Why not just sue the drivers?

September 20, 2006 10:34 PM

NewsFilter: California launches lawsuit against automakers for causing global warming. via
posted by knave (42 comments total)

Yeah that'll work. In other equally futile news, the Royal Society has written a stern letter to Exxon telling them to stop funding lies.
posted by wilful at 10:40 PM on September 20, 2006

Sun,

You're the cause of skin cancer in millions of people every year. See you in court, asshole.

Sincerely,
Me
posted by secret about box at 10:48 PM on September 20, 2006

Meanwhile, their governor owns how many humvees?
posted by Plinko at 10:49 PM on September 20, 2006

Actually Exxon has agreed with the Royal Societies demands.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 PM on September 20, 2006

Meanwhile, their governor owns how many humvees?

Actually he got at least one of them converted to hydrogen powered, so it no longer emits greenhouse gas.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 PM on September 20, 2006

Instead, whoever sells him the hydrogen emits them.
posted by knave at 11:04 PM on September 20, 2006

yeah, i'm not sure what lockyer is thinking with this one. his term as AG is over. guess maybe he has further political asperations?

i think its kind of bogus for them to sue toyota and honda, since they are starting to make more and more hybrids. and of course california has the most stringent emissions laws in the US and all the automakers have (obviously) complying with said laws, so it seems pretty hypocritical for CA to sue them.
posted by joeblough at 11:07 PM on September 20, 2006

This is significant - the most significant global warming lawsuit to date. Eventually global warming will be settled in court, just as smoking causes cancer was. The sooner the better.
posted by stbalbach at 11:10 PM on September 20, 2006

In case there was any doubt, Arnie's hydrogen Hummer is purely a publicity stunt.

GM does not allow Schwarzenegger to use the "Self-Serve" lane at the hydrogen station (too dangerous - so the company fills the tank itself). The company also requires that the vehicle is stored in Lake Forest (near its engineering facilities and Quantum's offices) so it's not something he's keeping at home. Oh, and on the rare occassions that Arnie takes the hydrogen Hummer out for a photo opportunity, GM requires that a GM engineer ride in the car at all times.

And of course, it's an expensive fuel and requires a lot of energy to create the hydrogen. Like electricity, you may be burning coal or gasoline to get the "clean" hydrogen in the first place.

The best part about Arnie's hydrogen Hummer is that it's a great advertisement for the auto industry's favorite alternative fuel. It's their favorite because, unlike electric cars which have been in existence as long as cars (and started to take off at the start of the millenium), affordable hydrogen technology is much farther off - many say more than a decade at soonest. There's a reason GM won't say how much Arnie's Hummer cost to convert.

So in other words, hydrogen is the auto industry's "let's put it off as long as possible (if not forever)" ploy. So it's not exactly clear Arnold deserves our praise.
posted by Davenhill at 11:12 PM on September 20, 2006

and if I ever die, i'll be suing my parents.
posted by wumpus at 11:13 PM on September 20, 2006

Why not just sue the drivers?

Ummm... why not sue a tree? That'd be just about as useful.
posted by pompomtom at 11:15 PM on September 20, 2006

VAT VITH THE HYDROGEN AND THE GLOBAL VARMING AND SO ON AND SO FORTH
posted by joeblough at 11:15 PM on September 20, 2006 [1 favorite]

California ought to sue itself for causing global warming. Cars don't cause global warming, it's the people who buy and operate them.
posted by three blind mice at 11:32 PM on September 20, 2006 [1 favorite]

the Royal Society has written a stern letter to Exxon telling them to stop funding lies.

They should send a letter to Philip Morris while they're at it.
posted by homunculus at 11:34 PM on September 20, 2006

I'm suing the internet for wasting my life.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 11:35 PM on September 20, 2006

I'm suing the internet for wasting my life.

Best make that a class action then....
posted by pompomtom at 11:42 PM on September 20, 2006

Does this mean I can sue Nike for giving me athletes foot?

...cuz I be needin me some Tinactin like a muhfucka.
posted by Parannoyed at 12:01 AM on September 21, 2006

I'm suing the Catholic church for my guilt.



I'm sorry. I didn't mean it.
posted by chillmost at 12:27 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

yeah, i'm not sure what lockyer is thinking with this one. his term as AG is over. guess maybe he has further political asperations? posted by joeblough

You guessed it. He's about 6 weeks away from the election and his name is one the ballot as candidate for state treasurer.
posted by buggzzee23 at 12:28 AM on September 21, 2006

Did no one read the article?

California is suing the automakers to apply pressure because the automakers have sued California to try and avoid compliance with California's new and stricter emissions laws.

Easier to read the headline and bitch, I guess.
posted by Justinian at 12:50 AM on September 21, 2006

Relax Justinian. It is just people exercising their right to be herd.
posted by srboisvert at 1:25 AM on September 21, 2006

See what you have done, Justinian? When you suggested reading the article, everyone went away. Spoilsport. Borrow some guilt from chillmost.
posted by Cranberry at 1:26 AM on September 21, 2006

Sorry, I'll go post some snarky Ask Mefi answers as penance.
posted by Justinian at 1:49 AM on September 21, 2006

posted by Effigy2000 at 2:36 AM on September 21, 2006

Can we (the rest of the US) sue California for creating the most pollution of any state?

