Slashdot Mirror
California Sues Automakers for Global Warming
ajs writes "Reuters is reporting that the state of California is suing automakers over global warming. California is claiming that automakers have 'harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health,' of the state. The targeted automakers are Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co."
Oh, for the love of...... *checks calendar..... nope, not April 1st)*
"(California) just passed a new law to cut global warming emissions by 25 percent and that's a good start and this lawsuit is a good next step," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program.
Now, I am pretty much middle of the road politically (Disclaimer: I lean a bit left though), but this is insane. Insane as in insanely bad. Hey, Sierra Club! This statement may have just cost you 2007s contribution from me. The global warming legislation had good components, but if you start allying yourself with lawsuits like this, count me out.
Lockyer told Reuters he would seek "tens or hundreds of millions of dollars" from the automakers in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California.
Uh huh.... and what is your take going to be Lockyer? Oh, just a small percentage you say, but a small percentage of an obscenely large number of dollars is still lots of dollars, right? Will you be buying a new Bentley with your share? Or will it be a party in your Escalade?
While we are talking lawsuit, what's the logical argument/premise going to be for filing the suit? If we hold the automobile manufacturers responsible then what of the users of their products? Are you going to say that the drivers of such automobiles are "addicted", so by their logic are immune to prosecution? Why focus on the automakers? Why not grab every last dollar you can by going after the drivers and the cities and states that build the roads and freeways, because without them, the automakers would not have a market, right? As long as we are suing people because of global warming, why not airlines? Airline manufacturers? Smokers? Dry cleaners? The leather tanners that made your loafers? Hey, how about the computer industry? Or....... I *know*, lets sue all of the electrical generating companies and take us back to the dark ages.
Seriously though, I understand that there are lots of sources of global warming, but Lockyer, this is not the way to solve the problem by making the automotive companies the boogeymen. The real solution from an automotive perspective is to federally mandate gas milage standards that are more stringent than where they are now, provide incentives for more fuel efficient and lower polluting automobiles rather than the current system where there is an incentive for large SUVs, and work from the consumer side *without* filing suits to line your pocketses.
*RANT*Oh and while we are at it, Hey! G.W.B, instead of sucking money out of research, development and education, why don't you do what you said and invest in education and research? We are not going to solve these problems through a narrow focus on religious fundamentalism while we are excluding science education.
Jeez, sometimes I feel like I am getting squeezed on the far left by goofy loonies like Lockyer and pushed out of the picture by power hungry neocon fundies on the extreme right. What happened to the middle ground where people of reason and careful thought worked through compromise to help advance progress?*/RANT*
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Speaking as a a Californian of the (at least by today's standards) liberal persuasion... this suit is insane.
If you can't convince the federal government that there's a significant causal connection between vehicle emissions and global warming, you're not likely to be able to convince a judge.
Besides, the state just passed a law to enforce stricter emissions standards. Given the size of the market and the state's car culture, that alone will have far more effect than this lawsuit.
As for reasons, I think we need look no further than the fact that we have an election coming up in less than two months.
The targeted automakers are Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co.
Yeah, I always knew my Kia was safe for the environment.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The automakers should countersue the California Legislature on the grounds that the emission of carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, by the California state government constitutes the same harm to the resources, infrastructure and environmental health, demanding that the members of the California government cease respiration immediately as mitigation of this harm.
I'd refuse to see another vehicle to state agency.
Cars don't pollute by themselves.
And great timing for the American auto industry btw. Maybe left-leaning interest groups (unions and environmental groups) could coordinate with each other.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Let me see if have this straight...
If the complaint names specific instances where the auto industry refused to comply with CA's standards, I don't blame the AG for filing the suit. Otherwise, I agree with the "nuisance suit" response.
This sig intentionally left blank.
and such, this is the wrong way about it.
:)
If you don't like the auto industry, use public transportation more. Ride a bike. Even a Segway! Buy a hybrid.
This is just seems like the wrong way of doing it.
Then again, it IS coming out of California
But think.. If California looses it will be proof that global warming is a myth!
Congratulations, jackass: you just gave the largest industrial manufacturers in the world every reason to spend billions to convince everyone that global warming doesn't exist. Think the anti-intellectual movement is bad now? Wait until GM's "Chicken Little" series of advertisements encourages SUV owners to run over anyone carrying a book.
Un-frickin'-believable. If you thought major corporations were bad before, see what happens when you give them an enormous financial incentive to be even worse.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I really would love all of those automakers to quit selling cars in california, then they will sue the horse owners for producing large amounts of methane from the horse dung. End of Rant, it ain't worth the effort.
This is a good initial first step, but I think that what they really need to do is go after the REAL culprits. Cut the middlemen of the car and energy companies and go right for the villains. I think that they should simply sue everyone with a car. Hell, just sue every single human that uses energy that might have come from a coal plant too. This way, not only are they going after the real villains, but the lawyers have that many more targets to go after... and in the end, isn't targets for lawyers, err the environment, what this is really all about?
This is stupid. We live in a free market democracy. If you don't like what the car makers are doing either A) don't buy from them or B) use the power of democracy to force them to change. There isn't even the semblance of an excuse for this sort of bullshit. We have two completely effective ways of dealing with the problem.
Nothing is more sad and pathetic then when lunatic fringe groups and lawyers team up. I am all for tougher regulation and applying a higher price to people dumping CO2 into the communal air, but this is NOT the way. This is just stupid.
and I'm gonna sue the state for making it so fscking hard to buy a house here!
Please note! I do not live in California, but I know quite a few people who do and speak to them regularly during their hour plus commutes.
Anyway, we the people power the government (through taxes) that enables these corporations to even exist. Why should the government (ostensibly though usually not literally the voice of the people) permit them to pollute, harming us all?
Germany is amusingly one of the few countries who have their act together on this, because their political process apparently actually works and allowed their Green party to gain power. Now, many industries there (and eventually, all of them) are being held responsible for their output, as should we all.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What would they do with the money? Burning greenbacks likely pollutes more than burning oil...
The dairy industry: Happy cows come from California, but so do a significant portion of cow farts, which have been shown to contribute a significant amount of methane to the atmosphere.
The heating and cooling industry: all that waste heat from AC and furnace gets radiated into the environment, contributing to warmer temperatures.
The taxpayer industry: all those nasty humans breathe out CO2. They are responsible for a significant portion of Carbon Dioxide emissions.
You will now waste millions of the dollars of the rich in a fraud of the justice system to make a point.
My mother-in-law does her part to combat global warming by running her air conditioning 24 hours a day with all the exterior doors in the house wide open. We need more concerned citizens like her ; )
...than PETA, it would seem. I lost respect for PETA long ago because of their shenanigans and now I think I'm feeling the same way about the Sierra Club.
You Americans and your lawsuits. What will you sue for next?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
rather than sue? If you sue automakers, the best you'll get is a one-time payoff. Taxes, though, can stretch on forever.
I'm disappointed that our elected officials are missing such an obvious cash cow.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
This is just unbelievable. Unbelievably brain-dead that is. I mean, where do they find these people?? While I'm all for energy conservation, alternative fuels, etc. this must be one of the stupidest lawsuits ever. Why not sue gas stations for providing the gasoline, the government for building the roads to drive the cars on, the people who buy these cars and use them. You know what? Why not sue the whole frickin world while your at it?? You know, all of the earths inhabitants, who have been collectively ruining it since the industrial revolution...
The only way I would accept this suit as being appropriate is if everyone involved in this case rides a bike or walks to work.
It's as if millions of lawyers cried out in glee, and were suddenly silenced as they set about filling out paperwork.
They should have fun proving that global warming actually exists and that it is the result of cars. Then again, we are talking about an American jury.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
This has to be a joke... no? OK, who's going to sue the State of California for their policy for attracting business to the State that contribute to global warming? Another only in America (or maybe just California)
Make sure they won't sue you! (rpm -e `rpm -qa|grep automake`)
trying to get money for the state and look `good,' get his name in the papers. After the NY+ Suit against the RIAA, this is the next step. It should be listened to for five minutes in case they have evidence that the auto makers are being intentionally negligent or are working to alter perception of scientific truth (which should be a crime in this case, not that Cali should get money for it,) and then it should be tossed out with a hefty fine to California for trying to tax the rest of the country. Which is what this is. That's right, California's DA is trying to tax everyone who owns a car the cost of one massive settlement + one settlement's lawyers. Given the state of the American auto industry, that's downright criminal.
If you've ever driven through California along the I-5, you might notice that an enormous amount of air pollution is caused by the cattle industry. Methane is third major greenhouse gas, after water vapor and CO2. The ground water in many areas is undrinkable. I think livestock tax would go a long way to solving their problems.
But livestock taxes, gas taxes, and emission fines (that hurt poor people, who drive older cars) would negatively affect the governor's approval rating.
And a major component of city smog is ozone, which they would have even more of if they switched from gas cars to hybrid or electric. It's hard to blame car makers for that.
Disclaimer: I don't live in California anymore.
I really and truly can not wait until Steven Colbert pulls CA apart for this on "The Word" *ding*
As Fred Allen said years ago, whenever this country gets rattled, anything with a screw loose rolls into California.
Someone's going to pay to clean it all up anyway, what good does a lawsuit do beside make lawyers richer?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
To be specific, you have to prove this to a jury which is probably composed partially of people who didn't finish high school. I'd argue that this is much, much easier.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't been quashed by arnie.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The Sierra Club suing the Govt and making life for the Army Corp of Engineers is why the levie improvement projects never went through...
"Save the animals... save the animals... save the algae... save the swamp..."
These sierra club hippies are directly responsible for every death in the Katrina hurricane. Somehow, this stupid lawsuit will have similiar impact.
It is unlawful to create a state within a state.
I did not isSue any tort claim to Ford, General Motors, et al.
I ride a bicycle at the most, and walk at the least.
Unless... does that lawsuit imply that Californians (nationals, not California itself) have overlooked a trustee in "State of California" to sue on behalf of Californians?
