California Sues Automakers for Global Warming 725
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..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"(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*
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the lawsuits were successful in blocking the tougher regulations, then it would appear the law is already on the auto-makers side. So this suit could basically be summed up as "I'm suing you for winning the previous lawsuit".
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
California is the home of marketing, right? Has it not occurred to anyone that legislation like this is bad press? Comeon now, you have some of the best minds in the world working and living in the state of California and this is what they come up with? How about some creative legislation, like providing state incentives rather than disencentives for more fuel efficient cars? Making metropolitan parking spaces smaller and providing drivers of micro cars discounted parking or opening up carpool lanes to micro cars like the Smart ForTwo? How about doing things like allowing drivers of micro cars to register their cars every other year? There are lots of other potential incentives that could be implemented rather than playing a legal one upsmanship that only serves to employ class action lawyers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait. This is an American state. Market failures are ok, unless we can fix them without taxing anyone.
Seriously, instead of telling the manufacturers they have to meet a certain fuel economy rating, California should just apply taxes to vehicles that don't meet that rating. The further above the rating, the higher the tax. If someone wants to pay 35% tax on a Hummer H2 despite its fuel economy, let him. If the population of California still buys vehicles that drink too much gas, raise the taxes. Conversely, if they achieve a better-than-anticipated mileage, consider reducing the tax, or providing a small tax credit to very environmentally-friendly vehicles. Target demand, not supply. Give people freedom to buy what they want, but a strong economic incentive to buy what is best for society as a whole.
Taxing fuel makes sense too. The more fuel your vehicle consumes, and the further you drive it, the more tax you pay. However, this creates economic pressure on poor Californians, so it would have to be balanced with a tax credit system for the poor or improvements to public transit to mitigate the impact.
Sure, this will hurt the economy in the short run, but in the long run, doing nothing will do far more damage.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other advantage is you create a moving target. A 30 mpg SUV or 50mpg compact car might get a subsidy now, but not in 5 years when the average has been pushed up. No change in the law is needed. Likewise, you're not banning the 10mpg pickup, but the buyer might have to pay $10,000 in extra taxes to buy it. The big key is what comes in must come out (with a reasonable overhead cost). None of that crap where they divert the taxes in to lower housing property tax or give school superintendents a raise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If taxing the poor and middle class doesn't tckle your fancy then you're saying tax the rich. There's no way around it. But, if only the rich can afford to drive then there's damn little pollution to worry about, is there?
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of many solutions to this problem that are, as someone once said, "simple, obvious and wrong."
Good public policy, like good engineering, measures outcomes, not inputs. I don't care what class of car someone owns. Nor do I care that they are buying a gallon of gas today, which is what a tax on gas measures. Neither of those things has anything necessary connection with how much a person pollutes.
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. Thus, the outcome we want to limit--high emissions--is estimated via an input--the fact of car ownership and its tailpipe emission levels--and some trivially false assumptions about how much the vehicle will be driven.
This is the kind of thinking that brought us Three Mile Island, where the engineer who designed the reactor control system thought for some unaccountable reason that the power going to the motor controlling a valve could be used to measure the the state of the valve, thus misleading operators as to the state of the reactor when a valve jammed. This is trivially bad engineering, and likewise trivially bad public policy.
If it matters, measure it. That is, measure the actual thing, not "something that I think ought to be somehow kinda sorta related to it in my incredibly limited imagination."
I know damed well I'm not smart enough to figure out an adequate surrogate measure of pollution that takes into account the incredible diversity of human behaviour. Trying to do so is like what the architects of modern security theatre do when they ban an entire state of matter from carry on luggage: they focus exclusively on one particular scenario that "just seems to me" to be the most important one, and ignore all the inconvenient realities.
The ideal anti-pollution charge is one that is based on actual emissions, not imaginary surrogates. This is both a technological and a political problem. Fixed power plants are easy to monitor. Automobiles could be retrofitted with tailpipe loggers that measured actual emissions, and a charge levied as part of the license fee based on the past year's actual emissions. But even this solution would a) cost more than some people can afford and b) create a cottage industry in tampering with the data.
