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."
California has made many attempts to get automobile manufacturers to cut emissions, and have been repeatedly sued by those auto manufacturers to keep those laws from getting enforced. California is now simply returning the favor.
I doubt that anyone seriously expects the state to win this suit, but they are at the very least drawing attention to the auto manufacturers' continuous efforts to keep any law that might involve reduced emissions or higher fuel economy off the books.
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.
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
In Switzerland (at least), manufacturers are required to pay for the disposal of the packaging for their products. You're right, this cost is then built right into the cost of the product. But you also notice how all of a sudden there is MUCH less product packaging everywhere. The manufacturer realized that if they have to include the actual cost of their product, they'd have to pare it down to move product.
That law isn't perfect, but it's better than what was there before. Better than what goes on in America.
You obviously have no idea of the disaster for California that mandatory 100% electric new cars would be. Anyone living more than 30 miles from work, or with a mountain between them and work, would have to move, change jobs, take public transport to work, or own 2 cars (one for each half of the trip.) California would become a mecca for importing used cars and keeping old cars on the road, increasing pollution. A huge disruption in manufacturing technology would be required to support the new technology. The electric grid, already severely strained, would need extensive, expensive upgrades and would break frequently while being changed. Remember, blackouts in California during heat waves means deaths.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
For a battery-powered car to carry the same energy as a typical 15 gallon tank, you would need 2000kg of the best performing Li-ion batteries available today (This figure includes the higher efficiency of electric). Your energy figure is also way off (I got about 1/2 the cost of gasoline), but it is definately cheaper.
I am almost positive car makers know this. The way I see it, the two reasons car makers haven't adopted electric is for two-reasons:
1. Batteries just aren't high enough capacity. You do not get the range that consumers want.
2. No one wants to wait 8 hours for their battery to change, especially if they're on the road. I realize that there are now fast-charging Li-ion batteries that can charge in a few minutes, but they are incredibly expensive and hard to make. The best compromise I can think of is if the packs were swappable. So you basically keep the "gas" stations. When you want to charge up, they take out your battery, put in a freshly charged one, you pay your money and off you go.