In any event, pull the employees of that corporation/STATE OF CALIFORNIA into the District Court for lack of a trust to sue on behalf, or at least for their not having a controlling interest or so.
Of'course, that commonly issued CERTIFICATE of TITLE is not the senior claim to the property: one needs the Manufacturer's Statement/Certificate of Origin (aka MSO or MCO) to have senior claim/controlling interest and own/trust (ones behalf) to minister property by right of way on the common ways as a not-for-hire and non-commercial and private helmsman.
This is about getting to know who in the State of California is to SUE on one's behalf. Consider a Disappointment from their Office of Trust. Consider the qualifications from which the presumption of trust to that State of California is known by admiralty/corporation venue STATUTES:
without prejudice
Yes, I can see that the automakers FORCED people to buy automobiles AT GUNPOINT.
America. Where you can sue anyone for anything. Regardless of how stupid your premise is.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> While we are talking lawsuit, what's the logical argument/premise going to be for filing the suit? If we hold the automobile manufacturers responsible then what of the users of their products?
Why not? We make gun manufacters responsible for how there product is used...
First, Lockyer is planning a run for state treasurer. Go figgure.
Second, global warming is confirmed scientific dogma according to all those fit to judge, if you believe the major news outlets.
Third, I have a hunch this just might wind up in the 9th Circus Court of Appeals where anything can happen.
Consumers are going to have to pay a high price to deal with the global warming issue no matter what happens.
I cannot remember the exact numbers, but vehicle emissions count for a VERY small percentage of CO2 in the air. As a matter of fact, structures (i.e. the heating and AC emissions from your house, my house, the local grocery store, your workplace, my workplace, et cetera, ad hominem) put far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the cars on the planet. Again, this looks like another stupid anti-SUV crusade. This time brought forth by who? California! BIG suprise.
Currently theta testing the prototype "Event Horizon" server-scaled desktop box with a 50 Gigameg of Ram.
Lockyer is not running for Governor, he is running for State Treasurer. And an earlier writer asked what Lockyer's take was going to be and if he would buy a Bentley. The answer is zero (dollars) and no, no Bentley. He is the attorney general of California, and is suing on behalf of the state. (He will of course, get some political benefits, so the post about running for governor is on the right track in that sense.)
Next on the docket: the State of California vs. the Dinosuars.
If we didn't have fossil fuels, we wouldn't be having this problem, would we? So let's take those smug Pollutosauruses for all they're worth!
I know that they make the cars and all, but they don't make us drive them. A long tradition of cars, over 100 years, has molded our society to need them. If you cut all commuting distances by 25%, you will cut automobile emissions from commutes 25%. Our cities are built wrong. If we had taken a clue from Europe, cities would be built around mass-transit. Too late! We need the cars, so the lawsuit is impractical.
For an example, Maryland, where I live passed a law to require locks on all firearms. So now, most people by their hunting guns out-of-state. If you get what you want, CA, then your car dealers will go bankrupt as people go to Nevada to gamble and buy a car.
Now, why can't the country sue California for factory emissions and other pollutants? If they win their car-suit, they will set a precedent that will remove even more money from the state's taxpayers in countersuits.
IF the big six decides to say "fuck you, we're not selling any more cars in California", you'd be left with some crappy cars or segways.
I would consider the fact that California is suing the automakers to be quite a show of restraint. Here in Hawaii, they would skip the whole lawsuit step and just outlaw the future sale and existing ownership of the vehicles. We'd all be left to walk or travel via canoe.
Honestly, if the market and available technology can support something different & better, we will find out soon enough. Google's "for profit" charity is going to tackle the issue as one of their first initiatives. If you really can make a car that gets 100mpg, can be mass produced for a fair cost, is safe to drive, and doesn't do harm to the environment in other ways (battery disposal, increased demand on coal power plants, etc.) then I'll be the first to welcome the new G-Car to my driveway.
The problem is not the car companies. The problem is the stupid american people who don't think beofre buying a big gas guzzler. If you don't get at least 30MPG, you are the problem. Why should we people who buy efficient vehicles have to pay extra (from thw lawsuits) for the purchasing habits of idiots?
Also, when will people wake up an realize you can't ever make a "corporation" pay for anything? The costs simply gets passed on to the consumer, which is you and me.
I actually hope this lawsuit succeeds (wait, hear me out). If it does, then the California government has just opened the door for its citizens to sue them for not providing sufficient public transportation and thereby contributing to greenhouse gasses. They have the means to cut down on the required use of personal vehicles, but have chosen not too make use of that means, therefore they are at fault for requiring people to drive as much as they do.
And before anyone blasts into me that it's too hard to get public transportation working in a major city, look at cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, London, New York, Chicago (ok, Chicago needs help), Tokoyo, and pretty much every European city.
This is great, go for it guys!!! Woohoo. (idiots)
(yes, there is some sarcasm there)
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
Cows are a major cause of methane, a so called green house gas.
So are we going to sue them for farting?
I knew automake had problems, but this is just ridiculous
God Fucking Damnit
First, you have to prove that global warming actually exists. Which has not been done yet (Definitely not to the legal level of proof).
Actually, that part's pretty easy. The burden of legal proof is a little lower of a bar than the proof to ideologues and an uninformed public. That global temperatures over the past two centuries exhibit and upwards trend is pretty much proven. That atmospheric CO2 levels are tightly correlated to global temperature is pretty much proven. A mechanism to explain this is proven. That we have more C02 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years is pretty much proven.
Then you have to prove that the automakers are deliberatley causing Global Warming.
Ah, now THAT's where the lawsuit fails. You have to prove malice or negligence, and I think the burden of proof for THAT is where the bar is going to be set higher than they can reach, especially when the federal government does not consider CO2 to be a pollutant.
Ultimately, in the case of the auto industry, the problem is that the market does not want to pay higher prices for environmentally-friendly technologies, and there is no previous government mandate to only offer models that reduce emissions. Given that all they are doing is offering the option to be a bad citizen instead of forcing polluting vehicles on consumers, I don't see that liability can be proven.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Will GM et al be the next Google?
"Fine, be that way, no more polluting cars for you! Everyone gets to pay big bucks for a hybrid or go to one of our fine dealerships in a neighboring state. If you let your residents register cars bought out of state that's your fault. So there!"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is stupid. Plain and simple. The retarded hippie state that is California thinks way too highly of itself. I know, i live here and deal with these morons every day. (The weather keeps me here.) California is taking it upon itself to sue for a _global_ issue? For some reason some ****tards here think that they are empowered to make this claim? If it were up to the loudest of the environazis, we'd all be walking around barefoot, eating twigs and wearing hemp. I love my dyno powered vehicles. All four of them (not to mention the other two in my household).
If anyone's to blame, it's the consumer. Perhaps the next lawsuit will be us suing ourselves.
I'd highly recomment seeing the movie "Who killed the Electric Car". California already had their chance to force auto companies to sell ultra low emesion vehicles and they bowed down to them and wouldn't follow through with the laws they previously passed.
American auto makers are so far behind the rest of the world and not just in emissions. A good kick in the ass is just what they need to make better cars and stay in business!
Automakers should counter sue Californians for using said automobiles to commit said crimes. After all, you don't sue weapons manufacturers for dead people.
I mean, you can't simply tax or sue the owners of SUVs who actually buy and use those climate castrastrophies. After all, they just might vote.
This suit will be swatted down like a fly before it even took off. I mean, do you REALLY think there is a court that would issue a verdict against the US car industry? It's almost recovering by now, and there's a lot of jobs hanging on it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In Soviet Californiastan you don't sue the government for failure to implement pollution controls, the government sues you!
How does CA plan to prove that global warming is even happening and that it is caused by automobiles?
Whoever did that- It is an insult to retarded people everywhere.
If you can't convince the federal government that there's a significant causal connection between vehicle emissions and global warming, you're not likely to be able to convince a judge.
Oh, quite wrong.
Remember, Federal judges aren't elected and don't receive a steady stream of bribes (sorry, "campaign contributions") from fossil fuel producers. They will thus look at the world very differently from those branches of the federal government which do.
Judges also have an obligation to look at the facts as facts themselves, not the facts as it would be politically convenient if there were. A judge, faced with a fact, does not stop to think whether important interest groups, party donors, or political commentators would be dismayed by that fact being true. This, too, leaves them significantly likely to view the world differently from other branches of government. And it leaves them much more likely to be convinced of the effect that vehicle emissions have on the earth's climate.
Of course, judges also have a limited mandate to enforce the laws that exist-- not create new law. I for one am entirely lost as to what law could possibly declare California has a right to avoid global warming, so I don't at present see how a judge could rule for California in this case. But as to convincing a judge of the scientific fact of human-caused global warming? That shouldn't be hard at all.
As in, using the power of democracy to force them to change. The powers that be in California were elected using the power of democracy. They are the ones who have set this in motion. (I don't know if the California Attorney General is elected, but he would be appointed by someone who was.)
All Hail the Maggott Show
This is why I love California! All the nutjob legislators (well, most of them at least) are congregated in one place.
I would rather have California legislators wasting time and money THERE, than where I live.
----------------
http://lucius.gambit3.com/
They need to discourage the local consumer from BUYING the gas guzzlers and environmentally UNfriendly autos. When people quit buying the garbage, automakers will surely listen. This whole lawsuit doesn't benefit anyone but lawyers. The average Joe impacted by all the environmental harm done never sees a dime.
Why not sue all energy companies ?
a U.S. state sueing anybody for global warming ? now, see, that's funny; first because of the kyoto treaty [i.e. first ratify, then we can talk], secondly because it smells like trying to shift the blame, i.e. it's not he industry silly, it's the carmakers, who's next
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Lockyer would have sued the Sun for being the ringleader of the global warming cartel conspiracy, but no one has been able to reach the Sun yet to complete the service of process. :)
What goes on in Sacramento I want no apart of. Why doesn't Lockyer just go ahead and sue the Sun for bringing California "global warming" ~12 hours a day since the beginning of time. Surely he can prove that now.
