I remember reading about an environmental group that argued for zero population. Not zero population growth, zero people. They figured there was only one way to return nature to its, um, natural state: take humans out of the equation. I don’t recall their plan to achieve this goal, but I don’t think it involved automobiles. After all: no people, no cars, no pollution. Done. California’s tree huggers may not adhere to the same logical extreme, but c’mon, can someone please knock some sense into the state’s eco-warriors before they do something really stupid?
Yesterday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan. The suit alleges that these companies’ vehicles damaged the ozone layer hovering over California. The People seek unspecified financial damages for the diminution of the state’s snow packs, beaches, ozone layer and endangered animals. Clearly, The Golden State has kicked their anti-car agenda back into high gear.
Now we could ignore the political grandstanding that triggered this eminently dismissible lawsuit (they followed all your environmental regulations and you’re suing them?) and get into a debate about whether or not carbon dioxide is an environmental hazard. But let’s just assume it is. Is treating law-abiding automakers like criminals really the best way to sort out their products’ environmental impact? It’s like a bunch of social workers suing the Attorney General’s office for not forcing the legislature to pass more stringent laws against pedophiles, so they could enforce them.
Of course, there are plenty of people who assume that automobile manufacturers are criminals. The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” reflects the generally held belief that automakers are deeply, fundamentally corrupt organizations who will gladly sacrifice “the public good” for their shareholder’s gain. They’ll rip up mass transit lines, pretend they can’t build cars that get 100 miles to a gallon, subvert safety and environmental regulations, send jobs abroad, lie, cheat and steal— anything to avoid doing the “right thing.” The logical corollary: the carmakers’ [alleged] foot-dragging must be stopped at any and all costs.
Never mind that these same critics drive cars. Never mind that the society in which they live depends on the automobile for its social, economic and genetic well-being. Never mind that automakers have eliminated virtually all of their products’ harmful pollutants AND increased their fuel efficiency AND increased passenger safety AND maintained the finished products’ affordability AND generated billions in annual tax revenue AND created tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled jobs. Automakers– and automobiles– are the enemy within.
If you want to know where this is heading, look at England. In the name of public health, London hits-up motorists entering the city center with a “congestion charge." In the name of public health, large public areas have been pedestrianized and the number of public parking spaces reduced. In the name of public health, the government levies astronomical taxes on petrol, cars and car licenses. In the name of public health, the government dictates the number of houses that can be built, the number of parking spaces those houses can provide and the location of those houses (to minimize car use and maximize the use of public transportation).
Maybe you’re OK with all that. But the results aren’t exactly as intended. Car use (i.e. “pollution”) has continued to increase. Meanwhile, the country’s public transportation system has become extremely over-crowded (in addition to dirty, unreliable and expensive). Urban congestion (and jobs) has been exported to outlying areas. Decent, affordable housing for middle class buyers is practically non-existent. And speaking of class, motoring’s prohibitive expense puts automotive ownership completely out of reach for lower income workers and lowers the standard of living for the middle class. This situation does nothing to alleviate class resentment, and much to increase it.
And that’s the single biggest issue facing those who would seek to limit America’s automotive “addiction”— whether they know it or not. The automobile is, literally, social mobility. Cars are the platelets in the body politic. By keeping cars and car ownership relatively cheap, our populace can feed outlying areas with employment and business, spreading economic well-being both socially and geographically. Of course, detractors would argue that our cars are also spreading pollution and environmental destruction further and faster, but they’re missing the point.
Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. If you view the car as a planet-killing demon and move to restrict its use, or try to tax it to death, or regulate it into a corner, success will evoke the law of unintended consequences. Greenhouse gasses may be a threat to our children’s future, but there are other threats we should also consider before we take drastic steps to “solve” the problem. Perhaps California should work with automakers, rather than against them.
104 Comments on “California AG Sues Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Someone is going to lose face big time; and its not the automakers.
While you’re at it, have a look at this:
http://www.newspress.co.uk/DAILY_LINKS/arc_sep_2006/51274nis.htm
I am curious as to what percentage of total polution the auto produces compared to other polluting industries. Does anybody know where to find such statistics?
Also as the human population increases our own output of CO2 increases – more people breathing. Maybe we need to start eliminating some humans as well.
