Here’s an exercise: Make a list of all the industries that have resisted some fundamental change in their business environment, be it regulatory or market driven, on the grounds that the result would be devastating to the business, the job market and ultimately costly for consumers. The industry was just too big, too important, and society was too dependent on it to accept the consequences of a radical shift. Take your time, I’ll wait…
No doubt you could make quite a list. At some level, this kind of defense of the status quo is expected and one could argue, mandatory.
Now make another list, one that includes all the industries on the first list that successfully avoided or significantly shifted such fundamental change and thrived. Really thrived, not just survived to fight another day. You have 30 seconds…
I’m not sure about you, but my list is empty and I’m guessing if you took more time and DID manage to develop a list, it would be very short indeed.
Such arguments have never successfully prevented or shifted the principal nature of fundamental business environment changes. The list of casualties is long. Textiles, Steel, Electronics, Plastics, Foundries, etc. These industries virtually ceased to exist in the US because they could not or would not adapt to new business realities. Did the labor market suffer terrible losses? You bet. Were big businesses destroyed? Lots of them. Did consumers suffer? Arguably no, in fact in most cases it would be difficult to argue that the consumer is not better off. Further, these arguments have never succeeded in the face of regulatory or trade policy for any significant duration. The court of public opinion is short on patience and, as lawmakers know, short on memory as well.
“So you’re saying the cement industry in the US will inevitably be destroyed?” Not at all, but this is the sort of wrong headed FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) that is generated by the strong defensive stance of the industry. To listen to the press releases, one could easily be convinced that failure is the ONLY option for the US Cement Industry in the face of this challenge, but nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. While industry associations exercise delay tactics that everyone recognizes will be ultimately futile in preventing change, cement manufacturers have choices. They can pursue the path which they have warned will result, and look to outsource production and import more product, or they can aggressively pursue and pressure the OEM’s to develop technologies to abate or offset their emissions at plants in North America. To date the manufacturers have not leaned heavily on the OEM’s to provide solutions to these new environmental challenges. Technologies for mercury abatement and CO2 reduction have not been advanced significantly through any activities by the cement industry, rather technologies from other industries (e.g. power) are being applied (or mandated by the EPA as BACT) without enough thought given to the chemistry of cement. In the current environment, an executive at Lehigh Cement has at least put forth a suggestion for a stepped reduction in Hg emissions limits to allow the OEMs to develop technology over time. This is at least a step in the right direction. None of the OEM’s are taking any risk on anything the industry is not clamoring for. They, themselves, are in survival mode and R&D budgets and staffing levels have been cut.
Consumer impact? Cement manufacturers will take the choice with the lowest long term costs, this much is obvious. History shows us that any negative impact on the consumer will, in fact, be temporary, and the market will continue to maintain pressure on costs.
Cement is the most used manmade building material on the planet, and it provides tremendous value to the world economy. It is undoubtedly of critical importance. Still, if anyone believes that these factors alone are enough to secure cement manufacturing’s future in US industry, I suggest a history lesson is in order.
I, for one, would like to see the PCA acknowledge that change is inevitable and, as a minimum, get behind the suggestion from one Lehigh Cement executive to push strongly for a stepped approach to emissions reductions.