blame and therefore, the U.S. government should foot the bill for clean up. They make this claim even though all evidence shows that the air force base had nothing at all to do with it. Homeowners in the area feel that AVX is showing no concern for them and the pollution to their groundwater at all. They are angry and rightfully so.

It seems to me that AVX is blatantly violating the social contract between business and its environment. Perhaps a look at the broad view of social responsibility would lead them to the conclusion that they need to internalize these externalities at any cost, if for no other reason than there is a moral obligation.

"AIG's Blunder"

In the Wednesday, October 6 edition of the Sun News in the Money Section there was an article about the AIG executives responsible for the company's collapse. It turns out that they had been hiding losses and risks stemming from mortgage defaults. Big Surprise!

I fail to understand why a company that played Russian roulette with billions if not trillions of dollars should be given $85 billion. What puzzles me even more is why the U.S. government would assume responsibility and bear the weight of this problem. Where is AIG taking any responsibility? Nowhere that I can see.

This seems like a giant handout in its purest form - one whose bill, we the taxpayers, are paying. It is ironic that we are paying to bailout a company and its executives who were part of the chain that shackled our economy.

Why didn't anyone with any authority at AIG come forward before it was too late?