Calif. sues 6 carmakers in global warming suit

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(captain archer @ Sep 22 2006, 12:56 AM) [snapback]323251[/snapback]</div>

Pffff...... Like big oil isn't filling the car companies pockets to keep MPG at 21...... Europe legislates this stuff to Automakers, and that is why they are getting 44 mpg on average.

 

It seems pretty hypocritical of CA to suddenly blame the automakers.

Maybe the automakers should countersue CA for building all those roads
to promote driving....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 21 2006, 11:59 PM) [snapback]323236[/snapback]</div>

Not so fast.

In regards to eating, you have the choice of eating a healthy, well balanced meal with the inconvience of fixing it or waiting for it but the benifits of a fit body, or you have the choice of eating burgers and fries, with the benifits of not having to make it and not having to wait for it, and the consequence of a fat body.

With transportation in California, Californians have the choice between an efficient public transportation system with well planned communities where people live near public transportation and their worksite, but with that comes the inconvience of not being able to travel where you want, when you want and results in denser populations. Or Californians can choose to utilize millions upon millions of individual cars and live in homes 20 to 100 miles from their worksite, with the advantages of having the backyard they want and the ability to go where they please when they please, but with the consequence of excessive carbon emissions.

Californians chose the latter, and the Californian government is now suing car makers because of the choices that Californians made.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 22 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]323355[/snapback]</div>

There are plenty of meal choices that are far healthier, and just as fast and easy to buy.

Many of the choices that Californians have made were squashed by the car companies and more recently, the federal government. I understand where you're doing here, and find it a bit too simplified. Where I grew up we had four electric light rail systems that EVERYBODY used to commute to work. These railroads were bought up by car and tire makers, and replaced with far less convenient busses... and then even those were taken away. We wanted ZEVs in the late 90's, and after a short stint of having those, they're all gone from the dealerships as well.

You imply that we've had enough choices, and chose wrong. I'm saying that we had many of our choices taken away from us. How crazy is it that the auto makers made EVs for us... and then took them all back to continue down the gasoline path? I'm not saying here that I'm in favor of law suits in general, or this one in specific. I'm saying that we need choice - and we don't have it. How the hell do we get it?

This is not a CA unique problem here, folks. And the results, either way, will not only effect CA.

 

sorry marlin. your logic doesnt work for me. there is a growing body of evidence that shows that car companies restricted the choice of the CA consumer by not only not building proven EV's to purchase but also TAKING AWAY EV vehicles from consumers who were more than willing to buy them. that is a pretty good reason to sue in my book. as usual, CA still fell down because of the huge amount of time wasted before filing the suit. lets face it, if not for a certain documentary no coindentally just released weeks before the suit, they would probably just be warming up a new bucket of sand to bury their heads in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SoopahMan @ Sep 22 2006, 01:08 AM) [snapback]323277[/snapback]</div>

Well stated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SoopahMan @ Sep 22 2006, 01:08 AM) [snapback]323277[/snapback]</div>

I'm not a big fan of the suit either... however... when CA tried to set ZEV requirements in this state, it was the car makers and the federal government that sued the state! So are you proposing that the state and fed just keep suing each other and see who ends up with the short stick? There's no easy answer - except for removing the incentives for the gas guzzlers as you mention here!

I've enjoyed the comments regarding how the car makers should just stop selling the cars in CA... or charge more for them in CA. Well, they had that choice when CA attempted to set strict controls. They could have said - "Nope! No more cars for CA." OR they could have said, "CA cars will cost an extra $2k." But that wasn't what they chose to do. Instead they sued the state for "illegally" trying to set fuel economy standards - which is apparently the job of the federal goverment. And if that's the case - how do we get the standards set appropriately? And how do we remove the incentives for 6,000+ pound "trucks?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(captain archer @ Sep 21 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]323251[/snapback]</div>

Maybe you can help me with this. I'm already doing just about everything that I know how to do. I spend thousands of unpaid hours "doing something" to effect change in this area. I maintain what has become one of the most complete "end user" EV web sites on the net. I consult with private EV designers. I moderate and participate in several EV boards, I attend and participate in symposiums and ARB hearings. I have participated in protests that have resulted in saving sevearl hundred EVs from the crusher. I've helped get the first EV movie made, and promoted it by hosting a Q&A at my local theater when it was released. I write letters and articles to magazines and newspapers. I hand out information at environmental events. I drive my car in several local parades every year. I even spend quite a bit of time tossing out alt. vehicle information on PC. I've purchased (or leased if no purchase was offered) every production EV that I could find and afford. I charge my EVs with my PV system. I ride my bike more often than I drive. My most polluting car is the Prius. My family travels almost twice as many miles as my neighbors do, and we use 10/th the gasoline. My family is bigger too.

And where have we gotten in ten years? No production EVs available from the big makers.

I don't mean for this to sound like I enjoy tooting my own horn (and yes, I do realize it is too late for that). I mention these things to see if there is anything else you'd like to see me doing, instead of all my "whining?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 20 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]322602[/snapback]</div>

Hey this is my dream! Things always work the way I want them to there!

I just don't see the lawsuit doing much good: some politicians will make some points and some will lose; many lawyers will make a lot of money, whether the automakers pay or not; kicks Ford and GM in the teeth while they're down; extremely unlikely to result in any _real_ improvements in MPG or reduction in emissions; cost of all this gets passed on to the consumer reguardless of the outcome.

Alternative 1: increase gas tax or create emissions tax. Consumers still pay for it, but start buying higher MPG/lower emission cars as a result. Producers respond to lower SUV sales by building higher MPG/lower emissions cars. Taxes collected are used to provide incentives for buying/owning higher MPG/lower emission cars. Probably more effective in the long run but politicians lose points so this would never happen.

Alternative 2: take money being spent on lawsuit and invest in Tesla Motors. More all-electric car companies are created hoping to take advantage of the government handout, creating more options. Oh wait ... I'm dreaming again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 22 2006, 03:31 PM) [snapback]323629[/snapback]</div>

You state the question rhetorically - playing tit for tat on lawsuits won't help anybody. I don't propose anybody sue anybody in this case, it's really quite silly - the suit against CA was at least as dumb.

If you ask me, what California ought to do is make a law saying:
"Any vehicle purchased or transferred that is classified federally as Commercial and having a Curb Weight of over 6,000 pounds shall be assessed a California State Tax of $25,000."

That way, sure you can get a federal tax break of $25,000, but you're going to pay California that money right back. In a sense, it causes the federal government to donate $25,000 to California's vehicle cleanup funds for every SUV sold, using the taxpayer as transport. That's pretty ideal if you ask me.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5365728.stm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mini2prius @ Sep 22 2006, 04:19 PM) [snapback]323647[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the chuckle.

Ah! Just look at your screen right now. I agree that a lawsuit like this likely won't get anywhere legally, and it could be very expensive, and it may even trivialize the situation - but it DOES do some good. It gets people talking. Just look at this thread!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SoopahMan @ Sep 22 2006, 05:13 PM) [snapback]323664[/snapback]</div>

And on this we agree, of course. I only wish there were folks like you around when the suits were flying the OTHER direction.

I appreciate the discussion that hasn't denegrated to name calling...yet.