I’ve said it before: it’s a ploy to boost Der Gropinator’s enviro cred in an election year. He’s not safe, no matter what the poll say. Nobody likes him that much. If the Dem gov candidates hadn’t self destructed in the Dem primary, he’d be really sweating right now.
California is more ‘publican than you would think, but everyone cares about enviromental issues there.
My understanding was that this was an attempt to reduce traffic in the city center. And that it was successful at doing that.
The state of London public transport is a different story, namely a complicated, failed privatization scheme. It was that way long before the congestion charge, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Also, there is this comment from http://thedredge.org/2005/01/the-state-of-london-transport/:
Mr. Farago,
Thank you. What Mr. Lockyer is pursuing should not even be given the dignity of the title of “lawsuit”, but should instead be called what it really is, extortion.
Oh, and:
Gee, based on the behavior of the current occupiers of our current executive branch, I thought it was the art of ‘my way or the highway.’
I’m sure the lawsuit will be thrown out since it is political pandering… but you know what they say:
California is the land of fruits and nuts.
I guess their next move will be to sue the National Park Service for allowing Mount St. Helens to erupt and spew all the ash and greenhouse gasses it produced into the environment. Oh, and the National Weather Service because of the wind currents that blew it over California.
Hey, two can play the brinksmanship game, wonder what would happen if one of those automakers announced that all of their dealers in CA would be closed in 6 months and all warranty service would need to be performed in a bordering state because that automaker could no longer make a profit there and was unwilling to assume the potential liability caused by of selling cars there? The AG would probably be stoned to death be irate Nissan dealers or Honda owners.
Unfortunately, CA is the biggest car market in the country, which is the only thing that makes this BS possible. If RI or MS tried this crap….
I find the lawsuit as dumb as the people who say we should all take public transportation. The real solution is some kind of alternative fuel combined with more fuel efficient vehicles.
I live in a large urban area (hint: one of the top 4 most populated cities in the US) and still, when I go 60 miles out to the suburbs on Sunday to see a friend, it’s either 75 minutes by car or 6-8 hours by bus & train. I’m not joking….
I also tried once to go to a city a few hours north of me for a wedding, by train. EVERYONE I knew said “don’t go by train, take your car” and I ignored them and when I got there late (train delay) and wanted to get something to eat, public transport had long since stopped and it was 7 miles to the nearest resturant.
I am all for having better public transporation and would be willing to pay $6-$7/gallon (as long as that cost is passed on to me ONLY via direct gasoline purchase) to build 24 hour rapid transit, however it will never happen because the majority of americans will NOT pay this and it would be political suicide for any politican to agree to gasoline taxes like that.
Unless you already live next to public transport already (I do) and it goes exactly where you want (it does) and during rush hour (I don’t go during rush hour) it doesn’t provide a viabale alternative to a personal vehicle.
Yet another example of why I left the “Golden” state after 30 years and moved to the ultra conservative stronghold of Vermont.
Whitenose:
London’s congestion charge was brought in by Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone who publicly declared he’d ban all cars if he could.
The primary aguement for the CG: congestion causes pollution. Save our kids!
Those treehuggers are not environmentalists, but misanthropes.
I’ve read somewhere, that the cows on mother earth produce more greenhouse gases than the cars. So maybe we should sue them as well and tax their farts.
It just shows how out of touch Sacramento is with the rest of the state — how on earth are they not be suing BMW, too?
I see more 3 and 5-series than I do Altimas and Sentras. I would bet my dirty lungs that there are ten times as many 7-series in LA than their are Fusions and Five-Hundreds combined.
In fact, that building there in front of me is being obscured by the tailpipe of an X5 — I can tell.
Water vapor & clouds make up 70% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. CO2 is only 2.5%. Who are we going to sue about that!?!? People that sweat? People that boil water when they cook? How about those people that irresponsibly allow water to evaporate out of the pool in their back yards? So much negligence – its everywhere!
There’s a whole gamut of issues here… I agree that going after the automakers is like preaching to the converted. Legal action [might] have made sense 50 years ago when we were driving around on leaded fuel while GM and Standard Oil were buying up America’s tram lines and ripping them out, but these days, lawnmowers produce more gaseous toxins than cars.
