Calif. sues 6 carmakers in global warming suit

[RamboLiberal]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2006-09-20T175818Z_01_N20199499_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23

California filed a global warming lawsuit on Wednesday against Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and three other automakers, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.

The lawsuit also names Chrysler Motors Corp., the U.S. arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler, and the North American units of Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd..

It also charges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming and harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of the most populous state in the United States.

Lockyer, a Democrat, said the complaint states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide."

[Gman]

1. Republican legislative priority for 2007:

Immunity for petroleum refiners and auto manufacturers from lawsuits. (Global warming is not proven.)

[patcox2]

22. It should be a priority. This is madness.

Like it or not, society as a whole used and benefitted from the automobiles and the fossil fuels. Suing the manufacturers for making the cars we drove is insane, its the ultimate in stupid lawsuits.

Pigs get slaughtered. This is the kind of insane lawsuit that will give the tort reformers the excuse they are looking for to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Union Label]

2. I just saw that and was bringing it over

I just hope it doesn't hurt any union jobs.

[itsrobert]

3. California let them sell these cars

and register them. So they were as neglect as anyone else. I don't see what case they are making.

[ET Awful]

7. And? States also let tobacco companies sell their product and earned

taxes by their sale. They were still able to recoup some of the medical costs paid by the state for those affected by the product.

You're using a flawed argument.

[itsrobert]

9. I'm using a flawed argument?

Weren't those lawsuits against the Tobacco companies have to do more with them making false claims they knew were the opposite?

You are the one making a flawed argument.

[ET Awful]

13. Not at all.

Your attempt to state that because a State did not prohibit the sale of an item, they are responsible for the damages caused by that item is ridiculous at best. Using your logic, the State of California should be held liable for . . . say an e-coli related death or illness caused by spinach they allowed to be sold by a state licensed retailer.

Simply because a State allows a business to sell a product does not render the State liable for that product.

Nice try though. Thanks for playing.

[One_Life_To_Give]

15. Could file against the FDA for E-Coli

THe FDA could be held negligent in allowing tainted food to reach the hands of consumers. And likewise you could also claim the the CARB (California Air Resources Board) is negligent in not putting forth regulations which limited the amount of COs emitted.

[ET Awful]

16. No, you couldn't, which is to say you could, but it wouldn't succeed.

FDA and CARB, if they followed the laws in place at the time, are simply regulatory agencies. They are required to oversee regulation only and are only required to inspect within the parameters allowed by law.

Granted, you SHOULD be able to sue the FDA for harm caused by tainted or flawed food or (especially) drugs, but unless they violated specific laws, they would most likely be immune.

[NOLADEM]

25. Yep

I agree with fighting global warming, but this is the same thing as an ex post facto law.

"Can I sell this?"
"Yes."
"Hey, what are you doing?"
"I am suing you for selling that."


This kind of idiocy is what gives the right fuel for criticizing the effort to combat greenhouse gases.

Silly shit.

[hogwyld]

4. What we really need to save our planet

Is to #1, outlaw the sale or use of SUV's and light trucks not used for commercial purposes. An extrememly heavy gas guzzler surcharge on any vehicles getting less than 35 mpg. Those 2 step alone would make our CO2 emissions drop considerably, and our oil consumption as well.

[keepCAblue]

5. Wow! Go get 'em Lockyer! (just like he did with Enron) eom

[135th]

6. Ex post facto?

I don't get it? How has this cost Cali millions? And how is this suit Constitutional?

[ET Awful]

10. How is it not Constitutional?

First, let's cover what "ex post facto" means. It refers to a law passed that takes place retroactively. i.e. if you do something that becomes illegal 20 years later, you cannot then be prosecuted for that crime. This is not passing a law prohibiting prior behavior, it is a lawsuit pertaining to prior behavior and is vastly different. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto for a definition of what the term means).

This, however, is a civil suit, not a criminal prosecution. For it to be an "ex post facto" case, California would first have to pass a law prohibiting the sale of such vehicles, then attempt to prosecute for violations of that law that occurred before the law passed.

How has it cost California millions? The costs range from increased healthcare costs associated with pollution related illnesses, to increased energy costs for heating and cooling of government buildings.

[hogwyld]

17. Would it be legal

If Cali just allowed the sale of hybrid cars only? Do they have the authority to override CAFE and mandate all cars sold get over, say, 40 mpg?

[ET Awful]

18. Very doubtful. Which is another reason California can't be held liable

for the products sold by a corporation doing business in their state.

Actually, there were regulations requiring a greater percentage of vehicles sold in California to be hybrid or alternative fueled by a certain date. Those regulations were relaxed or reversed under pressure from the auto manufacturers (I don't have the exact percentages or dates handy right now).

[dipsydoodle]

30. They wouldn't need to express it like that

They could specify an emmision level for all new cars for which normal petrol or diesel engines couldn't possibly comply - only electrics or hybrids.

