Calif. sues 6 carmakers in global warming suit

Good for them. Car manufacturers resorted to similar tactics to strike down a law requiring emission free cars to be available. I suppose what goes around does comes around!

Cheers,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prberg @ Sep 20 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]322350[/snapback]</div>

Millions of dollars of what? Is this a joke???

Yet they (California that is) tax the gas that the vehicles its people use, tax the vehicles when they are sold, tax the fuel used, tax the owners every year for the privilege to drive that car in California. All cars sold in that state meet or exceed California emissions standards. Nice.

And I assume the California state government or any of its employees do not own or operate any of the so called greenhouse producing vehicles. And all of its electricity is produced by nuclear power... As lawyers are taught in law school, "it is not a good idea to come to court with "dirty hands"".

Who is paying these attorneys to create such lawsuits? Will they produce "secret" documents from the automakers concerned about Global Warming emissions spewing from their vehicles??? Can I sue all Californians because of the CO2 they exhale every time they breathe??

As noted climate scientist and hurricane expert William Gray recently stated regarding Global Warming being caused by humans, it's all about the money. Pure and simple.

If such a lawsuit was settled in California's favor, why should I, who does not live in California, pay for the settlement?

A more logical and fair solution would be for California to add additional legislation to all vehicles sold and operated in that state with regard to so called Global Warming emissions. Maybe all future California cars will have magical CO2 scrubbers installed.

Rick
#4 2006
"Join my class action suit against NASA because the sun is just too damn hot here in FL during the summer"

 

I could not help but laugh while reading this article... The state of California must have finally gone off the deep end.... Its not often that california can do something to make the state of Ohio almost look reasonably sane....

 

I love California... way to go.

quoted for emphasis

 

What about all the other industries that produce green house gasses? Oh im suing everyone with a fire place. methane is a green house gas so everyone better bottle their farts or get sued I don’t want methane in the environment.

That is the most asinine thing I have seen yet, well almost. It does rank up there on the scale.

Maybe California should just ban fossil fuel in the state.

 

What is this sudden love for oil companies?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Sep 20 2006, 03:05 PM) [snapback]322379[/snapback]</div>

The only thing noted about Bill Gray is that his science is less than stellar. He should stick to hurricanes and leave climate science to climate scientists.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 04:54 PM) [snapback]322450[/snapback]</div>

Not a bad idea however even if everyone drove priuses the scale of the problem is almost overwhelmingly vast. This is why AGW is such a large & complex problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 20 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]322457[/snapback]</div>

No it’s a disdain for stupidity. You cannot sue the problem away, especially at the taxpayers cost. Holding only a small part of one industry responsible for the state of the environment is absurd. We the consumer do not have to use fossil fuel, we make the choice to use it. so California should sue us all.

We have to work together not point the finger at someone else.
We cannot assume that someone else will take responsibility for the problem.

Charging the auto industry will work as well as suing the tobacco companies did. Correct me if im wrong but big tobacco still has a business and I can still go to my local store and get a pack of smokes. Charging more for them will not stop people from using them. charging more for gas and for the car will not stop people from buying either one. We live in a world that when gas prices were around or over $3 a gallon, people still bought cars for $30k plus that got 8mpg.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Sep 20 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]322379[/snapback]</div>

Are you forgetting the part where these same auto companies and the Federal Governemnt sued the state of CA when CA tried to set their own emissions standards that required emission-free vehicles?

If CA isn't allowed to set the standards, you can't be too impressed that CA might want something better than meeting the standards that are too low.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Sep 20 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]322379[/snapback]</div>

Maybe if CA were allowed to set emission standards for cars sold in the state, we'd have cars that didn't use liquid fuel, and didn't require any scrubbers since no C02 is emitted. That's where we were going ten years ago... before the state was sued, and the ZEV mandate was ended.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 20 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]322457[/snapback]</div>

Because Toyota is being sued too. If it were just Ford/Honda/GM/Nissan, everyone here would be all for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 20 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]322483[/snapback]</div>

Who cares if Toyota is sued as well I just think it’s a dumb idea. The lawsuit should be filed against all polluters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prberg @ Sep 20 2006, 10:58 AM) [snapback]322350[/snapback]</div>

This is a positive move. Bold steps need to be taken to motivate industries and educate the public - I think this helps in both areas.

 

In my dreams I see all automakers refusing to sell cars in California as a response.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mini2prius @ Sep 20 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]322516[/snapback]</div>

That is fine with me.

That means guys like Darell and most of us will be buying electric cars from CA made shops like Tesla Motors and all those Southern CA electric car companies want to be.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 20 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]322483[/snapback]</div>

Toyota is sued too because they were on the list SUEING CA.

See... John was saying all this time that Toyota "decided to back off the EV game QUIETLY"... when we all knew that Toyota was one of the member in the EVIL EMPIRE.

 

Ok

CA set the Emission Standards.

Auto Makers meet the Emission Standards

CA sues Auto Makers over Emissions

What's wrong with this picture?

If CA has a beef with the standards, or with the standards setting process, that's irrelevant.

Case doesn't stand a snowballs chance on Mercury. It's pure grandstanding.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Sep 20 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]322379[/snapback]</div>

Bill Gray is not a climate scientist. He is an expert in hurricane dynamics and periodicity regarding their intensity and frequency. Unfortunately, he then extrapolates this to other aspects of climatology. His views on global warming and climate change are considered by most of us that actually DO climate science to be on the fringe. I know relatively little about hurricanes, and would not begin to tell people whether or not they should evacuate due to an impending landfall. Likewise, Bill Gray should not proffer his opinions on global warming as comprising "climate science."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Sep 20 2006, 04:40 PM) [snapback]322533[/snapback]</div>

Wrong.

CA set the standard.

Automakers met the standard (initially with EV1, Rav4ev, RangerEV, etc).

Automakers sued CA for the standard.

Automakers bought off Bush to complain about CARB.

CA decided they did not want to fight the multi-billion dollar cooperations with state money... and drop the standard like the Automakers wanted.

Now, CA decides to get some revenge and sue back because CA has some spare cash this fiscal year (and re-election timing).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Sep 20 2006, 07:47 PM) [snapback]322538[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for proving my point.

How the standard is set is irrelevant to the law. The standard is the law.

So, you're saying this is a baseless, feel-good, frivolous lawsuit designed to harrass and get brownie points with certain constituencies at the expense of the CA Taxpayers. That we can agree on.

Oh, and your final point about elections can be summed up in three words "Eliot Spitzer Wannabe".

I have to wonder how many CA Taxpayers really think there is "Spare Cash" lying around that couldn't be put to any of a hundred better uses if it's not going to be returned to them.

According to you there's absolutely nothing else that needs to be done with that cash that's more pressing than getting Photo Ops for the AG.

I get the feeling this might just be a monumental foot-in-mouth moment for the AG.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 03:54 PM) [snapback]322450[/snapback]</div>

Actually, CA we're encouraged NOT to burn fireplaces, especially on smoggy, still winter days. And the city of San Francisco has a number of classic Prii in their motor pool.

I believe this is a gesture, in a similarly misguided vein as the attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Everyone knows it won't work...but sure gets us talking, doesn't it?