The ill-concieved restrictions happening in Britian should not be copied here, but it’s fun to play “what could have been.” Cities with pedestrian zones can boast pleasant, virbrant street life -just park your car close by and enjoy it. Look at the island of Manhattan, which urbanized and developed rapid public transit before Ford’s Model T. For most of its inhabitants, it makes far more sense to rely on cabs and subways than own your own car, but if you like driving, there’s big wide streets and highways (most of them free).
We can’t change the fact that not every American city is Manhattan. Although this country’s vast suburbia was built for cars, there’s no reason why we can’t have it all. If our governments want to reduce our auto-dependence, instead of going after automakers, they should be encouraging transit-focused, compact urban development in our city cores, for people who want to live that way (rich and poor). But the bureaucrats don’t want to spend tax dollars on subways, or twist developer’s arms into building dense, so it’s much easier to concoct a lawsuit against some scapegoat.
Without viable alternatives, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.
I find the fact that this lawsuit is taking place in California the ultimate in hypocrisy – the single-most car dependent city in the US is LA. You simply cannot survive there without a car. So, what does the Cal government do? Sue the automakers, because of course it isn’t their fault that people drive so much.
As for the efficacy of public transportation, I agree 100% with Robstar. If public transportation where halfway decent, cars would not be driven nearly as much. I live in Chicago, and instead of taking the El (45-55 minutes) or a bus (30-40 minutes) to work, I ride a moped in every day. It takes me 10-15 minutes, and I don’t have to worry about parking. That might not seem like a lot, but it means at least 1 hour more in the office a day, which is huge for my line of work (damn billable hour).
Robert, it’s another of your entertaining articles and with a number of points well worth considering, especially the workings of the law of unintended consequences. And I realize that polemics perhaps requires a certain amount of hyperbole for entertainment’s sake and to put across your point, but this entire subject (and others) might be better served without the need to materially distort positions held by others so that they end as mere caricatures. Yes it’s true that the California lawsuits are a form of political pandering, but it’s not necessay to conflate this silliness with the various efforts to develop more enlightened environmental policies. Can we not elevate these conversations with a greater respect for others’ points of view?
Hey you guys have a state with tree huggers.We got a country full of them.
Just try riding a bicycle in south ONTARIO,about mid january.
The car haters think its a great idea.
The anti-car agenda goes way beyond the car, or even social mobility. It is based on ideas which are irrational and against our most fundamental values of freedom. Most people who go along with the anti-car legislation and similar kooky laws probably do not comprehend the implications of the underlying ideas. These underlying ideas are the most serious threat we face in Western civilization. I hate to go philisophical, but the car is the embodiement of freedom and the threat to it is real and only the beginning of the march against the individual. The problem is not crazy grandstanding politicians – wewill always have them to contend with. The problem is the philosophy behind their craziness.
Read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand if you want to see where many people want to lead us. I will get off my soap box now, and jump in my car.
There are so many things wrong with this situation I do not know where to begin! A Governer that drives Hummers, a State built on gluttonous practices, a pathetic public transit system provided by the state. I would love for someone to post some info regarding what those involved in this lawsuit drive. I imagine some LX460’s, S600’s, Escalades, 750iL’s…
And even if this suit did have merit, why are they including Honda in the battle?? They don’t even sell a V8!! I do not have the CAFE figures handy, but I imagine Honda would have amoung the best ratings in the NA industry! Absolutely ridiculous.
A big “Wag of the Finger” (Thank you Mr. Colbert.) to all those involved in this, especially Mr. Lockyer.
nutbags:
According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2003 human activity generated 25,664.14 million metric tons of GHGs. Of that the EPA says that American passenger cars produced 654.6 MMT or 2.55%. Light trucks, which include all SUVs and trucks weighing less than 8,500 lbs, produced another 496.3 MMT for 1.93% of the worldwide total. Combined, American cars and light trucks account for 4.48% of the worldwide total. This source, however, does not distinguish Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks used by private citizens vs. those used by government and commercial industries.
EPA report of transportation-generated emissions of GHGs (see Appendix A for figures).
Why not endorse the automakers and car buyers that are doing something positive? Tax-free hybrids? Government rebates on fuel-efficient models?
