A couple of weeks ago we brought you this New York Times report about lead poisoning being caused by factories that produce batteries for automotive use.
These factories are/were producing batteries such as the 12-volt units used for starting your car, and not necessarily the large batteries for electric vehicles.
Near the end of the post, I wrote that it wasn’t clear how much automakers knew:
The Times reports that automakers often claim to be using clean recycling processes, even marketing their processes as clean and safe. In reality, at least some of the recycled lead is being sourced from factories that are polluting. Perhaps the OEMs are aware of the dirty conditions at these facilities — and perhaps they are not. After all, the supply chain is complex and as the Times points out in the piece, it’s possible, even likely, that automakers and battery producers don’t know where the lead is coming from.
Now the NYT reports that automakers definitely knew — and have known for a long time.
The outlet leads with the story of an Australian lawyer meeting with Ford executives at the Blue Oval’s Dearborn HQ in 2005. The lawyer, Philip Toyne, warned those executives that recycled lead from car batteries was poisoning people, because the factories that did the recycling were putting toxic smoke out into the atmosphere.
He even pitched a program in which inspectors would certify factories as clean, and automakers — and suppliers who manufactured batteries — could buy recycled lead only from companies that passed certification. That would allow the companies to claim, in their marketing, that they used only lead that was recycled cleanly.
According to the Times, records and interviews show that OEMs have known for 30 years or more that the factories they purchased recycled lead from were polluting the atmosphere. But they did nothing, and even blocked efforts to address the problem. When the big automakers wrote down environmental policies, they didn’t address lead.
Meanwhile, factories in Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania were poisoning local citizens.
Lead poisoning is serious — there’s a reason leaded gasoline is mostly gone from the market. Even now, the Times says that lead poisoning is estimated to kill more than 1.5 million people each year, most of whom live in developing countries.
The Times says Ford didn’t reply to requests for comment, and it also reports that Ford executives were intrigued by Toyne’s pitch, since Ford could then appeal to customers who cared about the environment.
And maybe Ford would’ve gone ahead had 2006 not happened. For those who don’t remember, that was when the Blue Oval suffered what was, at the time, its worst financial loss ever and Bill Ford stepped down as CEO. Ford was generally seen as an advocate for the environment and sustainability.
We all know what happened next — the Great Recession struck and the Detroit automakers needed bailout loans. Other major automakers had their own struggles.
Meanwhile, battery makers sometimes have a layer between them and the factories. These companies sometimes buy recycled lead from global trading companies who buy the lead from recyclers all over the globe.
While Ford didn’t talk to the Times, one of the execs who heard Toyne’s pitch did. From the NYT:
Addressing lead pollution and other environmental problems proved “financially challenging,” recalled Bernd Gottselig, a retired Ford executive who was involved in talks about Green Lead. “Several ideas would have required setting up completely new and unique supply chains,” he said.
There was another wrinkle, too. Automakers were reluctant to market “green” lead since it would imply, correctly, that lead was toxic.
Michael Rae, who was working on a program to certify metals and minerals in the jewelry industry at the time, sat in on a Green Lead meeting. He said it posed a public relations challenge for automakers: By touting their environmental commitment, they’d be calling attention to their reliance on a metal that has been known for centuries to be toxic.
“My recollection is that there was active resistance from the motor vehicle industry to the idea of saying ‘green lead’ because of the implication that there was ‘bad lead,’” Rae said.
Ford wasn’t the only OEM that was warned. Motorcycle maker Hero Honda, which in 2007 was co-owned by Honda Motor Company, participated in an Indian pilot program for buying batteries only from battery-makers who had passed certain certifications for reducing emissions from lead.
Most major battery makers in India didn’t sign up. Nor did large international automakers like Ford, GM, and what was then DaimlerChrysler.
Japanese OEM Mitsubishi also passed.
Again, from the Times:
“We are aware of lead poisoning, and understand your gist,” Eizo Tabo, the manager of environmental and recycling programs at Mitsubishi, wrote at the time. But the company said its batteries came from Japan, not India. “We do not have extra resources to be involved in the overseas project for recycling lead batteries,” Mr. Tabo wrote.
In the years that followed, lead from polluting factories has seeped further into the global supply chain. Japan, for example, has imported recycled lead from Nigeria in the past decade, trade records show.
A Mitsubishi spokesperson said it is working to eliminate lead in its products and that it has not identified serious risks of human rights violations in any of its supply chains.
Africa hasn’t been the only part of the world affected by lead pollution from these factories. The Times reports that in 2011, a Mexican factory started recycling lead from old car batteries, and a “putrid mist” began to fall from the sky — townspeople, including infants, got sick.
That Times piece also highlighted a research paper that suggested that as the United States came up with tighter environmental regulations, there was an increase in exports of batteries for recycling to Mexico.
A U.S. government employee, Bob Holcombe, and a group called ATSM International tried to come up with standards for recycling lead from car batteries. First, the U.S. government would need to set up a committee. A simple majority would be needed to form the committee, and anyone who attended the meeting that would decide whether a committee would be formed could vote.
The Times shows that 98 people voted, and 80 represented battery makers. Fifty came from Johnson Controls, then the world’s largest maker of automotive batteries. Unsurprisingly, the vote failed.
Johnson Controls later sold its battery business, which changed brands to become Clarios. Clarios wouldn’t comment on the meeting to the Times, and only said it was committed to high standards for manufacturing.
Automakers would occasionally get caught doing something unethical and/or immoral and agree to change. The companies agreed to limit the mercury trade in 2013. When child labor was found being used in the Democratic Republic of Congo to mine ore for electric systems, automakers said they’d only use ethical suppliers going forward.
Now all major OEMs talk about harmful sourcing — except for when it comes to recycled lead.
All major car companies now identify minerals and metals that are known to harm the environment and human health if they are obtained irresponsibly.
Hyundai, for example, keeps a list of minerals that are important to the “future and environment of mankind.” It requires that suppliers obtain those minerals ethically. General Motors has placed six metals under heightened scrutiny. Neither company addresses lead.
Not all companies ignore lead — Volvo and Mitsubishi do monitor it, and Nissan claims to be phasing lead out “where technically feasible”.
Ford said nothing about lead in its most recent sustainability report.
Toyne passed away in 2015. A business partner told the Times that Toyne had more success convincing jewelry retailers to ethically source gemstones.
Go read the whole thing.
[Image: Lane V. Erickson/Shutterstock.com]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.