Toyota is suing to block global warming law

Thanks for this link. I'm a bit surprised that Toyota joined this. It seems to me that toyota is already either meeting or close to meeting what this law will be mandating.

I'll be communicating my concern to Toyota.

Mark

 

After reading Michael Crichton's new book "State of Fear", it gave me something to think about regarding "global warming"...

It's definately worth a read, it's not his best work, but he does present some interesting ideas - people with inflexible beliefs may be unhappy with it however...

Dave

 

Global Warming is a fraud. In measurements taken by Earth satellites there is no discernable temp rise over the past 25 years.

Some more interesting facts: Mark Twain, Samuel Clements, wrote that there was hardly an orange grove left north of Vicksburg on the Mississippi. The state song of Alabama speaks of its orange groves...

(this is the first verse)

Alabama
Written by Julia S. Tutwiler
Composed by Edna Gockel Gussen

Alabama, Alabama, We will aye be true to thee,
From thy Southern shores where groweth,
By the sea thy orange tree.
To thy Northern vale where floweth,
Deep blue the Tennessee,
Alabama, Alabama, we will aye be true to thee!

There have been no orange groves in Alabama in many, many decades. Why? Because it is COLDER. Vastly colder. In the past, Virginia was much hotter 300 years ago. Washington DC was built on swampland, so hot and humid that few diplomats wanted to be there 175 years ago.

Guess what? Manhatten was not underwater. I have a friend, alumnus of a couple of good university programs whose reply to me about the floating ice at the north pole melting and not causing any flooding was..

BUT THERE IS SO MUCH OF IT

Gee, like the laws of physics have been repealed. He wants to adhere to the Politically Correct vision of things but reality just intrudes upon it.

100 year old National Geographics have pictures of an ice free Artic Ocean coastline, an area that has been full of year round ice for decades now.

So what if it did get a little warmer anyway? It isn't happening but what if it was? Longer growing season? Sea levels dropping from the melting ice?

35 years ago the wild eyed proclaimed a new ice age to be coming upon us. The predictions of the 1970's Earth Days were all baloney, totally full of it.

There was not a single prediction from those early 70's years that came true at all, nada, zip. A one hundred percent rate of failure. There exists no crediblity for those of us who listened to those so called scientists then and I and many others have figured out that what is at work here is a POLITICAL agenda. Koyoto exempts socialist tyrannies like China. This is all political, aimed at bringing down the free industrialized world.

In 35 years you likely will come to realize that what I am telling you is true.

California? Home to people who elect folks to legislate based upon these beliefs. A year ago, in the first three months of 2004, California had job growth numbers that barely exceeded those of Utah! Which meant Utah was booming and California was in miserable conditions, due to population size differences. The one with seaports, infrastructure, larger mass is being overtaken by the one in the interior of the nation.

Many packed up and moved on from California for a number of reasons, but the population shifts are undeniable. Look at the demographic changes in the 1980-2000 time frame.

But, this is the way it ought to be, states should do their own thing, whether its stupid or smart, and let other states examine the results. The states compete, it is a marketplace.

The real evil is having federal domestic policy. There should not be any, because of the lack of competition.

 

Global warming is considered a fraud only in the United States. In the reality based rest of the world, at least among scientists, global warming is understood as fact.

So why do many American's consider it a fraud? There is a very simple explanation. Marketing. Most Americans do not get their science information from reading scientific journals. They get that information from the media. Who owns that media? And what is the vested interest of those owners? Clearly, American's are the victims of a con.

Many will say that why would the corporations allow global warming since they will suffer too. The answer is that in all of human history, the rich, the elite, the powerful, never seem to suffer in castastrophes like the rest of us do. And in addition, corporations look to the next quarterly report. They don't look to the needs of their grandkids, and if they did, the stockholders would show them the door.

So I will continue to understand the issues of global warming as they are presented to me by world scientists and ignore politicians and media moguls.

Oh, and Michael Crichton is a fiction writer. Telling readers that your book of fiction is based upon fact is an age old marketing technique. Be careful with that.