With these sort of incentives, GM and Ford might actually refresh their engine lineup.
Mr. Waingrow:
As long as the epithet “tree-hugger” can be tossed around, a reasoned debate is impossible. It’s a well-poisiner.
Them “Oil-Whores” is smart.
I read this morning that the lawsuit against California by the Federal Government IS proceeding, in order to stop California’s back-door attempts at regulating MPG, which the Federal Government (right or wrong) has usurped for itself, and claims legal jurisdiction over.
Here is another take on the same subject from theautochannel.com –
Quote:
Attorney General’s Suit Against Automakers Should Also Name ALL Californians
Humans Emit 2.5 Pounds of CO2, a Greenhouse Gas, Every Day
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 20 — All comments may be attributed to John Merchant, chairman, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse:
“In his latest crusade, Attorney General Bill Lockyer has decided to sue automakers, arguing they have created a public nuisance by building cars – cars which emit greenhouse gases. He’s requesting that a jury award monetary damages as well as attorney fees and costs, but he’s missing out on the really big money with this one.
“The AG’s complaint overlooks 36 million other sources of greenhouse gas emissions — the human beings occupying California who ought to be sued for ‘negligent breathing.’
“Californians each emit about 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2 – a greenhouse gas) every day just by breathing. If you multiply 2.5 pounds of CO2 per day by 36 million Californians by 365 days, that’s more than 16 million tons of CO2 just from breathing. Talk about a public nuisance … and don’t even get me started on the methane people produce.
“This lawsuit is a public nuisance. Activist attorneys general who abuse our legal system and impose a system of ‘government by lawsuit’ to gain publicity and further their own political agenda do so at the expense of the people they are paid to represent. Inevitably the costs of litigation in cases like this will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Just what we all need.”
Unquote.
As for my opinion? Well, if I were King – I mean President of Toyota – I’d simply say:
“California? So sorry. Your attorney general only wants low CO2 vehicles? Fine. From tomorrow, we’re emptying all Toyota, Scion and Lexus dealer lots of new and used cars and shipping them off to the other 49 states, except for new and used hybrids – but we’re only going to ship the same number of new hybrids to California that we would have prior to this change. So, there is now a severe shortage of new Toyotas available for sale in California. So sorry, blame the California Attorney General, please.”
“And oh, by the way, we’re suing the State of California in Federal Court for extortion with menaces, and also filing a second lawsuit in Federal Court asking for damages of billions in lost revenues in the state of California. We’re also going to increase our advertising funds in the state by 500% in order to discredit the AG and his actions in the eyes of the public, who may well want to form a lynching party, especially if honorable Honda, Nissan and other companies join us and refuse to sell anything except hybrids in California.”
“We can also employ lawyers, Mr. California Attorney General. We’ll see you in Federal Court.”
“Oh yes. We’ve just laid-off all workers at the NUMMI plant in California and closed the plant, since the cars and trucks manufactured there are not hybrids; we’ll be importing vehicles to replace the output of this plant. So sorry, blame the California AG.”
But of course, it would never happen, would it? Or, could it?
The London congestion charge isn’t fundamentally about the environment. London’s public transportation system, particularly the rail system is old, slow, dirty and unsafe (just look back at the number of accidents). Its due to a lack of investment. As a result an increasing number of people who work in London (England is very capital centric for many industries like banking/finance) started bring their cars into central London. Ken Livingstone’s “congestion charge” is all about taxing those people. Most of them aren’t Londoners (i.e. they live in “posh” dormitory towns on the periphery) so it didn’t damage his political standing – probably even enhanced it for the inverted snobs of London.
The CA AT’s move is motivated by something else IMO – by Lockyer’s political ambitions as he’s up against term limits as Atty Genl so is running for Treasurer next. I hope we can dump him at the election!
Look at this way,its one issue that the import lovers and the domestic lovers agree on.
I’m for not selling cars in CA anymore. And once that’s done, we can start eliminating some evil, greenhouse-gas producing humans. Starting with California’s Attorney General.
The whole thing is just Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
If you dig deep into the politics of this, you can’t help but come to the conclusion that Environmentalism is the new Socialism.
