California sues the automakers (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14927817/)

California on Wednesday launched an unusual legal offensive against six of the world's biggest carmakers over the greenhouse gases emitted by their vehicles.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the carmakers responsible for the effects of global warming in the largest state in the US. These include beach erosion, a reduction in the snow pack on which California relies for much of its water, and heightened risk of wildfires.

In the lawsuit, filed in the US district court in Oakland, the state said it was seeking millions of dollars in damages from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, as well as the US arms of Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers dismissed the action as a "nuisance suit" and suggested that it marked an attempt to involve the courts in political decision-making.

"Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act," said Bill Lockyer, the state's attorney-general. "It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

The legal attack follows a move by California legislators last month to force a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The lawsuit against the carmakers accuses them of creating a "public nuisance" by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide".

Vehicles account for 30 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions in California, the state claimed.

I don't even know where to start with this one.

1) In what I'm sure is a coincidence, Lockyer has an election coming up in a few months.
2) Shouldn't they be suing the people purchasing and using these 2 ton weapons of mass destruction?
3) Honda has the lowest emissions of any brand, and Toyota sells more hybrids than anyone.
4) Toyota and GM have a plant in Fremont - they should close it and see what Lockyer thinks of that.
5) What a friendly business climate!

They don't call it the land of fruits & nuts for nothing.

LOL, ya, a blatant money grab, nothing else. And of course since it is about global warming it will get broad support. Of course if the state wins it will increase prices for everything even more for everyone here and all the money won will just go to waste in some failed social program. Welcome to California!

We may as well just make belief in global warming a religion and get it over with because people have so much faith in it they will follow anyone or support anything that claims to be combating global warming, no matter how stupid or pointless or detrimental to their own lives it may be.




oh ya, Limbaugh had a good point the other day too, he siad that California was going about it the wrong way. Cars dont cause global warming by themselves, it takes someone getting in it and driving it. Perhaps California would be better served suing its own citizens for driving the cars. LMAO

Those assholes should try suing China, but why do that when there's a 40% possibility that a liberal Judge could harm American business, put people out of a job, and award the ball-washing lawyers and the Johnny Come-lately politicians a billion dollars for "doing their part to clean up our air". As if GM isn't hurting enough already. How magnanimous of the attorney general.

Cars dont cause global warming by themselves, it takes someone getting in it and driving it. Perhaps California would be better served suing its own citizens for driving the cars. LMAO


Exactly. And obviously the state owns a few cars itself. Maybe the AG should sue the lawmakers for not passing more stringent emissions regulations. Although I guess they don't really need to as long as in his eyes complying with the regulations isn't good enough.

California sues the automakers (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14927817/)
I don't even know where to start with this one.

1) In what I'm sure is a coincidence, Lockyer has an election coming up in a few months.
2) Shouldn't they be suing the people purchasing and using these 2 ton weapons of mass destruction?
3) Honda has the lowest emissions of any brand, and Toyota sells more hybrids than anyone.
4) Toyota and GM have a plant in Fremont - they should close it and see what Lockyer thinks of that.
5) What a friendly business climate!

1. Yup
2. yup, but companies have the money
3. yup
4. yup, lots of people bitching
5. yup

As if GM isn't hurting enough already.

If GM cannot --or will not-- build a car that will cause less harm to the environment, then :upyours: to GM.

And :upyours: to the whorish lawmakers in Washington who have been bribed by the Big Automakers to NOT pass stricter emission standards. All that should have been done 30 years ago............and WOULD have been done in a country that was not run by Corporations.

is this your way of saying you support the lawsuit freethinker?

is this your way of saying you support the lawsuit freethinker?

I fully agree with the following statement--


"Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act," said Bill Lockyer, the state's attorney-general. "It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

I don't know if a lawsuit is the way to force a change.

What is needed is political leadership in Washington who cares more about the environment than they do about the PROFITS OF the Big Three automakers.

I don't know if a lawsuit is the way to force a change.

I'd say no, but regardless, what people want determines what the car makers build, so the fault clearly lies with the people.