 

I would recommend doing some reading of reliable sources on "Global Climate Change", rather than making blanket statements about "Global Warming".

One good source of information is the National Academies of Science (specifically their Koshland Science Museum web site):

http://www.koshlandsciencemuseum.org/exhibitgcc/

Global climate change is a very complex issue. Bringing up localized examples of how this place, or that is "colder than it was X years" ago doesn't really say anything about the big picture.

People, states, countries, etc. should be free to compete - but they should also be educated so they can make smart choices. The things we choose and do now affect not only us, but our kids, and their kids - and I think that gets lost in the shuffle (or some people simply don't care?).

 

Global Climate Change has always been around. When the Vikings landed on the shores of a new country back around 900 AD, they gave it the very appropriate name "Green Land." The shores were green back then.

A few hundred years later, they died out when the climate cooled off. The Thames river froze. It's speculated that the Black Death spread so easily due to folks being forced inside and in close contact with each other.

I think the Kyoto Accord is a farce. Why are countries like India and China exempt? What is interesting is despite the fact the U.S. refused to sign the KA, they still have some of the strictest emissions standards, environmental protection laws, and efficiency standards in the world.

A recent Winnipeg Free Press article mentions the absolute farce of the KA and especially how it's flatly impossible for Canada to meet the goals. First of all, Canada has the highest per-capita energy use in the world. Twice as high as EU countries, around 35% higher than U.S.

Up until 1990, you could use regular leaded gasoline in Canada. For a climate this severe, the roof R values are only R-40. They're stricter in Clark County, NV.

So for many countries, the KA is nothing but hot air and political blustering. Maybe Toyota understands that far better than the Japanese government does.

 

Actually, he documents every one of his references throughout the book (including the many charts and graphs that he uses) and explains what the legitimate sources are that they came from (a lot of US government agencies amongst others).

The analysis presented is that the failure of the US to sign onto the Kyoto Accord, would cause a 0.08c (8/100s of a degree celcius) rise in global temperature over 100 years. Is it worth spending 16-20 billion dollars a year to try and prevent a temperature change far less than a single degree?

Don't knock it 'till you've read it - governments aren't the only ones who are basing their policies on misinformation - environmental groups do too...

Besides, the hero drives a Prius in it

Dave

 

the latest figures for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol for the Canadian people is it will cost approximately $26,000 per person for every year from now to 2012. As Canada was signed on by the former Prime Minister as a "spite" to the American administration, and no real study of the total cost. The signatures to Kyoto are probably going to buy their carbon credits from all sorts of rinky dink tin pot regimes world over for billions of dollars to fund their dictatorships, and subversive actions against the rest of the world. Yup well thought out.

 

The United States Media has so time and again perverted facts and slants to favor corporate interests that I have to, as a semi-intelligent person, believe nothing they say. I'm not so cynical (yet) as to believe the opposite, but I feel the best way is to get my information from international sources. I also agree with efusco, that it is best to read the exact wording first. If I am versed enough in the field to make my own decision great, if not the go to international sources for 'translation' before making my decision. While even international sources are not infallible, I feel they are not automatically lying as I have come to believe US media is. Pity isn't it?

 

I got my data about the results of the measurement of temps from satellite observations from an official NASA website. 25 years of no discernable change.

The upcoming ice age prediction was scary, those Earth Day knaves convinced me for many years that these predictions of gloom were real. It was all nonsense. I am not a willing dupe for scaremongers anymore.

 

Evan, I respect your view but I disagree with it. I believe Toyota is an astute automotive company that has a vastly better view into the future than what the competion has, and sees the limited refinery capacity and unwillingness to develop more fossil fuel resources combined with economic growth rates in the world as an environment where more costly fuels are going to provide marketplace incentives for consumers to increasingly choose the lower operating cost vehicles. The Green that is driving the shortage of Prii in America is the color of the dollar.