Not to hijack the thread, but I second the “Atlas Shrugged” suggestion by johnnycam. It was especially appropriate earlier this week with the comments discussion of Penn Central Rail and how nobody expected it to go bankrupt because it was too big to do so, and what might happen if the government did jump into the domestic auto industry fray and try to keep GM and/or Ford afloat. Hijack off.
The london congestion charge is just another tax disguised by the london mayor to bring money in, which is collected by an inefficient system that uses the bulk of that money to run itself and so london never sees the figures of income that its supposed to, traffic levels are still high after a brief blip at the beginning and the only real change has been lost business, look at the uproar caused when the plans to expand it were announced. The car tax is just another way for the government to rip off british society, another tax on top of the others like petrol that us Brits seem to constantly and increasingly pay for services we know we cannot do without, you americans dont realise how lucky you are. Would you pay $8 a gallon? As ever the public transport is antiquated and no real alternative to owning your own vehicle for convenience which will never change, there or anywhere else in the world.
Though it means well, this cali thing, like the London Mayor sounds like a publicity attempt aiming for political points with an alterior motive, and this coming from a governors office who drives an H1?!
This isn’t about science at all. The key here is that science acknowledges that it doesn’t know what actually happens, readily accepts alternate theories, and when the leading theory is debunked it is celebrated and nobody gets burned at the stake.
That’s the difference between blind belief and educated belief. Educated believers are willing to be challenged, and accept anything that has sufficient evidence.
The processes involved in change that happens over millennia, be they issues of climate, changes in biological stucture, or even the geological makeup of the planet, cannot be observed accurately and totally by a single human observer, and cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It is pointless therefore to use scientific theory about these long-term phenomena to advance political adgendas.
By all means these things should be studied, theories and postulations thought, taught, discussed and argued – in the scientific realm. NOT in the political realm however.
I saw a 350 lb guy cross the street yesterday. The labor of carrying his own weight made him hyperventilate a little, panting like a dog and emitting all the CO2. I could feel the globe warming and wanted to sue him and those not in good shape on the spot.
On another note, runners and those who exercise a lot not only breath too much and emit CO2, but all the protein they require causes the deaths of the animals eat. People in good physical should also be sued at the same time.
Ahhh those damned ‘tree-huggers’. Me personally, I hate trees. But seriously California should sue itself first. The main reason you have to drive so much there is urban sprawl. Poor urban planning that makes it impossible to set up a practical public transportation system. In nyc you don’t even have to own a car… I didn’t for about 10 years. Would just rent one if I wanted to get out of the city. But ironically, while I’m all for public transportation, I can’t stand using it. I will always drive rather than subject myself to the disease breeding ground that is the ny subway system. But yeah that lawsuit is rediculous for all kinds of reasons. I didn’t realize der governator was behind it. Thats irony upon ironies…
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I must concur with Whitenose – the London Congestion Charge is primarily designed to reduce congestion. As a long-time resident of inner-city London, I think it’s worked quite well. If you want to drive across the city during the day, you now can. But it costs. That’s supply and demand. The Romans only designed for one car per household.
Also the lack of affordable housing in London owes more to the economic success of this place, than any restrictions on building. Despite the massive amount of housing built in London is the last 20 years (easily hundreds of thousands in the Docklands), there are just so many high-earners here (banking, insurance, media, wealthy foreigners etc), that average people can’t compete. Again, that’s supply and demand.
I’m disappointed that nobody else has mentioned zoning as a prime cause of urban sprawl. Older cities in the East that were built before zoning laws have dense urban centers with single family homes, apartments, commercial and retail space all mixed together, which makes public transit economically viable. Newer cities in the West built after zoning keep these areas widely separated from one another, which does two things: It makes an automobile a neccessity, and it makes it almost impossible to have any kind of public transportation system that can run withough massive subsidies.
It seems what the CA AG is overlooking is the State’s own complicity in the dominance of the automobile.
If CA wanted to reduce the amounts of car-related pollution in their state then long ago they should have greatly expanded some form of electric-powered mass transit and created vast car-free zones in their urban centers. When the suburbs were expanding, they should have expanded the system out to reach it, actively promoted sidewalks and bike lanes in all housing developments and roads, maybe even installed bicyle only lanes alongside the freeways, or whatever. Instead they, like many other states and municpalities, either promoted the growth of auto sales or at worst did nothing and let the problem create itself.