People NEED cars. The problem is that the car companies didn't act responsibly by giving us alternative options which are environmentally friendly. Not everyone can ride a bike to work, because of distance, weather, or health reasons.
Meh.
Some environmentalist you are. I've been complaining for years about the tricks the auto companies are pulling to avoid meeting the aggressive emissions and fuel mileage standards the state has been setting. Now, the state finally decides to get tough about it, and all you have are dick jokes. Nice.
Two, you have a government, the jury just says, "Well, it's a government, they don't need the money!"
Three, it's a government against a corp, so it goes to Federal court? So, no jury???
Four, I just realized that I'm talking out of ass.
What a bunch of BS, all the parties involved in the lawsuit should be sued first, for their part in global warming. How much pollution is going to be generated by this lawsuit, go calculate that one! I suggest the carmakers stop selling their product in California, until this suit is dismissed or settled, would not want to do any more damage now would we, it is all about money, money that California needs due to their incompetence in running the Califoria budget. This is becomming a favorable way to solve budget problems in the USA, hey just sue somebody to solve your own self made problems. It is always sold to the people as a good thing that is going to solve some kind of problem, remember the Tobacco suits, where did all that Money go? It is just another Money grab, Fucking Lawyers! And as far as global warming goes it is a well known fact that the known solar system we live in is warming, not just our little fucked up Planet Earth, Global Warming is just another Sales pitch for Politicians to grab Power and Money.Democrats, Republican's, Two Horns on the Same BULL. Humans love to take sides instead of thinking for themselves.
Car companies don't produce all that many emissions. Car drivers, on the other hand, do. And so do people who use fossil-fuel provided electricity. Or who buy anything made with such electricity or shipped in a vehicle powered by fossil fuels. And I'm sure the California state government causes emissions. They need to sue everyone, including themselves.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Well, I figured after those three big bowls of Chili con Carne that I had over at Pedro's Taco Barn would have nailed my name on the list of those responsible for global warming. This frivolous (and by frivolous, it is also illegal in California) lawsuit will not, and SHOULD NOT go anywhere. If Attorney General Bill Lockyer wants fresh air, he should pull his head out of his ass.
California, and Californians in general, will sue anybody who causes them any degree of inconvenience. The whole state ought to be shuttered up and sold. Oh wait... it already has.
Next thing you know, we will be addressing fellow Californians as 'Comrade!'.
Down with the People's Republik of Kalifornia!
Mod parent up!
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
If they fail to comply with California law California can simply ban the sale of their products there. That's what happened with things like guns. There are types of guns that are legal to buy here in Arizona that aren't in California. That's fine. However it seems this would be a case of California wanting to go after the gun makers because the sell those guns in Arizona, where it's legal.
The problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want these cars, but want them to meet standards the auto industry is unwilling or unable to meet. Well too fucking bad. Maybe you need to just accept that if you want your restrictions you can't allow some or all of the cars a company sells to be sold in your state. Either they'll change because of the loss of business, or they'll accept it and you have to as well.
I've no problems with states deciding to restrict things, however they don't have the right to bitch if companies decide they'd rather not deal with those restrictions and just go elsewhere.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Due to the suit claiming that automakers have harmed Californians' health and evironment with their products, automakers have announced they have no choice but to stop selling cars in the state of California. They immediately followed the announcement with contact information for all the state's legislature and attorney general so citizens could give feedback to their elected officials...
The whole dang state is suing? Santa Vaca!, I didn't even know that thing could talk!
If you thought that rock monster from Galaxy Quest was scary, imagine a huge landmass the size of California threatening legal action.
Support the FairTax
After this lawsuit settles, can we then sue the California legislature for all those CO2-eating trees that were killed to support the massive amounts of paper needed to argue this case?
Not to mention all the CO2 expelled by the lawyers and politicians themselves.
Actually, that part's pretty easy. The burden of legal proof is a little lower of a bar than the proof to ideologues and an uninformed public. That global temperatures over the past two centuries exhibit and upwards trend is pretty much proven. That atmospheric CO2 levels are tightly correlated to global temperature is pretty much proven. A mechanism to explain this is proven. That we have more C02 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years is pretty much proven.
Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.
Lockyer's termed-out this year and he's running for State Treasurer. This lawsuit is his way of getting his name in the media for free. Given the reaction I'm seeing here even from liberals, it might not have been the best idea he's ever had.
As an American / Californian, trying to point the finger of blame to a single source of Global Warming is pointless. The fact is that Global Warming is a result of our lifestyle, and ulitmatly Americans / Californians will pay for it as a society.
No, I will not work for your startup
It is time to invade California and restore order. I know we have our problems abroad but they pale to the importance of the job we have ahead of us bringing Caliornia out of its current drug induced coma. I live in Oregon and hearing this sends a chill dowm my back. Imagine if the disease affecting them gets going here and we start doing stupid things like charging bartenders with a crime if one of their patrons causes an accident.Oh yeah, i forgot, that already happened.I guess we could just hang the lawyers and hope for
as long as the cars met the federal & state standards when they were made, there is nothing ca can do.
it's like all the moronic law suits against gun mfgs because of how a gun was used. the point settled there was as long as it passed all fed & state requirements at the time of mfg, it's not liable.
election stunt, nothing else. not even a cunning stunt.
-.no
Being a resident of the State of California I'll say one thing as pertains to this lawsuit. If the politicians and their cronies in this state spent more time respecting the law and worrying about the constitutionality thereof, than they did trying to distract the masses with ludicrous political "shock & awe" such as the aforementioned lawsuit, we'd all be in much better shape. When I say we, I mean those who aren't already politicians.
This is great. According to the Gore film An Inconvienent Truth the auto makers were suing California over emission standards. Counter-suing for once seems like a good idea.
If you'd like to run a Global Warming simulation on your own computer you can. The EdGCM project has ported a NASA global climate model to Win/Mac and wrapped it in a point-and-click interface. Check boxes and sliders can now be used to run the GCM on your own computer instead of an advanced FORTRAN programmer and a supercomputer.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the project
Space and Computers.
Why don't they sue them for drunk drivers too? Why not get a cut from the manufacturers for every parking ticket, speeding ticket, etc. too? They (the big bad manufacturers) are obviously an enabler here! :/
--- Just another Code-Monkey
They should also put big warnings 1/3 of the car height telling about how harmull car are with photos of bloody car crash on each and every car like on the cigarettes pack in Canada. yep.
P.S. I hate cars. cities would be a much better place to live if over 50% of the area was not used just for cars.
The big 6 should stop selling and/or manufacturing cars in California.
Sacrificing my ability to Moderate the threat to correct your statement.
The Wall Street Journal actually ran an article TODAY about how light truck and SUV sales are dropping and it's about to cost GM the farm.
Try researching BEFORE you post.
I'd like to see some states ban vehicles over a certain weight from the roads - perhaps exclude certain commercial trucks provided they are driven in a safer manner than they are currently - but I think one reason why certain people feel the need to get huge land barges is because of safety issues. If everyone weren't driving a land barge, then people would feel safer with smaller, more environmentally friendly vehicles.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
In Other News, this story proved that Slashdot is not alone in posting Duplicate Stories
Since California is the primary home of the pr0n industry in the US, personally, I think a looser California would be a GOOD thing.
This is stupid. We live in a free market democracy.
A free market democracy where you can contaminate my air and you don't pay me in return isn't a free market at all.
Air is not used as a product of a free market, so laws that apply to it must be different from laws that apply to other "products".
The day you put your car in a plastic bag (and the head, and the chemical plant, etc. ) and you pay for every cubic meter that you use I will agree with you, until then well come to a communist market: air.
My city: Barcelona.
They should sue themselves for being an affluent consumer society with a decentralized infrastructure. While they're at it, they should make being a smug materialist illegal as well.
In California the way to get things done is via legal action, no matter how crazy it may seem. In my opinion these huge lawsuits are acceptable becuase they show initiative and California is not going to just fling out a lawsuit for any occasion. If anything comes out of this, it will mean more than some petition scribbled on a wall. This lawsuit is a statment and the automakers should take it seriously. Remeber the EV's in the early 90's?
Wait a minute...
WHO is ACTUALLY causing the pollution? Building cars causes a FRACTION as much pollution as the people who DRIVE THEIR CARS AND BURN THE FUEL! Suing the "Big, Evil, Corporations" (sooooo scary! Eek!) for pollution is alot easier and voter-friendly than doing the correct thing and pointing the finger at his constituents.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
consider what happens if they were to win the suit.
The costs simply get passed on to the consumer, via higher future car costs. Since it's CA suing, and the automakers sell worldwide, the net result is that CA is asking consumers in the rest of the world to subsidize California problems.
For all practical purposes, all costs of automobile pollution in CA are due to CA consumers chosing to drive the cars which they do. It's awfully ego-centric for CA to ask the rest of the world to pay for problems that they themselves are responsible for.
Perhaps the rest of the world should get together, and sue California for the increased vehicle costs due to automakers having to meet their unique emissions regulations. (Which, by the way, is a perfect defense -where do they get off suing for emissions which meet the standards they themselves set? Hubris maximus.)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
What they're driving to get to court.
California is missing the mark by going after auto makers. It should go after the real culprit here, carbon dioxide itself. We need to sue CO2 to stop its heat trapping ways! I see no other way to control this defiant and self-serving molecule.
I don't see how they have a case. California already enforces a stricter vehicle emissions standard than the rest of the US hence the term "california emissions". If I am not mistaken, all automakers who sell cars in Cali are required to modify their vehicles to meet the stricter standard. If the automakers have done this, which they obviously have, then they are following emissions standards created by California, not the generic standards set forth by the US Govt. If cars are still polluting too much, then I would think they should have set a lower standard to begin with and the auto makers are not at fault as they are simply following th rules. Someone please correct me if I am wrong........
