In my September issue editorial, I note that the move to electric vehicles has led to OEM directives for a greener supply chain.
“Leading the pack is Ford,” I wrote, “which recently asked 35 of its top global suppliers for energy-use and greenhouse-gas emissions data. …Odds are that someday soon the greening of the supply chain will impact lower Tier suppliers. Do you know your company’s carbon footprint? Better get ready to answer that question!”
The following is a Letter to the Editor reply, repurposed here with permission, from John Berney, president of Hydraulic Tubes & Fittings, LLC, Lapper, MI. The company fabricates tubing for applications ranging from ¼-in. brake lines to 6-in.-dia. truck exhaust systems.
“It is amazing to me that you jump on the bandwagon of suppliers needing to measure carbon footprint…(All that this does is) add cost to each company’s bottom line.…The big three has beat this into their supply base for the past 25 years; we need to look at value-added costs, not “do good feelings.”
How much longer will our government subsidize this green movement? What happens when the Tea Party people take over parts of our government and they turn back some of these EPA mandates? (Do we really want) the next generation stuck with these mandates that can’t be sustained? …Do you think that the next generation won’t undo what the EPA has done?
When we fail to look at causes and effects, we are doomed. The light bulb is a perfect example–we mandate compact fluorescent bulbs, yet we don’t manufacture them here. Why didn’t anyone think to have our manufacturers retool before we passed legislation? Why did we not discuss the impact to our manufacturing base, and why don’t we pass laws that support U.S. manufacturing?
Light bulbs are a good example of the green movement gone bad. We need to step back and take a breath before just going along.”
John and I welcome your input.
MetalForming magazine editor Brad Kuvin has covered the metalforming and fabricating industry since 1984. His interviews with engineers and managers at manufacturing sites aim to transfer technology to the magazine's readers and website visitors, helping them improve productivity, quality and safety.Tags: carbon footprint, Green
Share: 
Am I wrong in thinking that pretty much all light bulbs, incandescent or CFL, are made overseas? If so, your comment about being doomed is right on the money, but for the opposite reason.
One factor hurting our automotive industry is blowing wind is the fact that every other automaking country in the world has a base market for high-fuel-efficiency cars. Gasoline is expensive in those places. But not in the USA. We prefer to send our money to OPEC, rather than to tax gasoline and invest the proceeds in fuel efficient technologies (like CFL’s).
CFL’s are efficient and a smart investment regardless of any mandate or subsidy.
You say, “we need to take a step back and take a breath before just going along.” From my perspective, we need to get going, because we have a lot of catching up to do.
I believe in letting market forces drive technologies, rather than government mandates. At the same time, I’m an outdoors person so I want to protect and preserve the environment. My choices are selective – there are some things I’m willing to pay more for, to help the environment, others that I’m not. For example, I couldn’t cost justify the expense of a hybrid automobile. The payback period for solar panels is longer than the life of the panels. We need to let industry see a value in making green products, through their development of new products and processes that benefit the environment while making them a profit. Then everyone wins.