The difficulty is that we would like any anti-pollution charge to only kick in above a certain level. We'd like everyone to have a certain amount of polution for free, or at least cheap. That way poor people wouldn't get hit by socially-regressive charges. The only way to do this is to somehow monitor fuel usage, which requires burdens of measurement and monitoring that are unacceptably invasive to many people, especially in the U.S. (although with your government, I can understand that a certain level of paranoia is justified.)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better, it could fund the construction of about four or five more clean, safe nuclear power plants so we can remove our dependence on power plants that produce more global warming, e.g. fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants. (Yeah, that's right. Hydro plants in some cases cause more global warming than fossil fuel plants [newscientist.com] thanks to decaying matter in the holding ponds producing methane.)
Then, California could mandate that all automobiles be powered off of electrical power using some of the newer, fast-charging batteries. At today's electrical rates, if my math was correct, assuming no conversion loss in the storage process, electric-powered cars would be equivalent to paying $0.125 (12 1/2 cents) per gallon at the pumps. With more nuke plants online, the price of energy would be even cheaper. This would have a significant economic benefit for the state, reducing the cost of consumer goods and driving the economy. This, in turn, would free financial resources that could be used to buy the next crop of automobiles, so in the end, auto manufacturers come out ahead, too.
Because they don't involve gasoline dispensers, mandatory electric cars (as in 100% of all new vehicles sold must be electric by 2012) would eliminate multiple causes of smog and pollution; not only would you drastically reduce automobile emissions, but you would also drastically reduce evaporation of gasoline vapors, fuel spills, etc. at the pumps. You would also eliminate a major cause of groundwater contamination---specifically, leaking fuel tanks.
Finally, this would dramatically reduce our state's dependence on oil, which would make us less vulnerable to the goings on in parts of the world where oil is produced. The long-term economic benefits are fairly significant.
The problem is that in order to remove our dependence on oil, we have to have a replacement. That means that the cost of battery technology needs to drop by a couple orders of magnitude. Volume will achieve this, but only if all car manufacturers are forced to switch by law. otherwise, they will look at the initial cost and say that it is too expensive in the short term, and would harm their ability to compete in the market.
And solving the battery problem is only one problem. The fact is, we also have aging power grids that haven't been maintained, coupled with a serious lack of generating capacity. Much of this shortage has been the result of environmentalism gone amuck, screaming "not in my backyard" about nuclear plants, all the while promoting things that are much worse for the environment.
That's what bothers me most about the environmental movement. It always seems to take a knee-jerk approach rather than a studied view of the whole system, and the result is that more often than not, the things that are pushed in the name of environmental reform usually do more harm than good. What we need most is a careful study of our energy policy in CA, a careful study of our generator capacity, and a detailed analysis of how much additional power we need to be able to handle EV cars. Then, we need laws that demand EV cars. It is far easier to control emissions from a few power plants owned by a few companies than to control emissions from a few million automobiles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true. That would only be true with the original lead acid designs. Here are some other possibilities:
You're also assuming old vehicle designs. Those old estimates of 60 minutes per charge were based on standard car
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Batteries are THE problem. One pound of gasoline stores more energy than 1000 pounds of lead acid battery. Even a battery with 10 times lead acid energy density means it STILL takes 100 pounds of such a battery to contain the same energy. Even IF there were a good battery, what happens when you want to take a 500 mile trip and the battery runs only for 300 miles. How do you charge such a 300 mile battery in any where near a comparable amount of t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By swapping out the batteries at the charging station and slotting in freshly charged ones.
Next question?
Oh, and there's only a factor of 500 between lead-acid batteries and petrol with regard to energy density, and less than a factor of 50 between lithium batteries and petrol. Still a big gap, but perhaps not entirely insurmountable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear power plants produce waste too, obviously, but nowhere near as much as disposing of electric cars would. Ironically (for your typical uneducated environmentalist) the batteries are a bigger problem than the waste in your
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that California BANNED Nuclear power plants some time ago. For that matter they've all but banned new power plant construction with I think only one plant being built in like the last twenty years.
See California expects everyone else to provide them with power (and event
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Soviet Californiastan... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Several years ago, I bought a 1979 Mercedes 450SEL6.9. The car was originally purchased in France, and brought to the US when its owner moved here in the mid 80's. It was retrofitted to pass the US standards, but I always had a bitch of a time getting it to pass CA's SMOG tests. Several years ago, I let the registration expire, with the intenetion of reregistering it once it becomes smog exempt in a few years. Not that it m
Re:Not Quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd have phrased it like this:
"Arnold's first move was to fulfil a campaign pledge and repeal an unpopular tax increase that the legislature put in place to help cover up its irresponsible runaway spending habits."