K
Why bother? Get out the guns! This story pretty well illustrates that mindset.
Here's a surprise for you: The legal level of proof for civil actions is a preponderance of evidence. It's a lower standard than the proof beyond reasonable doubt required for criminal prosecutions, which you must be thinking of.
Then you have to prove that the automakers are deliberatley causing Global Warming.
Er, no. Just as you don't have to prove that someone deliberately ran into you with their car to collect damages from them. Intent doesn't enter into the question of whether the case has merit (it might factor into the damage award if the plaintiff wins).
IANAL, but I have sat on a jury in a civil case.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Also, IIRC the $300 fee that you reffer to was deemed unconstitutional, and one of Arnold's first acts as governor was to issue refunds to everyone who had paid it.
You don't recall correctly. The 300 fee was ordered refunded, with interest, by the court decision and preceded Herr Schwarzenegger's unintentionally-GOP-propelled grab at top office in the golden state. Ahnold's first move was to encumber the state by a couple billion zorkmids by repealing an emergency bugetary measure which increased a vehicle registration fee. The act had been in place, should the state fall into a deficit situation and, riding a populist wave of revolt against it, he yanked the revenue generator. The impact to most californians was minimal. Thanks to this knee-jerk tax revolt the people of California can look forward to spending that amount and more (interest) on the state debt floated on bonds (which was an idea Ahnold and the GOP slung mud at when it was Gray Davis' plan, then they did it anyway and proclaimed a great victory.)
I got my $300 back, plus about $30 in interest. Long before der governator was installed in Sacto.
To fully appreciate the positive impact of California emissions laws one only need smell a pre-1973 car go past. Gag! Acid rain in me lungs! Can't even imagine now what the world of the 70's was like in LA, must have really sucked. I know it did when I traveled to the east coast in the mid-80's. Eyes, nose and throat all burned from the pollutants in the air. It was good to get the heck out of there. How people can stand it, I dunno. Probably takes a few years off peoples lives that stuff. Kills trees and strips their bark, the acid does.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who *really* killed the electric car...
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Thanks to the gov't of California for absolving me of responsibility! It's my CAR that's polluting, not me for driving it! Thanks for suing Ford, et al instead of making me, the driver, the guilty party! Time to fill up and drive 500 miles tonight in celebration!
..."Who killed the electric car" and just decided enough was enough. Someone has to bitch slap those companies to get them to move beyond a snails pace and come up with some REALLY innovative designs. We DO need cleaner cars, better mileage cars, and cheaper cars, like yesterday. We can't wait until some other stupid geopolitical event runs oil to 200 bucks a barrel, we need the new stuff BEFORE that happens, we need cleaner air BEFORE it gets so bad it causes untold billions in health care costs, beyond what it has now and I defy anyone to claim it hasn't. And so on. It's like MS and their monopoly abuse lawsuit, it finally got to the point it was SO bad the feds reluctantly got into it, it at least shook them up a little. What would computing be like today WITHOUT that lawsuit?
You have to remember, these are the same car guys who fought against seat belts, fought against ANY emissions standards, still keep fighting against CAFE criteria. The market doesn't work if they all do the same bogus stuff.
Huh. Going from the comments here, this has been given such a cunning spin that even most people here are fooled by it.
Let's make it a little bit more clear. California are not launching the lawsuit on the basis that "They're producing too much greenhouse gases". They're launching it on the basis that the automakers are not complying with regulations laid down by the Californian government - regulations which have been tied up by multiple lawsuits from the involved automakers. This is a countersuit - an attempt to get the courts on the government's side so that the automakers have nowhere left to turn and have to comply if they are to continue selling in the state. By most people's estimations, a government forcing companies to comply with their laws for the good of its constituents is fine and entirely within their right, but even most people who would have no problems with it when laid out like that are arguing against it here because it's been presented just so.
A very impressive (and simple, too) piece of spin - technically true, and makes the other party look like a fool.
Sarcasm
Pass a law mandating emmisions be lowered by 25%, then sue the makers of the auto's for the user's actions with their product being in violation of a law that was passed after they made their product. While we're at it, let's throw every gun and knife manufacturer in jail because their products have killed people in the past.
End Sarcasm
I'm not particularly familiar with the law that was passed, but if you ask me, laws limiting greenhouse gas emmisions are a good thing on the whole (assuming they mandate semi-gradual change). But outrageous actions (and IMHO to sue them right now looks outrageous) will probably hurt the cause far more than it helps it. But what would I know?
Or better yet, mandate that the fuel producers join the new Californian Cap and Trade system. High prices pretty effectively move people away from the big 2 gallons per mile machines. Big Oil then effectively subsidises greener solutions, the economy benefits.
Deleted
that's what California is doing by this suit.
What you may not be aware of is that there are 12 other US states that have either joined in on California's Global Warming Emissions law or will once their legislatures meet. We represent about 50 percent of the US economy, and California is just leading the charge.
The beauty of capitalism is that when the manufacturers don't comply with what the market wants, giant groups of consumers (e.g. California) can force them to stop being resistant.
That or crush them beneath the Invisible Hand of the Market Economy.
Same end result, of course. Adapt or die.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And yet, we're still using about as much fuel as before the price hikes.
... causes the price to go up! And now that the price is back up again, it becomes worthwhile to seek out harder-to-get oil.
The phrase you are looking for is 'fungible commodity'.
In the short term, a certain amount of oil is produced every day, that gets refined into various products.
There is more than enough demand for oil to use up the supply. That's what establishes the price - if the demand for oil products is too high at a price, the price will go up. If demand at a price is too low, the price will go down.
So, if you tax oil products, what happens? Demand goes down. Price falls. So you end up with the same price for gas as you would have had without taxes - just more of the prize going to taxes. (Well, in a global market, what really happens is the price across the planet drops slightly and the oil products get sold elsewhere.)
In the *LONG* term, if you lower demand enough by taxing enough, the price people can sell oil products for (before tax) goes down, so it becomes less profitable to seek out new sources of oil. So less oil becomes available. Which
In the real long term, you raise gas taxes because, as mentioned above, it takes most of the revenue from gas and puts it into the government's hands to waste appropriately. Since there is thus less economic motivation for people to sell gas, there is a comparatively bigger motivation for energy-producers to invest in energy-production technology that is not taxed, where they can keep more of the profits.
paintball
Hmmm. I have a few opinions on this.
Since when has California had Global authority?
Targeting Automakers is like targeting thread and button makers for ugly clothes fashion. I'm not arguing the are part of the issue, but for some reason I can't find them responsible for people that choose to drive around in a gas-guzzler. Or for that matter and gas or diesel fueled vehicle. It's the public that buys and uses those items. You want to get rid of air pollution? Well lets see. Seal up all volcanoes and geothermal vents, cut down the forests (yes, they Produce air pollution), stop making synthetics, turn off all electrical powerplants (nuke plants don't make air pollution, but I'm not discussing what they do make), stop burning/using coal and petroleum products, kill all the bovines (those cows release far more methane than you might imagine). Wow, looks like we've wiped out civilization and a whole lot of lifeforms.
California has lots of Air Pollution creating powerplants. Whether primary or backup. They should really look in-house and deal with locals before they start trying to police the world. This includes looking at their own drivers instead of the manufacturers. If a man is shot dead by an arrow, who is responsible? The arrow, the bow, or the Shooter? I vote for the shooter. Only a fool would try to blame the fletcher or bowyer.
While I'm not entirely sure about this lawsuit, it might give automakers and our administration a good swift kick in the balls. For the past 30 years, cars have only been getting microscopically better fuel mileage. I have a 95 Saturn, it gets 35 - 38 miles per gallon on the highway (which is the bulk of my commute). Why would I buy a new car for around $8,000 - $9,000 that gets the same or worse mileage when I can have a new engine installed in my Saturn for $2,500.
If automakers want me to buy a new car in the $6,000 - $8,000 range, said vehicle needs to get 60+ miles per gallon; it's being done in other countries, why is it NOT being done here? Personally, I think most of us know the answer to that.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Returning the favor? Then why are they suing Honda? They weren't responsible for the lawsuit against California.
Because, Honda also sells trucks and SUVs that get bad gas mileage too.
Sure, they sell more vehicles that have fewer emissions. But not all of their vehicles are Global Warming Emissions reduction-friendly.
Sometimes, you get out a mallet. You swat the flies. Some places have lots of flies (Ford). Some places have few flies (Toyota, Honda). But you swat at the flies.
Eventually the flies either leave the room or die. If a certain group is too dependent on flies, it dies too.
That's what capitalism is all about. Too many flies and you die.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
.... to see Honda and Toyota on that list. Those two, in particular, seem to be taking the initiative in flooding us with nice little fuel-efficent compacts. Good on them, I say.
l e.
Every third or fourth Toyota I see, it seems these days, is a Prius. I walk past two on the way to the bus stop every morning for work. Half of what's left are Scions of one flavor or an other; not exactly slouches mileage-wise themselves. And last I heard, they were putting the Prius' hybrid system into a Camrey and licensing it out to Nissan, and Subaru! Honda hasn't been quite so sucessful on the hybrid front as Toyota, but they're absolutely burying us in Civics... you can't walk half a block without tripping over a dozen of the things.
Sure, none of the above is quite as good as pure electrics or hydrogen, but they're a far cry from the ford executioner or the gm suburban-soccer-mom-from-the-depths-of-hades-mobi
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
They could live closer to their place of employment and walk or bike or find a job near their residence. They could design and build or pay someone to design and build a better car. They could plan an extra hour or two to walk a longer distance to work. The fact that they're not willing to make changes in their lifestyle does not make them less hypocritical. They're violating their 'principles' (the ones they're suing on account of) for convenience. The GP was right: they're hypocrites.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
please present scientific studies, temperature charts from the last 200 years, CO2 tables from the last 200 years, cold hard facts with references, and no rhetoric and I will believe you.