The NY postal systems once-great pneumatic tube system stands as yet another grand testimoney to the collution between the government and the auto industry to promote the dominance of internal combustion drive vehicles:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.05/tubes.html
As a Californian, I’m embarrassed. Doubly, since I’m a Democrat. I feel a personal repsonsibility to apologize to the collective sensibilities of TTAC bretheren on behalf of the nutcases in this state.
dolo – you hit the nail on the head: California designed and structured this state, from the ground up, to be 100% dependent upon the automobile. Now, Lockyer wants to sue car makers???
I’d say, we need to straighten up our act first. Why is it that when I lived in Seattle, I could easily walk to two neighborhood supermarkets? In San Jose, I *must* drive my car. I’ve tried to walk to the store here, but I have to cross a very busy four-lane road where people (admittedly, me too) drive well past the speed limit. It’s not something I want to do very often. Try running with four grocery bags.
Public transit isn’t easily accessible in almost all of this state (except San Francisco). San Jose’s light rail system doesn’t fully serve the city’s needs and doesn’t connect to BART even after 20 years of existence. Don’t EVEN get me started on GM’s purchase of San Jose’s initial light-rail system after WW2. The incredible irony here is that it was politically expedient to replace trolleys with buses then, just as it is politically expedient today to point fingers at cars, the proliferation of which was GM’s ultimate goal back then. They were even found guilty of collusion and fined $5,000.
Bill Lockyer: you are trying to make a name for yourself in upcoming elections, and you should be ashamed. Instead, you are looking like the ultimate Loony Californian, and hopefully, you’ll be shown the door. We should also take away your car keys and driver’s license, and make it a capital crime if you are ever seen in any wheeled transport of any kind, except for public transit (enjoy sitting next to the mental patients California kicked out of its mental hospitals, buddy). Grab a clue, buy a vowel, you dimwit.
I enjoy the personal freedom and driving pleasure I get from my car just as much as anybody else in the world. I know the price I pay every time I turn the ignition key, both in actual and environmental costs. I continue to drive because I *must* and because it’s a damn good way to get around. Until politicians can provide the public with a better idea (yeah, right), shut the hell up.
This is so far out it’s really beyond debate. So I’ll just go ahead and say what’s on everyone’s mind; that the CA AG is a f*cking retard.
The automakers sued CA over the proposal to cut 30% of Co2 – i.e. decrease fuel consumption by that amount – where was the outrage about evil litigious bastards then?
Obviously this suit is response to automaker’s earlier one – something never mentioned in an editorial. In fact if automakers wouldn’t fight CA over its efforts to do something about greenhouse gases, not to mention oil consumption/demand, then CA wouldn’t need to take it to the courts.
The problems caused by cars aren’t on an individual basis, therefore the notion that “I’m personally OK with the environmental costs so politicians should do nothing,” is laughably stupid. If it was just one car there would be no problems with sprawl, congestion, pollution, greenhouse Co2.
“I’m okay with leaching PCBs into the water table, because I don’t give a damn about my own health and welfare.”
C’mon that’s libertarian idiocy taken to a towering new level of bizarre masochism and solopsistic selfishness.
I agree strongly with this statement someone else made (scroll down). I can also assure you that the situation, with congestion charges, and a slew of other regulations and taxes governing the use of cars in the US is going to get worse as the population increases. It’s booming, by the equivalent of four or five New Jerseys a decade. The Senate so-called immigration reform bill (McCain-Kennedy) would probably add another 100 million in the next 20 years, a 33% increase, which would really put a crimp in driving. Not only would it legalize illegals already here, and allow their close relatives to move here, but by allowing huge numbers of “guest workers” who would have their own paths to citizenship and bring their own relatives, it would foster a new industry that would be devoted to bringing cheap foreign labor to the US for big companies.
Schwarzenegger’s CO2 reduction plan? Doomed because California’s population is expected to increase 50% by mid-century, due to mass immigration (there is a net emigration of native US citizens from the state).