"Separately, the California legislature once again passed a budget that failed to even attempt to cut spending in order to bring the budget deficit under control. At the same time voters continue their support of these habits by passing referendums that spend money like a drunk teen with his father's credit card."
"In a fit of total irresponsibility, voters also turned down a referendum that would have required their government to operate within a balanced budget."
"Just for fun, voters voted against an anti-gerrymandering law because they like things just the way they are."
I wish more actors would get into politics. Only the worst sort of person devotes their life to being a politician. Actors are able to glide into office on the basis of their popularity. In the past I'd have been annoyed by that, but I now realize that voters rarely vote people into office for good reasons. Paul Graham wrote an essay on how the most attractive candidates usually win. Therefore, it's better to get a wide selection of random people in office than it is to have a consistently bad selection of incumbents who have spent their lives as parasites on society.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, most of the tax increases in California are voted for directly by the voters. Notice how many bond measures get passed? Yes, those are taxes. California is simply financially suicidle. The state would not fall into a deficit situation if they would stop giving money to special interest groups for projects that have nothing to do with basic govrnment services.
Sadly the state was in the black, with a reserve, before Enron and friends, with complete support of the whitehouse ("Energy concerns ar
Re:Not Quite... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't get efficient power distribution when you start regulating it with the government. And BTW, true deregulation never occured in California, until it does they will continue to have problems.
Gray Davis got sacked because he was incompentent, even for a democrat, and people are pretty dumb about voting for hollywood celebrities too.
I don't want to hear anything about education spending. Most people around where I live pay almost as much in property tax then I do in rent. Why? Oh, it's for the CHILDREN. As if people aren't smart enough to choose their own schools to put their kids in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And from the article in question:
Re:Not Quite... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant.
I have a love-hate relationship with CA. Some of their regulations regarding emmissions, etc, help push the envelope forward, but then they forget to grandfather in any older vehicles. On the other hand, their desire to be so gigantically left brings about things like teaching Ebonics in schools (and I capitalize Ebon
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every X time period, you car has to pass an emissions test (required scores based on date of manufacture). If you car fails, you can't register it for use on public roads
What if you have a car you've bought outside the state...and move to the state with it.
Most cars these days a 50 state legal. If your's isn't, you are best off selling it outside the state and buying one that is, because the only way to register it in CA is to make it pass.
What if you want to modify your car (chips, exhaust, other higher perfomance stuff)?
What part of "For off-road use only" did you not understand when you did this to your car?
Do they make you take it off when you move there, or stop you at the state border and make you walk in?
So long as you are visiting, you don't need to change a thing. If you move to the state, you have X weeks to get a license and register your vehicles. (same in all states) Ok, some thing are plain illegal and will get you pulled over, but even those items will only earn you a ticket, it would have to be pretty serious for them to impound you vehicle.
I've always heard the joke about CA being the granola state
Its the land of fruits and nuts, get it straight. But compare the smag in LA or SF during the 70's to today; then realize there are 3x more cars on the road today. Pollution controls worked. Using them to call Californians crazy is akin to laughing at Linus T. for his idea to write his own OS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh.....all of what I'm talking about is perfectly legal for road use in the states I know about.
It is perfectly legal to swap out exhausts...chips...reprogram your ICU and add on superchargers or turbos aftermarket....
About the only thing that is listed as 'off road use only' is a straight pipe, where you remove the catalytic converter...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, stop selling in the 8th largest economy in the world. I'm sure that would work great for them.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Without any transportation they won't be the 8th largest economy for long.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, given the problems CA was having with air pollution a couple decades ago, I don't see how people can think emmissions laws are a bad idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Emissions laws are good, and that is the ironic part. Car manufactures are right now meeting Californias emissions standards. How can California now turn around and sue after their own set standards have been met?
Sounds to me like a politician trying to find a new golden trough to feed at.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CA "special" emissions work largely by becoming the de facto standard, since their emissions standards get adopted by several other states, not just California. Roughly 25% of the cars made meet whatever the Californians required at the time it was made, because to put it simply, it would cost more to design separate Civic, California Editions and Civic, Everyone Else Editions, except when the cost of manufacture
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real solution from an automotive perspective is to federally mandate gas milage standards
That's less effective than increasing the cost of gasoline, which is more market-based as a solution. Yes, I know that artificially increasing the cost of gasoline might have secondary economic and political effects, such as giving politicians more pork. But it definitely
provide[s] incentives for more fuel efficient and lower polluting automobiles
However, I, too, feel the pinch between the ascendant right wing and the lunatic left wing. There's not much room for "real" liberals, is there?