Could this be why Ford is laying off thousands and GM are posting truly huge losses?
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006
http://www.slate.com/id/2150053/
Inflation is caused by government borrowing and money creation, it's the result of the supply and demand for money, as the supply increases, the value decreases and things start costing more.
WTF? They work fine.
Deleted
This lawsuit IS THE FREE MARKET AT WORK. The car companies should have taken the cost of the emissions of their vehicles into account before they sold them. For the last few centuries, people have assumed that the air was a free wase dump where anything could be placed without cost, but that has turned out not to be true. And just as we would ask a company that made billions (or perhaps trillions) of dollars off of dumping garbage into our rivers to pay the cost of cleaning it up, California is rightly asking the companies that have made trillions of dollars producing machines that dump waste into our common air to help pay for cleaning it up. This is REAL economics, not the kind of "common sense" voodoo economics that right wingers and the naive beleive in.
As long as you're breathing you're emitting carbon dioxide. They should be sued too! The government is here to help!
If you agree with licensing those "illegal aliens" everyone is so afraid of, then you are no different than the wacky Californians (or more specifically, the wacky States of California).
without prejudice
Simply add fuel producers to the cap and trade system. Instead of the money going into the government coffers, it goes directly to their greener, non fossil fuel using competitors, (including the biomass based fuel producers).
Deleted
Firstly,If California doesn't want pollution,California can drive oxen not cars.
Detroit should impose sanctions.No more cars or parts for California.Then Detroit will have done what it can to rid California of dreaded pollution.
Second,WTF could we lose and only gain by giving California to Mexico.
Just build a fence around it starting at the SW corner by Mexico and end at the north end by the beach.We could call it a goodwill offering to Mexico for evicting 3/4 of its citizens.No need to worry,Mexico has no nukes for when they find out the deal was a big joke on them.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Currently only available for the mini, but the system should be workable on most passenger cars:
m l
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.ht
Someone had to do it.
WTF? Has the grandparent poster not been watching the news the last several months?
My dad's looking for a used card right now and he's complaining about how all the dealships are getting swamped in SUVs and making it hard to find an affordable car.
Some cares are de-tuned to prevent model lines from running over each other. A perfect example are the 1.8 turbo VW Golfs and Audi TTs. Almost identical components but the TT has a 45hp advantage due to more aggressive fuel and boost maps. My girlfriend drives a chipped 1.8t that put down an additonal 35hp to the wheels and just passed emissions last week. Best $500 I ever spent. ;-)
I'm surprised by how strongly the Slashdot crowd is against this, and how nobody seems to understand the basic economics of it.
So here is a quick primer on external detrimentalities.
A for-profit business naturally attempts to maximize its revenues while minimizing costs. One method is to pass (some of) the costs off to someone else. The classic example is a factory pumping its waste into a nearby river, thereby transferring the disposal costs to other people, whose enjoyment of or utility from the river is diminished by its pollution.
This is known as an external detrimentality. It's good for the business, and probably even good for the business's customers, because it gets to sell its products cheaper. But that's only because it hasn't had to account for the true costs of manufacture. It's effectively getting subsidized. And subsidies skew natural market forces, resulting in inefficiency. For example, if there's a rival industry that properly paying for waste disposal, its products will be less competitive than they should be, and the industry will attract less investment.
The government's job--generally speaking, if it's interested in an efficient economiy--is to eliminate external detrimentalities and force businesses to account for their true costs of manufacture. It might do this by making it illegal to dump waste in rivers, or placing limits on acceptable pollution, or charging money for the use of radio bandwidth.
Today, if I buy a car and drive it around, I'm probably paying less than that behavior really costs, because I don't have to pay for most of the pollution I'm responsible for. That is, non-car owners in society are subsizing me, if only via their reduced enjoyment of smog-free days. Whether or not that's a moral issue, it's certainly an economic one, because we have made driving a car cheaper than it really is.
Certainly you can disagree with the specific method California is using here, but unless you believe other people should have to pay for your car, you shouldn't fault the general intent.
I should buy some cement.
CA's new regulations are already insane enough, basically forcing cars to run on engines that would barely push a lawnmower.
So, don't sell in CA. Don't sell any vehicles to any CA state or local government agency. Force the residents of CA to buy from outside the state, and if that's illegal, then they have to drive the cars they already have. That will make the residents mad enough to vote out the lunatic loonies that are doing their best to ruin that state.
Corporatism != Free Market
I hear from a friend with a J.D., working in civil justice, that often lawsuits are a quick way to affect political change when legislation isn't happening.
However, I've got to wonder... Why couldn't California make a case against much more obvious guilty parties like Exxon Mobil? The outrageous deception they're perpetrating deserves far more than a lawsuit.
Ask me about my sig!
Sure they'll drive to work in their automobiles, but when it's time to accept responsibility they blame someone else.
Actually, California has just announced a cap'n trade market for carbon dioxide pollution. It's essentially a market in permission to pollute. So if you buy enough permissions, you can pollute as much as you like.
Deleted
Right, but you DO have to prove ACTUAL damage. And you have to show that the defendant's actions were the cause of your damage. Which is of course impossible, because, even assuming that the state of California even owns the beaches that it built up due to erosion, the half centimeter of ocean level rise experienced since the invention of the auto, is responsible for such an increadibly small amount of the beach erosion, and the CO2 output of those particular autos, if responsible for ANY, is responsible for such an increadibly small amount of that half centimeter...
What should really happen, is that North Carolina should sue California for raising global ocean levels by building up their beaches! Seriously, though, when you consider that New York (and who knows who else around the world) dumps barge-fulls of garbage into the ocean every day, I wonder if that could cause a measurable ocean-level effect over time.
What about Porsche AG, BMW AG, Daimler-Benz AG, Ferrari. Volkswagen Group, Maserati and others?
Anyone know what the California Attorney General drives?
Mwhahaha, I lived there for years and nope, it doesn't.
look, public transport is an edge case. It only works for about 10% of journeys, the other 90% of journeys are by other means. If you don't live near a station or if your destination isn't near a station, public transport is close to useless... Conventional public transport anyway, Personal Rapid Transit has the potential to be useful to a decent percentage of the population, 40% or so.
Deleted
So now they're worried about global warming, eh? After all those years of pushing CNG to deal with all the other pollutants, now CO2 matters.
= 21stCentElectricCar but that paper claimed that CNG cars are actually worse than gasoline engines in terms of CO2 emissions per mile.
I've only seen one reference on this (the potentially biased white paper at http://teslamotors.com/display_data.php?data_name
Does anyone else have a good source on this?
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Guess this guy didn't read "State of Fear" (Michael Crichton). Vanatu files suit against United States for Global Warming in San Francisco district court.
t ml
Wouldn't you have to prove that global warming actually exists and secondly is caused by automobile polution?
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.h
the auto makers are not at fault as they are simply following th rules.
That isn't a defence. Auto makers have been held in court to be responsible for safety, even if it meets all federal and local guidelines. You can sue for airbags, seatbelts, door latches, and all sorts of things and win, even if the safety item meets all applicable standards. Safety is more important than the regulations, and if the regulations happen to require you make an unsafe car, you should not make cars that year. Or so say the courts and politicians. California doesn't have strict emissions on CO2. They tried, and the auto makers crafted the suit to sue them. So California is responding with a lawsuit of their own. That's how the game is played.
Learn to love Alaska
While CA is right that automakers haven't stepped up to the plate and have done everything possible to lobby congress for lower fuel mileage standards AND lower pollution standards, this suit unfortunately has about as much chance flying on its own as an anvil.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
cold hard facts with references, and no rhetoric and I will believe you.
So, someone with all the facts, properly documented, that does present them to you that includes some rhetoric about what should be done will have you dismiss the facts out of hand because you don't like the implications of his opinions tacked on the end? That doesn't sound like a very productive attitude.
Learn to love Alaska
My thoughts are that we should have a good public transportation system and make owning a car something of a luxury. With a such a huge number of people without health insurance, making cars affordable is a bit bizarre. We have really done ourselves a diservice by making the automobile such a central component of our society.
We should have been phasing taxes like this in over a couple of decades...
This reminds me of another major government cover-up lately.
Remember the recent tobacco settlements? Billions of dollars the government is seizing from the evil tobacco manufacturers in order to protect us? Does anyone think the government didn't know about what was going on all along? So they ignore their own medical experts, pass laws to support and tax tobacco companies and all of sudden when the public finally figures it out, the government jumps in to protect us. They were the chief business partner of the tobacco companies. And yet most Americans think the settlement was fair. The Government, who profited enormously from the tobacco companies and knew all along it was hurting us, suddenly becomes our defender and takes more money from the tobacco companies. It's hypocritical political slimery.
This California thing sounds just like it. The auto manufacturers all meet the laws on the books. They in good faith work to reduce pollution and succeed. And now all of a sudden the government sues them because what they have been doing all along isn't enough. Does anyone alive think that California government should NOT be listed as a defendant in this case? Seems they are guilty of the exact same actions as those they are accusing.
Ah what the heck does it matter? Americas Government system is at a point of meltdown. Corruption, extremist, intentional public lying - we can't be far from a revolution.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
There is no one party responsible for Global Warming.. everyone has had a hand in it. Also it isn't something that has just popped up in the past few years, it has taken hundreds of years and lots of pollution starting with the first industries when smokestacks started pooring their sweet sweet carbon and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere. Humans have been raping and polluting this planet since, well, forever.
Wow... California must be the new Florida or something! The automakers could file suit against the state of California because their stupidity "harms the resources, infrastructure, and environmental health of the state."
I have suspected for a long time.....now I know......
AC Propulsion solved that range with an electric vehicle dilemma with the rigidly attached (it stays inline with the car, no pivoting, making it easy to backup with, etc) generator/trailer. During the commuting week, batteries only, weekends and trips, bolt the trailer on, it has a fuel driven generator, making it now a hybrid vehicle, giving you the same sort of range you would get with just a normal car. With their prototype, the total package still fits inside a normal parking space.
