Calif. sues 6 carmakers in global warming suit

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Sep 20 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]322545[/snapback]</div>

That is how politics work unfortunely... Republicans or Democrats. And how most large companies work politics too... :angry:

The "Spare Cash" will never be seen by any Taxpayers. Because the Teachers' Union and everyone else wants their piece of the pie. And don't get me started about the Teachers' Union.

This suit is crazy, but the automakers started it... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Sep 20 2006, 07:16 PM) [snapback]322560[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. The auto industry is often its own worst enemy. I know most about Ford's transgressions...

--Henry Ford II testifying to Congress that it would be a bad idea to introduce seat belts, 'cause then people might become afraid that driving is dangerous...
--Lee Iacocca and the Pinto, and the assignment of a dollar value to a human life
--Ford engineers testifying that implementation of catalytic converters and unleaded fuel would "bankrupt" the industry
--The viscious fight waged against the initial Corportate Average Fuel Economy regulations (and Henry Ford II's famous explanation that, really, Fords are the best value because you can buy the heaviest car for the least amount of money if you buy one of theirs)
--They were even against the CHMSL (center high-mounted stop light)!!!

Need I go on?

 

I don't care how unpopular this may be... this is a great move and I love it... can't sue everyone anyways... but the automakers are a great start for trying to sue Ca. Now how did that one help the voters

I stand united with the Californians.

 

This whole thing is just going to end in obvious failure and its going to cost the state of CA and the auto makers a ton of money. What a waste! :angry:

 

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

Snicker. Yeah... that's a good one. Ignore the biggest automobile market as a way to save money.

 

If Cali wins, then it will be BIG news... and I am not going to jump the gun and say it's a lost cause.

That being said, I see a conflict between who is responsible... although I think the automakers who provide their services have a moral obliglation to the effects of their vehicles, there is clearly a consumer side that has some responsibility as well... if people who didn't need SUVs all of a sudden decided not to buy them, then automakers probably could not do much but react to the market demands... unless there's some kind of mass media campaign to psycholigically convince buyers that somehow driving an SUV makes your neighbor think you have a bigger penis or something .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 20 2006, 05:35 PM) [snapback]322575[/snapback]</div>

So you no longer drive a car? If that is the case, I see your point.

Otherwise, you are just as guilty as the automakers -- after all, they are only fulfilling the demand that you (and all auto purchasers) create.

BTW - "suing everyone" would be essentially a tax - so it could be done. So how much in the way of additional taxes are you willing to pay in order to drive less/emit less CO2?

When you point your finger, there are 3 more fingers pointing back at you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 21 2006, 12:14 AM) [snapback]322686[/snapback]</div>

I call BS on this. And you should know better considering where you're posting. You honestly think that if the manufacturers produced a car that produced less greenhouse gases that nobody would buy it?

Care to think about that, given the forum you're posting on? I have a feeling that it'd sell well to the same people who bought the Prius.

The bottom line is we haven't been given a choice in the matter. We buy what's available. You can't vote with your wallet when every product is the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 20 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]322690[/snapback]</div>

Hmm - no choice in the matter? Nobody says you have to drive. There are numerous viable options, including living close to work, walking, telecommuting, public transit, bicycling, and even motorcycles and mo-peds which emit far less CO2.

The fact of the matter is, we all have made the conscious choice to drive a car (and thus produce CO2). The BS, as you call it, is in trying to pin the blame on auto manufacturers via a frivolous lawsuit, instead of making a commitment to change our own ways / accept responsibility for our own choices.

The tide is changing as people begin to buy higher mileage vehicles, but just as you say "we buy what's available", so do the automakers "produce what will sell" - and high mileage vehicles have not tended to sell well (at least until gas hit $3 / gallon).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 20 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]322690[/snapback]</div>

and i call this a boatload of BS. and hypocrits all of you who call this a good thing and then go drive your polluting (albeit minimally) priuses (prii?). in the free market, if there was not a demand for it it would not be produced. automobile pollution is about as much the responsibility of the auto manufacturers as big tobacco is repsonsible for cancer et al. or gun manufacturers for violent crime. come on people lets get off this holier-than-thou high-horse and realize we are all responsible for keeping our corner of the world cleaner, not just the ones we think have the deepest pockets.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(captain archer @ Sep 21 2006, 02:05 AM) [snapback]322715[/snapback]</div>

What you say makes no sense. But even taking your arguement as real: It fails miserably due to the tobacco companies conspiring to increase the nicotine addiction of their customers, and the car companies conspiring to block manufacturing of electric cars and destroy all they could.