It could be you are right about Toyota having intentions based upon motives other than excellent forecasting and the profit motive. I prefer to believe that they are motivated by greed combined with better smarts. It just feels right that a for profit corporation cares about its long term profit outlook. Toyota builds vehicles that are consistent with the needs of the changing marketplace.

I personally have no expectation of 1.40 a gallon fuel coming back. What most folks see right now is unending long term increases in fuel costs, when I survey my friends that is what they see, and I think Toyota has seen this present future a great deal quicker than the majority of its competitors. I do think they have the best product in its catagory too, dispite some areas that the Prius could be greatly improved upon, like a standard Ipod connection, better stereo head, real fog lamps, better tires...

I guess I just do not trust anything other than base motives and I am comfortable with those base motives. And this opposition to this bill tends to reinforce that view of mine, even without the specifics. It does nothing to change my view of Toyota at all. They still make the finest quality products of any automotive company. Buying their products new has always been a good value for my money.

My dad always said that buying used goods was getting the other fellows troubles.

 

my understanding that the motivation for the law suite is to challenge California in it's attempt to try and take the EPA and it's jurisdiction and rulings away from the Federal Gov. The guise that Ca. is using is the fact that they have always had a separate emission requirement than the 49 states and want to tighten it even further and the fed's are balking and the auto manufactures are supporting the the federal Gov.

 

I disagree with the lawsuit, California should be able to impose higher standards if they wish to.

In fact, I want the feds out of the domestic policy area and the states to set domestic policy, have variations, innovations. Monopoly power is not good, and the innovations, creations, and competions between the states is a healthy free marketplace competing for jobs, education quality, and quality of life issues. One size fits all just does not work as well.

 

I agree with the lawsuit.

And Frank has the gist of it.

The car companies are just saying "For crying out loud, get your act together US and pick a standard, this different rules for different states is crap, and leads to added expense and frustration for everyone, including the consumer".

We have the same situation with Gasoline Formulations. When the formulations change every 5 miles and refiners have to customize refining for a patchwork, you wind up with what we had earlier last year. There was a shortage in one area, but tons of gas in another that couldn't move 100 miles to relieve the shortage because it was the wrong formulation.

Even the EU (j/k) has figured out that it costs way more than it's worth to have the rules change every time you drive to the next town.

There is a time and place for 'variation and innovation' but standards in interstate/international commerce isn't one of them. It does far more harm to the consumer than good, because it artificially raises the cost of doing business in the fiefdoms.

 

The feds can only justify "getting out of domestic policy" when any state does something that does not affect a neighboring state.

Otherwise, the constitution not only allows, but requires that the feds get involved. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)

If the states were totally free in this area, one state could so lower their standards that all the other states would have to also do so in order to compete. There would be a "race to the bottom". This might be "healthy" for the next quarterly report, but it would be very "unhealthy" for America's more distant future.

In 2005, it's hard for any state to do something economically that does not affect neighboring states. So the feds must get involved.

California enjoys an ability to regulate air standards because they did so before the federal government ever did. Thus they were grandfathered in. But California needs to be careful on how they word their requirements and they have been careful. They were not grandfathered in to pass laws affecting global warming nor were they grandfathered in to pass laws on miles per gallon. To do so would violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution.

But California CAN pass regulations that affect the air Californian's breathe. This is what this lawsuit is about. The plaintiffs are arguing that California is going beyond clean air and that's why they call it a global waming lawsuit. California needs to argue that they are not going too far and that they are staying within what has been grandfathered to them to do.

If California loses this, and they have a good chance of losing it when one considers that the corporations now pretty much own all 3 branches of the US government now, the people lose yet again. Victim to the need for short term profits.

 

I think this is more accurate:
The car companies are just saying "For crying out loud, we spent billions of dollars over the last 20 years hoodwinking the American public to give their government to the corporations, and now we have to put up with California putting a wrench into our plans?". "So please, get your act together US and pick a a horribly low standard, and don't let different states come up with anything that might help the population. It's crap, and leads to added expense and frustration so our short term profits might suffer."