Just so you know, oppressive, greedy wingnuts of all political stripes are counting on your continued silence. Keep quiet and keep not making waves, lest you jeapordize our present lucrative two-party corporate kleptocracy.
I mean you wouldn't want to accidentally end up with a government of, for, and by the people, or anything like that would you?
Lockyer is just making headlines so that you will remember his name come election day. First the HP investigation headline, now the sue the automakers headline. When it comes time to vote, vote Lockyer!
Both of those points are valid. However, grandparent was not making either of those points, and I was responding to his argument only. And of course, the legal standard, both for actual damage and for cause of damage, is what I said it is, preponderance of evidence.
Of course, if you'd RTFA, you'd know that it makes no mention of beaches, so the rest of your post is pure nonsense.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Can I sue the State of California for causing pollution in Washington (my home) by licensing too MANY cars and building too MANY highways?? So 30% is caused by cars, well why isn't CA suing power companies or farms (the other 70%)?? Lets sue them and watch the tech center of America get their electricty shut off...My god, how about lets sue the oil companies for drilling oil or Boeing and Airbus for building planes which do more damage than autos due to where they pollute (high altitudes)....How about lets sue Hollywood for doing damage to the worlds culture for making bad movies that sterotype cultures?
What the hell is wrong with America!!! The government creates the problem in the first place. How about stop licensing new cars in CA and make people trade the rights to purchase one. Kind of like the pollution credits. No more NEW licensees just the ability to sell your right to own a car to someone else and make money....Why not? Because it would make cars cost 50% more....Or tax oil at 10.00 per gallon and force working and middle class people from their cars! My point is this is idiotic!
Greenhouse gases??? Cow farts??? I think that the only clean reaction that does not create pollutants is Hydrogen and Oxygen producing heat and water with nothing else involved in it. If you use pure air, most of it is Nitrogen -> Nitrogen Oxides. Carbon based fuels -> CO2. I guess Lockyer is looking for an income source like SCO is looking for an income source from FOSS and IBM. Lockyer needs to go after Natural Gas suppliers: Methane + O2 -> CO2. Power plants that burn carbon based fuels -> CO2. Personally, leave California to the fruits and nuts. They will not give up their big rides and traffic jams at all. My 93 Jeep gets sticker mileage still after 160,000 miles and meets smog testing requirements. The new Jeep with the 3 liter diesel is going to get the same fuel mileage as what I get now. This is just a legal money grab.
1. I buy car but don't drive it....Emissions = 0
2. I drive the car....Emissions= My own doing. The people of CA are responsible. Can I sue them?
3. Why not sue the oil companies...It is their product, not the auto that is the cause??
4. Vote these assholes out of office!
>Actually, that part's pretty easy. The burden of legal proof is a little lower of a bar than the proof to ideologues and an uninformed public. That global temperatures over the past two centuries exhibit and upwards trend is pretty much proven. That atmospheric CO2 levels are tightly correlated to global temperature is pretty much proven. A mechanism to explain this is proven. That we have more C02 in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years is pretty much proven.
Nope, not even the legal deifinition has been proved and even the "upward trend" has only been "proven" with false statistical methods.
this will be the final stake through the domestic car production's heart.. if you think that is a good thing...
This is the type of totally ridiculous lawsuit that does NOTHING to improve fuel efficiency. (wagging fingers)
A better solution is the encourage:
1) Tax incentives for limiting engine displacement and vehicle size like they do in Europe and Japan. Fortunately, today's smaller cars aren't the death traps they used to be, thanks to stringent safety testing by the likes of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in the USA and the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP) authorities. Also, thanks to modern design, cars that look small externally actually sport an amazing amount of interior space; take a look at the Honda Fit or Nissan Versa to see the surprising front and back seat space despite the small size of these vehicles. Also, thanks to modern engine design, today's small cars offer surprisingly good performance also.
2) The development of clean-burning turbodiesel engines that offer 25-35% better fuel efficiency than equivalent gasoline engines. Thanks to recent breakthroughs in exhaust emission control systems, turbodiesel engines not only emit pretty much no smoke or distinct smell, but can even meet the stringent EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 and CARB 2007 emission regulations for gasoline engines. An example of how well diesel engines can be was demonstrated recently when Car and Driver magazine tested a BMW 330d sports sedan; on mostly highway travel, they managed to average an amazing 44 miles per US gallon fuel efficiency, which is the type of fuel efficiency you normally associate with a small hybrid drivetrain car!
Lockyer will cause a huge backlash against the Democrats for this totally insane lawsuit.
Encouraging better fuel efficiency should be an incentive-laden process, not one done by expensive lawsuits that just benefits lawyers and almost no one else. Besides my suggestions I wrote on other messages on this topic, how about making the cost of a monthly mass transit mostly tax-deductible? Just that would make a lot more people ride mass transit.
There was a mention to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
Sooooo, I'll have to file for my yearly tax on breathing? Will I (or rather my estate) get a "carbon credit" for when I'm dead and buried? After all my corpse having been given a proper Christian burial will have sequestered several pounds of carbon. (How much carbon is there in a human body anyway?)
How about going after those other greenhouse gases, like water and methane? Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas, and buy some Beano just in case they pick up on it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm sorry, but what you write is mostly BS. Yes it's true that the whole world would be involved in paying, but pollution is a global, not a local problem. The part of the rest of the world that uses cars is also responsible for the pollution, so there is nothing bad about them being `punished' in one go. And I write `punished' and not punished, since anyone polluting is denying others the right to live, murdering them as well as commiting suicide. With the latter part I have no problem, since I think it's a fundamental human right to decide on your own life, but just because of that I have a moral problem with murder, and especially the mass-murder as involved here. An argument often used against outlawing mass-murder in the form of pollution is that it would damage the economy or infringe on the freedom of the individual. With regards to the first, what use is the economy when there is no one left to suffer or gain from it? As to the second, the most fundamental freedom is the freedom to decide on your own life, so outlawing mass-murder does not infringe on any freedom. And note, I don't claim innocence of mass-murder, although of course I do not drive. Of course there is also a thin line between murder and killing (without intent), in the past, when many forms of pollution were not yet recognized as such, the pollution was merely mass-killing, not mass-murder. In the case of the burning of fossile fuels, that thin line was passed by world war I (if not earlier). Although the associated greenhouse effect was only discovered much later (during the 1960's?), only after that was discovered became all the use of non-renewable energy sources releasing `greenhouse gasses' mass-murder. The only thing is that mass-murder that releases substances that deny the right to decide on ones own life not only to the present, but also to the future ranks of course a bit more evil than mass-murder limited to the present. At the same time, I recognize that people are often practically forced by circumstances to engage in mass-murder, so even if a government did not by itself pollute, the fact that they force - for example by failing to provide adequate public transportation in certain areas during certain times - at least some of the population to use cars at times. This means that the government is complicit to the crimes. On the other hand, in the case of a chosen government the people who vote for such a government are also responsible for the continuation of this practice. Since chosen governments usually don't look further than the next election, and most people don't look further than the next week, resulting in chosen governments not taking long term problems seriously, the chosen government is clearly failing in its responsibility to protect the people (in this case from themselves and/or most of the rest of the population). I've seriously started to wonder whether a global dictatorship might not be the only solution to the most serious problem we have at the moment, global warming (with a positive feedback effect).
for allowing, even years after we knew the danger, cars to be sold and operated legally and freely in their state.
\.
That's what capitalism is all about. Too many flies and you die.
So, to bring it all to a head, you are saying that 'capitalism is all about' governments suing 'bad' companies and running them out of business??
we can just kiss the industrial revolution goodbye.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That scumbag trial lawyer from the SCO suit must be behind this somehow.
Who's next? India? When global warming advocates argue that humans are to blame they find themselves faced with impossible odds - human nature. Sure, California is suing the automakers, but who gets hurt if the automakers lose?
California suing the automakers was a highly intelligent thing to do. By suing them they place themselves at the front of the line so that when the other countries of planet Earth decides to sue us for THE SAME DAMAGES at least some of the class action monies will STAY IN AMERICA. The Bible foretold a time in mankind's history when the "stars of heaven fall to Earth". That time is now, except the Bible writer John never meant actual real stars.
The stars are the corporations who lord over us high above, including any individuals. Enron was one of those "stars". They put out a magnificent shining light that people looked up to, wanted to work for, thought they would prosper from. And they fell. There are others who are also going to fall. Our doctors who purposely allow some to die under their care are falling. Laugh and scoff at these facts all you want, but California suing our automakers was a wise move. If you own stock in George W. Bush Incorporated you might want to rethink that and sell. California was right and Chavez is a clumsy oaf & linguistics brute, but you have to listen to what is being said and pay less attention to who said it, or how fat & dumpy & brown-skinned he is. Or has less money.
This country's healthcare system doctors are no longer going to walk automatically to the best seat in the house. They're going to have to PROVE they deserve a seat at the table just like everyone else has to plus their buddies who think they have a place in their A.M.A. golf club kingdom.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
A vehicle that runs on electricity, then kicks over to gasoline when that battery is depleted.
That'd give each person driving such a vehicle about 100 miles of emmission free travel every single day, and without using a drop of gasoline, as long as they plug the car in at night to recharge.
Considering most people don't drive more than half that in a day, it'd meet a a vast majority of people's needs without confining them to a 100 mile radius, which was the biggest problem with the pure EV. They'd be able to drive around with a virtually full tank of gasoline for months.
Oh, but I can already hear the naysayers shouting about how you still need to burn coal to generate the household electricity but that's not intrinsically required to for power. There are many places in the world that produce power emission free.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is exactly correct. I think that some /.ers wearing rose-colored glasses wish the government didn't have to go to court to enforce it's laws. But hey, that's America! I'm just glad California's finally making a stand for the little guy.