What is needed is political leadership in Washington who cares more about the environment than they do about the PROFITS OF the Big Three automakers.

Maybe they just hope that the Big 3 will be profitable some day.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
I don't know if a lawsuit is the way to force a change.

I'd say no, but regardless, what people want determines what the car makers build, so the fault clearly lies with the people.

The government should MANDATE that ALL of the models offered by automakers meet certain standards, emission standards that would make them the least harmful to the environment as possible........if Honda can build lower emission, fuel efficient cars, GM can too.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
What is needed is political leadership in Washington who cares more about the environment than they do about the PROFITS OF the Big Three automakers.

Maybe they just hope that the Big 3 will be profitable some day.

Yes.......but then the boatloads of money the auto lobbyists pay the political whores in Washington MIGHT have some effect on their decisions.

Firstly this is of course BS lawyer stuff.

Secondly, if they are looking to reduce emissions theres a far easier route. Ban any vehicles that don't meet car and truck emissions standards. SUVs only got to have shitty milage because politicians refused to take the companies to task for trying to make up a new vehicle classification exempt from standards.

So ban the vehicles.

Then start handing out massive fines to dealers and drivers who break said law and put the money into a fund for renewable energy sources.

Vehicle sales are based on what the consumer wants, period. The majority of "soccer moms" want a big honkin' SUV to tote the kiddies around in (plus there is the "keep up with the Jones' factor). It's the theory of supply and demand. While it would be wonderful if everyone wanted high MPG vehicles, the fact is that more people are concerned with who got voted off of Survivor last night than care about car emissions.

The Big Three - in order to continue to exist, they will have to go through a major overhaul in their business philosophy/methods to make it. Personally, it's up to them to do this.... hell, other businesses have to adapt - why shouldn't these dinosaurs.

As far a the government mandating mileage/emission specs for autos, I find one thing somewhat funny here.... It's OK for the government to tell the people what to buy or own, just don't limit other freedoms? LOL

Ban any vehicles that don't meet car and truck emissions standards.

If the vehicles don't meet the standards, they can't be sold - period. So that's already the law.

Vehicle sales are based on what the consumer wants, period.

As far a the government mandating mileage/emission specs for autos, I find one thing somewhat funny here.... It's OK for the government to tell the people what to buy or own, just don't limit other freedoms? LOL

The government already regulates what you can buy/own to a great extent. I'd like to own a machine-gun, but the government makes that extremely difficult, if not impossible. There is no reason to assume that what you can/can't buy/own is limited strictly by what some company wants to manufacture, nor by what people want to buy. The govenment has every right and responsibility to regulate what types of vehicles are manufactured and sold for safety reasons, why not environmental ones?

I'm don't disagree that there are products and services that should not be available to the general public. I just find it amusing that we want regulation sometimes, but scream holy hell when other things are ruled illegal (or are regulated).

If we really wanted to make the environment better, should we not regulate electricity, natural gas, water, gasoline, etc.? Regulate the fuel not the fuel user... you could have a 10 MPG Behemoth, but are only allowed X gallons of fuel per week..... Have a pool/watering system/garden pond, but you can only have X # of gallons of water per week.... Build a 10,000 square foot house, but only have X # of BTU's of energy to heat/cool it.

As I stated before in my previous post, most Americans could give a shit less about the environment (or most other social/society problems). Just give em' some mind numbing reality TV show to hold their interest... cause we all know that is what really is important.:rolleyes:

If the vehicles don't meet the standards, they can't be sold - period. So that's already the law. No it isn't. Car makers labelled the SUV neither a car, nor a truck and therefore exepemt from said standards.

No it isn't. Car makers labelled the SUV neither a car, nor a truck and therefore exepemt from said standards.

Wrong answer. Feast your eyes on this:

At the time of the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) legislation in 1975, people didn't drive SUVs. When the automotive companies began to manufacture SUVs, they built them to meet truck specifications; as a result, the vehicles were not held to the more stringent fuel economy standards of regular passenger vehicles. Today almost half of all new passenger vehicles sold in America are SUVs or light duty trucks. Since SUVs are used today as passenger vehicles, it has obviously become a big deal. Read on (http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases01/cafed06.htm)

Goddammit...Sorry bout that.

heh you linked to feinstein?