[135th]

21. Gotcha. Didn't realize the civil/criminal diference here.

I still think the suit is ridiculous. If Cali is so concerned then they should pass new laws, not try to vilify car makers and squeze water from a stone. Good luck getting money from Ford and GM.

[ET Awful]

23. I'm not really saying I agree with the suit, just that it's not flawed

Constitutionally. It might lack real legal merit, but that's up to a Judge to decide. I'd give even odds that it gets dismissed on a Summary Judgment motion.

[AndyA]

8. Hmmm. My Senator, Jim Inhofe, says he doesn't believe in global

warming. So, it must not be a problem. Right?
























:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Gregorian]

11. So the search for the "guilty" begins.

Who's it going to be? Of course, we'll dance all around the issue.

Folks, the key word here is LIMITS. And it's something we just don't want to recognize. I cannot blame the liquor store for my alchoholism. I'm the one who wanted to drink.

It's going to get ugly. And being that one of my vehicles is a total MONSTER, I will become a target. Even though I drive less than I ride my bicycle. I have a 9000 pound four wheel drive Humvee-crushing monster. I tow a backhoe among other things. I literaly drive 2000 miles per year.

We need to start implementing a common sense program. We cannot deny people their occupations. But those who use above and beyond a certain determined reasonable amount of BTU's should be discouraged.

I've lived near people who drove to the community pool, a block away. Then went shopping for one thing and shopping for another thing, and then kids doing this and kids doing that, all day long, every fucking single day of the year. I even recall how (even as much as I despise football) nice superbowl sunday was, because of the relative silence.

God help the people who are so addicted to consumption.

[krispos42]

12. I'm going to sue Hormel for the same reasons

massive quantities of noxious gas.

I'm also going to sue the federal government because the farm subsidies to keep food cheap has made America fat, and is costing me, the taxpayer, double: once for the subsidies and once for the resultant long-term medical costs.

And I'm also going to sue the Federal and all 50 state Departments of Transportation for making the roads that all those CO2-making can drive on. If only they didn't make the roads, we wouldn't be in this prediciment.

I'm also going to sue Trane and Carrier and hold them responsable for the CO2 emmissions caused by generating the electricity to keep my butt cool in the summer. And I'll sue the car companies as well for making the CO2 emmissions that make summer hotter and longer, so I need to run the AC more often.

[seriousstan]

14. Do they have vehicle inspections in Cali?

Does the state set a standard for emissions?

[slackmaster]

20. Yes, and yes

Vehicles have to pass smog checks every two years in order to be registered.

[slackmaster]

19. Ridiculous election year STUNT by Bill Lockyer

Who is running for state Treasurer.

:eyes:

[hogwyld]

26. Why is it ridiculous to want clean air?

If California led the country in banning all buy hybrid cars, L.A. legendary smog would be cut to a fraction. Gas prices would drop due to decreased demand, and the roads would require less maintenance because there will be no 6000 lb hummers tearing it up.

[slackmaster]

29. Everybody wants clean air

:dunce:

The suit won't go anywhere. It will get dismissed very quickly, then Lockyer can say that activist judges are in the pocket of the auto industry.

It would make MORE sense to sue California's own citizens for driving too much, or choosing cars that pollute more than others that are available.

Or the state could sue itself for not providing good public transportation alternatives.

Lockyer didn't file this turkey in pursuit of clean air. He filed it for his own political aspirations.

[hogwyld]

31. Maybe so, but a journey has to begin somewhere

Remember, a lot of people thought that suing the tobacco industry was a "political stunt". Maybe we will eventually force people to either drive "green" cars, or tax the hell out of those that won't.

[slackmaster]

32. Apples and oranges

Tobacco is just an addicting drug with NO beneficial effects to anyone except people who grow it and people who sell it. I never personally felt that suing the tobacco industry was a political stunt.

Cars provide great economic benefits by giving people mobility.

[hogwyld]

33. The economic benefits are negligible

Ever to to Europe or parts of Asia? Particularly, Japan. everyone uses transit, and they have a very good economy. The EU is trying to phase down auto use in favor of public transportation.

[slackmaster]

34. Yes, I have been to Japan

California is huge. People are spread out all over the place. Japanese trains are fantastic. It's like a giant Disneyland. California is very, very different. We SHOULD have better train systems. Some are being built, e.g. Los Angeles Blue Line, San Diego Trolley, but we have a long way to go and making the auto makers pay for it would be fundamentally unfair. It's not their fault that California has been developed in the willy-nilly fashion it has, the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? notwithstanding.

[Blue_Tires]

24. it will be interesting to see how it plays out

nt

[goforit]

27. They have had the technology to change at the consumers expense and still

have chosen to do WRONG!!!

[BootinUp]

28. no shit.

Thats my old stompin grounds, Cali still makes me proud from time to time.