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SUV sales collapsed when gas prices went up. Used SUV prices collapsed when prices went up.
Even mildly higher gasoline had a dramatic effect on the production of gas guzzlers.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, we're still using about as much fuel as before the price hikes.
The use of fuel is not significantly affected by its price except over the long term. We might see fuel use drop over a ten or fifteen year period, but in that time, the amount of economic harm that high fuel prices has caused will drive our economy into the ground. The secondary effects are huge. My average price for shipping stuff to people has gone through the roof over the last few years. Where before I could afford to buy something for $10 over the Internet and get it shipped for $3.50, these days, I feel like I have to accumulate an order of at least $30 worth of stuff before it is worth the shipping price, as the minimum shipping cost varies from $6.50 to as much as $10, depending on shipper.
Now bear in mind that these costs don't just affect the cost of finished goods delivery. They affect the cost of shipping parts to the companies that produce the finished goods. They affect the cost of shipping raw materials to the companies that manufacture parts. And so on. This means that everything costs significantly more. For every extra dollar you pay at the pump, you're probably paying $20 in other areas as an indirect result.
And mildly higher gasoline has not had a dramatic effect on production of true gas guzzlers. They're still cranking out as many tractor trailers and diesel-electric locomotives as before. Cars don't make up the bulk of gasoline use. Fully 31% is used by non-transportation uses alone---natural gas, heating oil, industrial use, and electrical generation. Another 12% is used by freight trucks, 7% by aircraft. A mere 40% is used by passenger vehicles.
If SUVs make up only 15% of all automobiles sold, even if they use twice as much fuel as another vehicle (and given that they are usually driven shorter distances on average, that's a stretch), they'd be less than 30% of the automotive fuel use. That would mean that if you could get rid of them entirely, you would only cut our fuel use by 12%, but they'd be replaced by something, so you'd really only reduce it by 6%. And those are very generous estimates. A more realistic guess is more like 1-2% decrease.
Worse, recent studies show that the amount of energy used to manufacture hybrid vehicles is so high that they actually are worse for the environment than SUVs [reason.org].
Ah, the ironing is delicious.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Toyota warrantees the batteries on a Prius for 8 years / 80,000 miles. Estimated life of the battery pack is 150,000. Plus, figuring on 300,000 miles on a Hummer is hilarious. I'd be willing to be you couldn't find one Hummer in the world with that mileage. I'd be 99% of them are in the scrap heap with half of that.
It's not difficult to show a lower cost per mile for the Hummer when you divide the cost by three times the mileage.
You can't reduce oil consumption by taxing it. (Score:3, Interesting)
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? D
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gas is price-inelastic. This means increasing the price has very little effect on how much is consumed
Yes, gas is price inelastic -- in the short term. You are correct that
SUV sales and gas sales have not been negatively impacted by the gasoline increases recently
I also do not turn my li'l car in and buy an SUV on every day when gas prices drop.
However, if people expect these to be permanent, *then* they start making long term adaptations. Now, if we have a gas tax, and use the proceeds to clean up or compensate the damage from pollution, and people still drive the same
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) the price has to get well above $3 per gallon as an average over the entire US (so it should be $4/g in places with traditionally high prices like california).
2) the price has to stay up that way for a long time (not $3 this month and $2 next). By 'long' I mean 5+ years. Long enough to give consumers the ability to change cars and homes. (running out to purchase a new hybrid does not make short or even medium term financial sense
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ford SUV sales lead to loss [ohio.com]: "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 [thewest.com.au]: "9/18/2006 - DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group said at the weekend it could lose about $US1.27 billion this year, a
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not need lots of new laws- lots of new officials to enforce those laws- lots of forms and procedures to fill out and follow- lots of lawsuits.
All you need is a simple $1 per gallon additional tax.
Actually I have a better way than taxing fuel (Score:3)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel your pain. As a conservative (Classical Liberal) I am squeezed out of the picture by the big government spending, constitutional rewriting current Republican administration. On the other h
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I'm a environmentalist and believe in anthropogenic global warming. I think this is retarded.
You're absolutely right, it's not like anyone is physically addicted to the Chevy Suburban. Maybe they can't mentally shake the cultural effect that says they have to have a big shiny phal^H^H^H^H car to prove their status in society, but that sounds like their problem. If Californians think SUVs are harmful, then stop buying them you superficial idiots!