The Wiki has some mildly interesting info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle#Fuel_economy

GM and Ford, along with an administration that refuses to honor the CAFE standards, won't be with us much longer. 2 years tops and the BIG-2 car makers will be history or they will merge into a down-sized, 3rd-world type manufacturer, operating south of the border with scab labor at $2/hr and using inferior parts. No one will want their cars (or trucks).

Ditto for this administration ... they're gone in 2 also.

you can thank the unions for the downfall of a once great industry.

you can thank the unions for the downfall of a once great industry.
Truer words have NEVER been spoken.

Truer words have NEVER been spoken.Yeah, right. Unions negotiate their contracts in a vacuum. Idiot management placing short-term profits over long-term market share had nothing to do with it. Or the soaring costs of health care crippling our automakers while the competition thrives under universal coverage. Blame it all on the unions. That's rational. :rolleyes:

For every ONE person GM pays to work, there are TWO they pay NOT to work. They don't have to negotiate their contracts; they're iron clad and were negotiated in the 70's when GM had market dominance with something like 4% increases factored annually. As it stands currently, they're a retirement and benefits company with a car company attached. No amount of long term planning makes any difference when you've been skinned by the UAW. Why are Honda and Toyota doing better? No UAW. Why are they making more money? Tax breaks courtesy of Uncle Sam's one-sided generosity. What is our government doing about it? Suing them. Read up on it. Unions (followed very closely by the US government) are the bane of this country with regards to business.

My point was that unions are not solely responsible for the demise of the American auto industry. I was taking issue with your truer word were NEVER spoken claim, as though you can thank the unions for the downfall of a once great industry is somehow on a par with, say, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I'm feeling literal today.

Management f*#ked up the Big 3 - the unions are making darn near impossible to fix.

Management f*#ked up the Big 3 - the unions are making darn near impossible to fix.
Very true.

I'm feeling literal today.
Gotcha. :)

For every ONE person GM pays to work, there are TWO they pay NOT to work. They don't have to negotiate their contracts; they're iron clad and were negotiated in the 70's when GM had market dominance with something like 4% increases factored annually. As it stands currently, they're a retirement and benefits company with a car company attached. No amount of long term planning makes any difference when you've been skinned by the UAW. Why are Honda and Toyota doing better? No UAW. Why are they making more money? Tax breaks courtesy of Uncle Sam's one-sided generosity. What is our government doing about it? Suing them. Read up on it. Unions (followed very closely by the US government) are the bane of this country with regards to business.

Yea, its bullshit.

Unions have gotten too powerful; while they are needed to an extent (to prevent abuse of workers and children, safe working conditions etc... the gov could do that too), they are becoming a burden on our industries and making us much less competitive in the world market.

Also, the issue about only union workers taking a type of job is complete horseshit - you shouldn't have to be in a union to do a certain type of work

Also, the issue about only union workers taking a type of job is complete horseshit - you shouldn't have to be in a union to do a certain type of work
Yeah, you're right; it's a total sham. Unions (nowadays, that is) are nothing more than a cheap form of communism levied against American businesses everywhere. IOW, they're price-fixers. The union themselves operate under the pretense that they're "providing" for your common worker (as if ensuring that a forklift operator is paid $30.00 an hour is "providing for them") only to force companies (legally, no less) to hire union workers, pay union wages (which are incredibly inflated), and abide by union rules (which are hardly ever enforced). For example, say your electrical work is farmed out to a union provider who quotes you 36 hours worth of work including his cost. He then contracts 6 (for example) workers who bust ass from 5 am to 9 am, leave at 9:30 to get blasted because "It's Miller Time", but they'll bill you as if they worked 'til 11. Meanwhile, you've paid for sub-par work, were OVERCHARGED for it, and forced to get it. Communist, much?