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."
For a number of years, CA's strict emmissions have been met by all auto manufacturer's anyway. There is no special CA car like there was in the 80's.
When there was such an arrangement, bringing in an out of state car incurred a penalty fee on registration. For me it would have been $300 some odd dollars (ironically more than half the price of the car). But before I could register it, the car was deemed a gross polluter and I was forced to sell it out of state.
As far as I know, there was no way to retrofit a car to match the standards. Many a hobbyist have expressed how much they wish they could just pass some straight forward test for emissions, thats it end of story. But the car has to have some sort of pedigree, meaning either the engine you put in the car becomes the standard for the emissions test. You can only put in an engine from a newer car, and it has to be manufactured for CA (if that applies to that year).
But that is all from memory. Its been a while.
The real solution from an automotive perspective is to federally mandate gas milage standards
That's already in effect, though in a rather cryptic and ineffective manner. Each automaker has to meet a certain cumulative MPG rating. 1 Ford Festiva @ 40 mpg + 1 Explorer @ 15 mpg = 27.5 mpg average for Ford. That's part of the reason Ford (and GM, and others) produce ungodly ugly, tiny, gas sipping crapmobiles that few people buy. It offsets the effect of the H2's, Escalades, and Expeditions that people are buying. Or at least were buying.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Hmm...I guess the cars manufacturers could just stop selling their 'horrible' product in CA, and see how that works, eh?
Yeah, stop selling in the 8th largest economy in the world. I'm sure that would work great for them.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Your data on SUV sales is utterly incorrect. The data (with links):
Ford SUV sales lead to loss: "7/21/2006 - Ford Motor Co. reported an unexpected quarterly loss Thursday as sales of sport-utility vehicles plunged amid rising gasoline prices. The loss threatened Chief Executive Officer William Clay Ford Jr.'s plan to revive the No. 2 U.S. automaker."
Chrysler has slower truck and SUV sales: "9/18/2006 - DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group said at the weekend it could lose about $US1.27 billion this year, a much deeper loss than it forecast in July because of mounting inventory and slower truck and SUV sales."
German premium car makers hit by slump in SUV sales: "9/13/2006 - Germany's premium car makers are feeling the pinch as consumers in the United States, the world's biggest car market, are turning their backs on fuel-guzzling SUVs."
Chrysler slashes production of trucks, SUVs: "9/19/2006 - In the meantime, the company plans to significantly scale back on truck and SUV output due to a decline in sales of such vehicles. Trucks and SUVs, which historically represent about three-quarters of Chrysler's volume and return generous profits, have been under pressure in the U.S. due to high gasoline prices, [DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter] Zetsche said."
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.
As I recall, the deregulation was passed while Pete Wilson (a Republican) was in the governor's chair. As much as I'm in favor of deregulation in concept, the law that was passed was badly broken, especially sinced it forced the major electric suppliers to sell off many of their power generation assets, which sort of goes against the spirit of deregulation when you're regulating what the power companies can do.
Anyway, California is an odd state, with more Democrats than anything else, but also a larger independent/decline-to-state fraction than most states. It's why, despite a generally left-leaning population, four of the last six governors have been Republican, going back to Reagan. California Republicans tend to be a little different from what one might consider mainstream Republicans, though, tending to run more towards the middle of the road (Bob Dornan notwithstanding).
Half of the state budget is mandated to go to education. The problem, however, is that the state's schools often struggle with enormous bureaucracies and a population that includes high numbers of children of both legal and illegal migrants, which have their own unique set of difficulties as they can move at odd points in the school year, making it difficult to keep them up to par. At $8000 or so per student average funding, there's no reason that there should be declared a funding shortfall. However, much gets eaten up in helping these below-average students.
There's no problem with revenues. The problem lies with the Legislature's insistence on spending every dime of new income without paying off old debts. The last couple of years have seen unexpected jumps in revenue in the order of billions of dollars. Half of it has to go to education, but the other half is immediately seized for pet projects. Existing pet projects are already hurting things (look at the number of panels that meet only a few times a month -- if that often -- and pay the members tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for very little actual work), and they just add more.
Part of me just wants to quit the state. For the moment, I will be voting to re-elect the governor, because as much as I want to see Terminator 4 and True Lies 2, I fear the consequences of Angelides in office more than I want to see new movies. Having a Republican in office at least offers a semblance of a bulwark against the Democrat-controlled Legislature's drive to ruin the state.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.