We have anti-trust laws for these things too, no longer enforced, due to the fact we don't have and never had free markets.

 

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

If I were the auto companies, I wouldn't stop selling cars in California. I'd simply raise the price of cars sold in California in order to compensate for any loses due to lawsuits. I wouldn't spread the cost across all the cars I sold, just the ones sold in California. Call it a surcharge maybe, just like the ones the telephone companies add to your bill to cover the money they must pay to the federal government to fund that program that brings communication lines to rural communities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 20 2006, 08:35 PM) [snapback]322575[/snapback]</div>

Count me in!

 

I think its kind of like an extremely overweight person suing McDonalds for the medical costs of being extremely overweight because they chose to eat at McDonalds 6 times a day for 30 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 21 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]322880[/snapback]</div>

Don't laugh. There is just that right now for smoking.. except in reverse. See Prop 86 for CA. The Hospital is trying to get their money from smokers because of lost in revenue of care smoking patients cannot pay for.... hence MORE cigarrette tax.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 21 2006, 06:45 AM) [snapback]322773[/snapback]</div>

Is GM/Ford raising prices of cars a good thing? They can't even sell them even with their Employee discounts given to the general public this summer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 21 2006, 12:14 AM) [snapback]322686[/snapback]</div>

I ride my bike to class . Anything longer I need my Prius. Most of the city I live in is far from bike-friendly. And as soon as I can get another loan or money or something I am switching to solar power. Other than the Prius, the next 'best' thing might seem an electric car... but then again most of my power comes from coal... and there's more to coal than just CO2.

Cheers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 20 2006, 11:02 PM) [snapback]322713[/snapback]</div>

We put most of our vehicle miles on a solar-charged EV (my wife's commute car, and our weekend driver). I commute 24 miles by bicycle. We own a Prius so we can take longer vacations than the bicycle or EV allow. I'm doing what I can with what is offered. That I have no choice in vehicles is, however, pathetic. In CA, the only option is to buy a gas car. Soon I'll be able to choose a diesel car. Where are my ZEV options? Oh yeah... they went away when CA was sued by the car makers. Almost forgot!

I agree that we should also blame the myopic consumers. Although there really haven't been a lot of great high-mileage cars before the Prius came along. And the Prius seems to be selling pretty well - even before gas was $3. All EVs that were offered were also quickly placed, and waiting lists started (yes, this conflicts with what the automakers have said). Market high mileage cars as if they're sexy and macho, and see what happens to the market. Tesla motors sold their first 100 EVs at $100k, that it made their head spin. They're quickly trying to whip up the next 100 to fulfill the rapidly growing waiting list. The only high-mileage car with proper marketing that I've yet seen is the Mini.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Sep 21 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]322880[/snapback]</div>

Except that you have a choice to keep eating, while NOT eating McDonald's food. The choices are endless! If you want to keep driving, you have to drive a gas car and pollute. There really are no viable options offered today. What is offered is best for business. Is that how we want to decide the fate of our environment? I don't think suing is the answer... but we'd better figure out what that answer is a bit quicker than we're figuring it out today!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Sep 21 2006, 08:02 AM) [snapback]322753[/snapback]</div>

and what has been said in support of this lawsuit makes no sense to me. all the whining about not having choices is rediculous because you are in effect saying i choose act powerless rather than do something about it. there are always options, things that can be done to improve current gas driven cars or conserve the usage of fossil fuels. i don't make you drive what you do, neither do the auto makers. this is your choice. if the selection of automobiles to choose from is as lacking as it would seem for you, choose to buy a car and make the necessary mod's you see fit to live with it. if your circustance is not what you want it is the height of irresponsibility to just sit there and blame somebody else using this "but they made me drive it" BS. wise person once said to me: if you want anything done you have to do it yourself. so let's all get out there and set the trend, use the force of our collective pocketbooks and influence to change the marketplace.

oh and also where and how is this and anti-trust matter. it would also seem to me that we have freer markets (the true effect of consumer influence unleashed) when we have less regulation of the markets. government control of the marketplace has almost always resulted in more costs being passed to the end user, essentially penailzing those making the proper choices that we all here really want people to make.

 

I'm an environmentalist but this is the wrong way to accomplish this. If California wants to sue, it should be the Federal government for rewarding SUV purchases with a $25000 tax credit, and $100000 for several months. That's the role a government plays there: incentives.

If you want better vehicles as a government, either incentivize them and punish the worst ones, or quit and go build the next Prius. This is not the way to do it, and it makes environmentalists look unreasonable.