Oh I just love it. Trash the gas and substitute coal fired electricity and that in a state which does not have enough generating capacity and hense imports over very long distances with the attendant loss of energy during transmission.
If you guys want to build some nukes near SF and LA then I'm all for it!
The sad thing is that while those from LaLa land are addicted to their cars, they have one of the nicest climates in the world for biking.
(or were you planning on Natural Gas fired electricty? If so check out CPNLQ.pk - they use to trade over $$5 bux and I was asking them at the time where they were planning on getting their gas from!)
Of course I am all for solar, but I wonder how many have really figured out how much its going to cost in panels/collectors to operate an SUV?
Global Warming is a myth, a lie, fabrication, superstition, tall tale, etc, etc. I think you get the point.
CA has no hope in winning a case that is based on lies and myths.
The lawsuit is about the fuel efficiency and emissions standards. California sued the federal government as well over these issues.
Essentially what California is trying to do is to get the auto makers to support these standards, to get them to oppose the federal government's efforts to prohibit the states from setting their own standards (basically making LA look like some non-class-M planet from Star Trek again).
So far, Toyota and Honda have been generally supportive of California's efforts (basically, they're sufficiently on top of things that they figure any technology rush to meet these standards will mean marketshare for them - Ford and GM would be about as fucked as you can possibly be). But the others are lobbying Congress to pass legislation to block California's existing laws and any new ones. The suit is designed to attach a cost to auto makers for doing this.
Think of it this way, a judge won't find for the state for the mere fact that cars pollute. A judge may find for the state if the automakers collectively conspire to undermine regulation that would reduce pollution.
Like always, these shitheads argue over who's to blame... and all the while we just keep shitting in our own bed.
t ewarmingarctic_060920111816
Oh noes, the north pole is melting! LETS SUE SOMEONE! IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060920/sc_afp/clima
BUT BUT NATURAL CYCLES! GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH! I AM A FUCKING CORPORATE SHILL!
Ah I see Sierra Club bashing, and cannot resist my desire to join in, even though my concern is totally unrelated. I also think they're insane but for a different reason.
They claim to want to protect the environment, but refuse to ally themselves with environmentalist mountain bikers like myself in their fight to protect our wild lands. They support people riding horses in "wilderness" areas, yet claim they should not allow mountain bikes because they are too damaging to the land. Anyone familiar with the level of damage caused to ecosystems due to mountain biking knows that it's extremely negligable, especially compared to what a horse riding that same trail will induce. Surprisingly, from what I can tell a vast majority of Sierra Club members agree with me but unfortunately only the top dogs within the SC call the shots.
I think the Sierra Club is a BS organization whose primary goal is NOT protecting the environment. If they really cared, they would realize that strength in numbers is the way to go, and by joining forces with mountain biking advocacy groups to fight for more designated wilderness and reasonable wilderness guidelines that do not exclude mountain bikers from the land, then they will have more money, political clout, and other support for achieving these goals.
I can understand that some of their members would prefer that no human ever set foot in certain areas of land, but that's an unreasonable solution to the problem. They need to compromise and reach a solution that will maximize the amount of land that is protected such that it remains beautiful, undeveloped, unpolluted, and rich with wildlife, which these days means getting the support of the recreational trail using community at large (mountain bikes, horses, hikers, backpackers, etc., united)
As for this lawsuit against automakers, yeah that's BS too...
Enough! I can't believe how many times I've read that already! Address the faults of the action as they exist right now, not some as compared to hypothetical scenario you concocted in the last 10 minutes of your completely-disjoint-from-the-actual-situation life (I'm taking the liberty of assuming you're not particularly more savvy to the details of political maneuvering within the California government than the average Californian). This lawsuit is a means to an end, and it's pretty obvious that it's being undertaken as a measure of some desperation. No one is being unfairly victimized here, the auto industry has made a killing externalizing its pollution costs. Did you consider the obstacles the Californian government has faced in this arena? This is real life politics, not a game of who has the best one-liner plan for an ideal world. If it takes a seemingly ridiculous lawsuit to get these companies to comply with the law, or at least contribute to the solution, then more power to CA.
The intent of the lawsuit is to create PR that you are "protecting the enviornment" ahead of an election, while not actually passing a law that will piss off SUV-loving voters.
Well, the fact that the intent of the lawsuit is relatively unrelated to its merit aside, that's American two-party politics for you. Is your "better way" just a script for a utopian society to follow? Hell, why not just suggest a simple meritocracy? Seems that would solve a lot of problems.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
What a joke, surly they should sue thereselfs as well for providing the roads for these veichles to travel on.
...watching Americans arguing FOR higher gas prices gives me some hope for this world.
[Danga] / wcmtools / memcached / autogen.sh 1.6
That's 105 bytes to say what could have been said in 15 (including whitespace)!
the Government. The Government is unconstitutionally going in and forcing them at gunpoint to change. In a sense you are also stating that taxes are a part of capitalism, when taxes are actually taking money from the citizens at gunpoint. If you don't believe me, try avoid paying your taxes and resisting arrest when they go after you for refusing. Then you will see those guns pointing right at you with itchy trigger fingers. What you want is not capitalism, but rather socialism and statism. If manufacturers weren't complying with the market, the market would simply support someone that would comply, not ask the government to take more from the auto makers at gunpoint.
_______________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian Candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
I don't think the suit will really go anywhere. Wake me up when the rest of the world files against the United States. I like the idea of higher mpg and lower emission standards but I think they should be balanced against the semi-trucks and work trucks that the cars will have to share the road with. I noticed that in some countries, the semi-trucks have side bumpers to keep little cars and pedestrians out from under the rear wheels. By making the trucks safer to be around, we could tighten our standards. I don't like the idea of using bio fuels; "Help the farmer. Save the planet." So we're going to use our eroding top soil not for food but for oil, manufacture and spray tons and tons of pesticides on the ground were it will find its way to our rivers. Last question: Thinking globally not locally. What is going to pollute the environment more: Columbia drilling for oil with their environmental regulations or the United States drilling for oil in Alaska with our regulations?
... This would result only in one of the following :
- Defendants guilty. They disobeyed some environmental law, they pay compensation for this. It is normal.
- Defendants innocents. They obeyed the law case cleared. Maybe they counter-sue for image damaging.
Why not go to court ? The problem is that there is this feeling they go to court only "because it could work anyway" and because they risk nothing.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Do you understand why the standard chip ran rich at WOT?
No, thought not.
Clue: running rich cools the exhaust valve, turbo, and cat. The OEM had to make sure they would last for 100000 miles. your aftermarket chipper does not.
1. When you register your car each year, you get an emissions test.
2. They average this year's and last year's readings to guesstimate what you dumped into the air over the last year.
3. You then get billed for total emissions (rate x miles driven). You have to pay the bill to re-register.
The system could have a sliding scale so that "reasonable" driving is relatively cheap, while driving a 69 Ford pickup across the state everyday is fairly expensive. It could also allow you to withhold estimates from your paycheck, just like they do with state taxes.
It seems this would be simple and cheap to operate, and still allow people the freedom to do as they please so long as they pay for it. You can take your classic car out cruising on rare occasion, so long as you can pay for it. (Otherwise, the car is off the road.) People have monetary incentive to maintain their emissions systems, and to buy cars that are down in the "reasonable" emissions range. Auto makers would have consumer demand for low emission cars, instead of fighting laws that mandate they make them.
Any thoughts?
This just supports my theory that we should nuke the fault lines around California, push them out to sea, and disown them.
Sell the car, buy a keyboard without a sticky period key.
As I believe you merkins call it.
If you can't convince the federal government that there's a significant causal connection between vehicle emissions and global warming, you're not likely to be able to convince a judge.
Don't be silly: you're in the 9th Circuit. (Just because you won't convince a judge in Washington after you've convinced a California Appellate judge...see subject)
Is the world full of idiots?
Is the world full of spin doctors - both paid and volunteers?
P
Do the actual documents that California filed actually say the the suit is about "Global Warming" or does the suit referr to other issues caused by car exhausts - like micro particulates?
The lawyers for California would all have to be idiots to try going into court and trying proving "Global Warming". On the other hand the Californian lawyers could easily prove that micro particulates trigger heart attacks and hundreds of other diseases.
"Global Warming" ??!! Don't they teach science in the USA's classrooms any longer? It appears so. It appears that folks seem to believe that the earth is the centre of the universe. Geeez!
Come ....onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
The real solution isn't to raise CAFE standards, it's to eliminate them and double or triple the federal gas tax. Let's let the people decide how they want to reduce fuel consumption, assuming of course that we agree on that as the goal. Incidentally, I was also puzzled about your remark about Bush and R&D spending. If anything, he's probably thrown too much money at too many projects in this area. Just raise the gas tax and watch the private sector firms come out of the woodwork with alternatives. This has the side benefit of avoiding the corporate welfare and bloat that usually accompanies government spending.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Actually, that idiot 'WillAffleckUW' is for pure statism. He or she is for the Government taking money at gunpoint and controlling everything, totally goes against not only capitalism, but the Constitution as well.
_________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Ya, and now I think someone should sue all the grocery stores because they have created vast piles of poop and tanks of pee. Ya!
For more info than you'll ever need, go to Real Climate.
Also, why a mere 200 years? 200 years is EASY to find information on. The changes in the atmosphere and weather over the past 200 years is the most double-checked and verified data that we have. It's indisputable.
It's going back thousands or millions of years to verify that earth isn't experiencing a natural cycle that people usually ask for because that's the hard part where the methods to reach back further and further become fewer and fewer until you start being unable to verify against multiple sources of data and have to prove the validity of your data through other means.
The best we can do indisputably to measure CO2 levels so far is 800,000 years from ice samples in Antarctica. We can get measures of temperature through oxygen isotope ratios, and we find that they correlate nicely. Honestly. The data is indisputable to people who are impartial and open to reason like most judges are.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
California democrats sue CERN for destroying plant with mini-black-holes created by their LARGE HADRON COLLIDER. The prosecution admits that while, "The earth isn't destroyed yet, they're pretty sure it will be soon."