>>Robert, it’s another of your entertaining articles and with a number of points well worth considering, especially the workings of the law of unintended consequences. And I realize that polemics perhaps requires a certain amount of hyperbole for entertainment’s sake and to put across your point, but this entire subject (and others) might be better served without the need to materially distort positions held by others so that they end as mere caricatures. Yes it’s true that the California lawsuits are a form of political pandering, but it’s not necessay to conflate this silliness with the various efforts to develop more enlightened environmental policies. Can we not elevate these conversations with a greater respect for others’ points of view?
I wonder if the carmakers have grounds to pursue a libel charge…
It looks to me like Buffalo Bill in the pic above emits far too many greenhouse gases. Sue him!
Mr. Lieberman:
That’s it exactly. And for what great purpose? The country is poisoned with these certitudes. Isn’t there anyone still left with an open mind and a spirit of good will?
Sounds like the automobile is suffering from second hand emissions like the cigarette. Of course California will be the first state to have designated driving areas.
I have always thought that the urban planners/extreme environmentalists have always viewed Moscow circa 1972 as the ideal urban situation, the elites (them) in the back seats of the limos on the wide traffic free streets while the d***d proletariat are on the buses and trains where they belong. Of course, if this lawsuit is remotely close to being successful it will make the situation worse because it will substantially increase the prices of the newer and cleaner cars, thus keeping many more older and dirtier cars on the highways. It has long been known that reducing the number of older cars (especially over 20 years) is the easiest way to decrease car based emissions. So short of prohibiting car ownership amongst the poor, the situation would get worse. Of course the Cal. AG is not particularly concerned about whether he can afford a new car, so who cares about the stupid poor and lower middle classes. Get on the bus, loser!
I’ll have to go with what Joe C. said:
As a Californian, I’m embarrassed. Doubly, since I’m a Democrat. I feel a personal repsonsibility to apologize to the collective sensibilities of TTAC bretheren on behalf of the nutcases in this state.
If they’re going to sue people for breathing, there should be a counter-suit claiming that the C02 emitted by people is generally beneficial to the plant life of the state and that by banning human respiration, it would cause damage to the environment.
look – i know this is a car site and i realize that the audience is full of auto enthusiasts. i love cars too. lots. i was born and raised in flint michigan; my father and brother have over 60 years w/GM, i drive a boxster and my wife an slk. but lets get real. the world has changed over the last 100 years.
people have changed too and along with them – their expectations for many things and for many reasons. cars have also changed – and changed for the better in most cases – but unfortunately, just not enough for the conditions now confronting us.
like it or not, congestion in major cities – like san diego where i reside – is often intolerable and getting worse. like it or not, our environment is severely compromised and getting worse. and at the heart of both these unquestionably serious issues is the rampant proliferation and usage of the automobile. and so, like it or not, it only seems sensible to expect more changes in the future concerning our cars and our usage of them.
that auto manufacturers have resisted change in the past, regarding safety measures or fuel economy for example, is well documented, even though those changes, once finally enacted, have proven to be extremely beneficial for drivers and passengers alike. yes, elections are only six weeks away and there may be some pandering for political purposes going on, but it is also essential to remember that california is a leader/trend setter in many areas of contemporary life and, in this instance – in my opinion – california is simply pushing auto-makers to do what they are really not interested in doing, but something that desperately needs to be done nevertheless. if the threat of legal action and huge fines is what it takes to motivate reluctant manufacturers to produce cleaner, safer, more fuel-efficient cars then so be it.
sometimes, it is necessary for some to go ‘too far,’ in order to ensure that everyone else goes ‘far enough.’ fair enough?
Hmmm – maybe there’s a pattern appearing. As I drive every workday along US 101 toward San Jose I see bigger and bigger potholes. This must be part of CA’s cunning plan to keep those pesky cars off the roads and in the garages where they can’t emit anything (except the carcinogenic fumes from their plastic interiors).
CliffG:
Actually, the elites had a private subway system that would take them from the Kremlin to their nice Dachas (villas) 20 miles outside the city.
And you are 100% right about reducing the number of older cars.
Anyhow, any legislator who does anything car-related in California besides fixing the 405/101 interchange, the 110 through downtown, double-decking the 10 and the 101, widening the 405 by 54 lanes to the airport, getting semis off the 710 and constructing a duplicate of the Bay Bridge in SF/Oakland, should be convicted of treason and shot.