I'm not getting the basis for the suit. Have the auto makers broken any laws?
It says in the article that they're alleging "damages" from greenhouse gasses. Well we've known pollution was harmful to varying extents since the beginning of the industrial age, and have accepted that we're going to have it to one degree or another. When we think that degree should be less, then we pass a law that requires reduced emissions. That's what has been going on for years, what California has spearheaded and their new law addresses... So what the hell else do you want the auto makers to do? ICEs produce greenhouse gasses. They always have.
If you could prove the auto makers hid research on the dangers of car exhaust, or produced fake research showing it to be harmless, you may have something, but even then if they abided by emissions standards I just can't see the problem.
But this is California, after all. Progressive, trendy, often superficial, and, oh yeah, packed to the gills with lawyers.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that all 30+ million Californians think and act alike.
The fact of the matter is that some Californians think SUVs are harmful, and some Californians buy them. Most people who think SUVs are harmful already don't buy them. (Not all -- there are people who think SUVs are harmful in aggregate, but decide that their own use is justified.) The challenge facing those who consider SUVs to be harmful is not to stop buying them -- most of them have already -- but to convince those who do buy SUVs to stop.
External detrimentality, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Political statement only (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Political statement only (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, judges are generally a lot more reasonable in the face of a sensible argument. But convincing the judge that humans are responsible for global warming isn't the trick. Convicing her that the automakers are responsible (and not, say, the people driving the cars) is the real hurdle. And that's also why this suit is so inane: it implicitly tries to shift the blame for global warming to Big Scary Corporations and away from us as individuals. Heavan knows we can't go taking reasponsibility for our own actions.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yup, and didn't Arnie play a part in getting the Humvee available as a civilian vehicle?
This suit is like saying that McDonalds is responible for people not watching their diet.
*smug grin* (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I always knew my Kia was safe for the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It *IS* kind of odd... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Countersue (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm confused. Why are we worried about the CO2, when it's the methane that's the problem?
And isn't the bigger greenhouse problem the
If I were an automaker... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have the guts to sue the drivers (Score:3, Interesting)
And great timing for the American auto industry btw. Maybe left-leaning interest groups (unions and environmental groups) could coordinate with each other.
Nuisance Suits for Dummies? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Sovereign State of California set standards for what it determined to be healthy levels of pollution from automobiles. It then enforced those standards and required auto makers to meet the requirements, allowing them to do business in the state when they did. Now it is suing the auto makers because...?
In reality, it should be the People vs. the State for determining the incorrect levels of pollution that are deemed 'healthy.' There might actually b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like pretty much every case where a telecomm company was sued by the state for screwing consumers "we'll bring out dsl to smalltown, oregon by 2007" etc.
Nuisance, but sometimes the states "negotiate" this way.
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Good Idea, Take One Step Further (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
We live in a free market democracy. Or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be interested in what a Libertarian would say about this. For one, they believe in pretty much complete personal freedom, but the right to extending your fist stopping at my nose i
awesome (Score:2)
On the face it sounds insane... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:On the face it sounds insane... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a governmental problem to me. If the manufacturers are avoiding the limits by legal means, then the legislature screwed up. If they're avoiding the limits by illegal means, then law enforcement has screwed up. Either way, it appears to be easier for California to sue someone than to admit that their lawmakers and/or cops are ineffectual.
Well that's fine (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want these cars, but want them to meet standards
Re:On the face it sounds insane... (Score:5, Interesting)
That law isn't perfect, but it's better than what was there before. Better than what goes on in America.
Money would do what? (Score:2)
Next candidates for lawsuit... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
fight warming (Score:2, Funny)
Hypocrites (Score:3, Interesting)
fscking attorney general... (Score:4, Insightful)
Car pollution that serious? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You drive an SUV? *YOU* are the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This is great... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Disgraceful (Score:3, Funny)
Whoever did that- It is an insult to retarded people everywhere.
All you need to know is that an election's coming (Score:3, Insightful)
They should sue themselves. (Score:3, Funny)
The Real Offender (Score:4, Funny)
Yes! I'm finally no longer responsible! (Score:4, Funny)
Impressive Spin (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hitting first to look like your not to blame (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Missing the point of the lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet for some reason, the suit includes Toyota, which pioneered the marketing of hybrid cars in the US, and Honda, which produces hybrid versions of some of their more popular models.
First part is EASY. Second part is hard. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.