OMG, anything but public transport!
Guys, you got it all wrong. Any system of transportation that relies on driving a 1 1/2 ton of metal to get a 80kg person to a certain point is inefficient, ber it oil, eletric, nuclear or antimatter based. I understand the car industry is one of the driving forces of economy, and I myself live in a country which has much fewer railways than yours, and rely strongly on trucks for long distance tranportation of goods (planly stupid). But if you are really interested in lowering pollution levels you got to accept a change in your paradigma, not only a minor adjustment in how things work presently. Mass based tranportation is the way to go.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
it's silly season in sausalito, surely.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
But I have to breathe the fumes of all the car drivers produce in vehicles that are a public hazard.
If I had the resources necessary to sue car companies and even car drivers, I would have done it long time ago.
I am forced to breath the polution produced by car drivers, to deal with the consequences, and every time taxation is suggested to curb their enthusiasm for antisocial transport their lobbies and those of the car manufacturers "influence" politicians to turn a blind eye to the issues created by uncontrolled use of cars.
You tell me how I get redress, and if you can't come with a sane answer, look againa a such attemt to sue the companies and tell me it is unreasonable to do so.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I hope they succeed, and I hope the remaining 49 states follow suit, until the abomination that is the auto industry bows to the people and starts selling vehicles for much less, with greater fuel economy and with lower emissions.
Including manufacturers of electric vehicles. They would be more expensive, but then people would be finally paying a more realistic price for the privilige of individual long distance travelling (currently motorists don't since the bill for the huge damage done to the environment is not passed to car owners).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If it is socially irresponsible, I see no problem with it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
While we are talking lawsuit, what's the logical argument/premise going to be for filing the suit? If we hold the automobile manufacturers responsible then what of the users of their products? Are you going to say that the drivers of such automobiles are "addicted", so by their logic are immune to prosecution?
It's a common strategy to avoid liability by pointing at other people and saying "but they bear part of the guilt". But whether their customers are also responsible is irrelevant. The fact is that car manufacturers have clearly some responsibility. And their responsibility isn't just limited to producing a product that later turned out to have unexpected problems, car manufacturers (like tobacco manufacturers) have been actively resisting making their products safer.
Jeez, sometimes I feel like I am getting squeezed on the far left by goofy loonies like Lockyer and pushed out of the picture by power hungry neocon fundies on the extreme right. What happened to the middle ground where people of reason and careful thought worked through compromise to help advance progress?*/RANT*
Of course, you are being squeezed; that is, there is pressure on both sides now. Why is that? Because there has been a long history of pressure from the right and staking out extreme positions on the right to try to shift the debate further to the right than would otherwise happen: the car industry has been using lawsuits, lobbying, FUD, and subsidies to strengthen their position. The car manufacturer's position--"we are not responsible"--is just as extreme. California's action is counterpressure to that, and arguably necessary counterpressure. Hopefully, the result will be a compromise in the middle.
To move, change jobs, take public transport to work!
The horror.
Humans have done this and more when economic conditions have required them to do so.
The falacy of infinte supply of clean fossil fuels under which economy operates now is completely unsustainable.
If what it takes to keep polution and global warming at bay is any of the very mild efforts enlisted above. I m all for it.
As a matter of fact, I moved recently and cut my commuting time from 1h 40 min to 20 min (all by public transport, half of it walking). Paltry effort if you ask me. But at least I am not giving excuses.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hmm...I guess the cars manufacturers could just stop selling their 'horrible' product in CA, and see how that works, eh?
In fact, I think it would be great for CA and for the US car industry if US car manufacturers stopped selling in CA; it would create a fertile ground for innovation and it would create a new breed of high-tech car company in CA.
Geez, doesn't CA have enough problems in house that should take precidence over stupid shit like this?
Air quality has been a major problem in CA, and emission controls have been very effective. Hard as it may be to believe for outsiders, Californians actually like breathing cleaner air.
Ya know what Steward, I like you. you're not like the other people- here in the trailer park.
So the leader of the state owns and drives at least five Hummers. :-)
Defense rests
Well, first you argue for measuring outcomes, then you go through a list of possible measurements and why they're difficult to do.
So, you have almost come full circle. You see, the reason people like to tax vehicles (or measure motor currents or whatever) is not because they're stupid. They realize full well that it would be better to "measure outcomes". However, costs and external constraints prevent them from doing so. So, the choice is between doing nothing or finding a surrogate measure, and they simply pick the one that seems like a reasonable compromise.
For example, a friend who lives in California owns an older car. But she drives about two miles every couple of weeks. Regardless, the emissions limits the vehicle has to fufill are based on some presumptive and quite false belief about how far she drives each year.
Yes, but so what? First of all, old cars are usually exempt from these kinds of regulations. Second, what is the harm of making it more costly for people who drive gas guzzlers rarely to pay high vehicle taxes anyway? In fact, demand for gas guzzlers by people who drive them rarely doesn't even measure outcome, since merely buying a gas guzzler even without driving it contributes to keeping gas guzzlers in production.
Aharrr!! (and Arrgh!) It's also proven that the number of pirates has declined rapidly over the same period! It's obvious that the lack of pirates is causing global warming!
(well that and the bloomin great fusion reaction we're orbiting
Seriously though, I agree that increased greenhouse gases = warmer Earth is pretty much proven, but is it the biggest effect on global temps? What about the sun's output - is it constant? What about the distance from the sun - is this decreasing? The planet's core is cooling but does it spike ever?
Where do cars figure on the scale of greenhouse gas producers? How do we know how much CO2 was around 800,000 years ago?
Cheers,
Scoot.
Personally i think californistan should go right to the source and sue OPEC for making the oil available. hell, while theyre at it, why not name mother nature[/god/whatever] as a co-defendant for not degrading organic matter into something that burns cleaner. only 6 automakers? why not all of them? oh, right. forgot who were dealing with- they only acknowlege what's "popular".
While currently a tax on H2's lines up with your social agenda, however noble it may be, it is still social engineering.
What happens when they start taxing anyone who uses too much bandwith.
Perhaps we can tax those who rent and don't buy houses.
Start a tax on people who work on Sundays.
Looks pretty scary to me, but maybe I am just crazy.
Blaming everything on everyone else. Next thing we'll hear is they're suing tire manufacturers for damaging the roads for all back maintenance costs since the highways were incepted... Or better yet, schools suing children's parents for not doing enough to educate their children and driving their API down...
Take some fucking ownership of your problems. If someone makes a gun, and that gun is used in a murder, the manufacturer of the gun can't be sued for wrongful death.... As if it wasn't hard enough to do business here our genious government wants to make it impossible.
The only way the people of california should back this..
is if 100% of the award.. goes to creating a mass transit system.
No lawyers fee's, No campaign contributions, Just fund a construction project
to move people fast, efficient and CLEAN.
My gosh, don't these people know that the largest atmospheric polluter is not automobiles but our coal power plants? As far as I remember, automobiles produce ~30% of our C02 emissions, while coal power plants account for ~40% of our C02 emissions (and not to mention the other pollutants they produce).
q ueKeyLookup/RAMR6MBLP4/$File/06ES.pdf
SUE THE POWER COMPANIES FIRST!!!
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/Uni
Look at Figure ES-16. See how much more coal is harming our atmosphere?
why don't they ( sierra club ) sue China ..master of pollution
are we (US) responsible for pollution of the world.????
and you ( sierra club ) where are you now ??in USA or North Pole???
Sierra club reside in USA and sue USA???
what a TRAITOR
The world should sue California for all the idiots Hollywood have created.
Why California is not suing Hyundai or Kia? There are cars of those automakers there. Also Renault, Yugo, etc.
And in another month, we'll hear Louisiana is suing the automakers over global warming--and Katrina. Ooohh, I wanna get ringside tickets for that bout. L-I-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. Everyone and their grandma is invited to the class-action suit frenzy.
for all the bad movies that are released from the state. What's next? The US is going to sue Airbus for making terrorist weapons??
Every day hundreds of thousands of State of California vehicles take to the road, contributing to pollution and global warming--more, indeed, than in any other state. Is the state going to sue itself? Is it going to park those cars and tell state employees to walk or take the bus? Is the state's rather egotistical governor, legislators, and the state lawyers who filed this going to travel only by bike? I think not.
Recall the California city council who, based on a spoof website, tried to ban Dihydrogen oxide (water) as a dangerous chemical because of all the deaths it causes (aka drowning). This is just more nonsense from our nuttiest state. And of course, it's also the typical lawyerly scheme to generate a lot, lot more billable hours as these lawsuits drag on and on.
In the end, the U.S. Congress, which for all its problems with pork, is far saner than that in California, will simply ban these sorts of lawsuits like they did those against companies that make guns.
Of course, if we sawed California off and let it drift away, there would be a problem. We'd alarm the entire Pacific region from Tasmania to Siberia. Everyone would be afraid that the state would drift on to their shores.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
No, that's what you said.
I just explained cause and effect. You just look at it from the fly's viewpoint. I care nothing for the flies, since they're non-productive and add nothing to GDP but only reduce it.
It's like worshipping pollution. I think any system that fails to include pollution on the cost side is insane - you worship it.
With the ice in the Arctic rapidly melting (read slashdot post above), and Amazon Basin (which acts a giant heatsink for the world) on the way out due to deforestation, in 10, 20, 30 years most of California (and the Eastern Seaboard, and Gulf states) will be underwater anyway, and car companies that are safely located in Detroit can stop paying attention to them.
$signature =~ s/$signature//;
Perspective changing view!
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
It all about the money.
This is yet another thinly veiled attempt by a greedy state govenment to grab more revenue. Like last year when California tried to instigate property taxes against airlines and spacecraft that passed through their "airspace".
Not even 50% of "climate scienctists" agree with global warming. Wake up and smell the coffee man.