Then can we sue them again for being big fat ugly hypocrites?
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 2:46 AM on September 21, 2006

I dunno, can we in California sue the rest of you for mooching off our economy?
posted by Justinian at 3:11 AM on September 21, 2006

OK, hands up who thinks that although this is a gesture, it's also potentially productive in terms of its effect on the auto industry and public opinion? (raises one hand tentatively)
posted by imperium at 4:31 AM on September 21, 2006

Maybe instead of waiting for California to fall into the ocean we can give it a push. (hands down)
posted by zanni at 5:26 AM on September 21, 2006

You see, man? It's like I've been saying all this time - if we all lived in treehouses, we'd have plenty of shade! And if you hadn't lost the keys to the VW bus, you wouldn't need an SUV!
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:27 AM on September 21, 2006

This is governmental extortion of business pure and simple. Why not sue the heir of the B & O railroad for all those coal and wood burning locomotives that polluted the air without any clean air control on them at all?

Why not sue China? They have way more factories than the US, and they pollute much more as well. Perhaps the state of California is responsible for the pollution caused by cars, because their poorly designed freeway system has forced millions of cars to sit in traffic polluting for untold hours intead of getting to their destinations sooner...

And, finally, is there any proof that cars cause global warming, and not something else?

Also, can the rest of the US sue california for polluting the culture with the Bloods and Crips, drive-by shootings, and carjackings all of which started there?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:25 AM on September 21, 2006

Americans use %25 of the worlds oil, mostly for gasoline to drive cars.
posted by stbalbach at 6:44 AM on September 21, 2006

Mikey-San writes "Sun,

"You're the cause of skin cancer in millions of people every year. See you in court, asshole.

"Sincerely,
"Me"

Unlike the Sun, automakers have assets in California that can be seized if the state is successful.

Davenhill writes "There's a reason GM won't say how much Arnie's Hummer cost to convert. "

It's an engineering exercise, any cost assigned would be meaningless.

Pastabagel writes "Why not sue the heir of the B & O railroad for all those coal and wood burning locomotives that polluted the air without any clean air control on them at all?"

Unlike the B&O, automakers have assets in California that can be seized if the state is successful. Plus I bet this lawsuit is only about emissions that are the result of not meeting California's new regulations. IE: it isn't retroactive.

Pastabagel writes "Why not sue China?"

Unlike China, automakers have assets in California that can be seized if the state is successful.
posted by Mitheral at 7:16 AM on September 21, 2006

if you suffer from meteorism, California will sue you
posted by matteo at 7:36 AM on September 21, 2006

Seconding stbalbach. This is an important move, just like the lawsuits against big tobacco.

Unfortunately, its not the automakers, at the end of the day, who are the root problem, as many have pointed out. To be sure, they (and the oil co.s) are creating and profiteering off an item that causes harm, but like the cases against the gun companies, at the end of the day its *we* who are pulling the trigger.

I hope in my lifetime to see a new generation of lawmakers in office that will place restrictions on everyone - force more carpooling, limit large car buyers to sizes that can be justified by family size, etc., force oil co.'s to redistribute profits into alternative fuel research, force the auto makers to make cleaner cars, make it harder for ALL INVOLVED to kill our planet so quick.

Oh, and...

is there any proof that cars cause global warming, and not something else?

Are...you...freaking...kidding...me...

Yeah, its the cow farts. That's what's doing it.
posted by allkindsoftime at 7:46 AM on September 21, 2006

governator jr. here didnt realize that CA had new emissions standards. in that case, F the automakers and bring on the lawsuit!

anyway i'm one of those smug-producing bungholes who drives a prius, so SUCK IT HATERS.
posted by joeblough at 9:34 AM on September 21, 2006

Did no one read the article?

California is suing the automakers to apply pressure because the automakers have sued California to try and avoid compliance with California's new and stricter emissions laws.

Easier to read the headline and bitch, I guess.

Lockyer admitted his office is seeking monetary damages, so it's not just to affect change on the automakers' part.
posted by Joybooth at 10:05 AM on September 21, 2006

Maybe instead of waiting for California to fall into the ocean we can give it a push.

I'll sink with California when it falls into the sea!
posted by salvia at 10:27 AM on September 21, 2006

Sorry if I post twice, but those who forget history are forced to relive it.
Remember the all-electric car? With the advent of electric car technology, California regulators launched a zero-emissions vehicle program in 1990 to clean up the state's smoggy skies. They looked at GM’s great all-electric car, the EV1. The car required no fuel and could be plugged in for recharging at home and at a number of so-called battery parks. Under the California program, two percent of all new cars sold had to be electric by 1998 and 10 percent by 2003. G.M. pulled the plug on the project in 2002 due to what they termed “insufficient demand.” What really happened was a legal challenge to the California Zero Emissions requirements that threw out the law. After pulling back the leased cars from California owners, the cars and the technology were flattened like old cars.
I shall not rant about the simpler cures for pollution and global warming but will end with this: To bastardize an old Jewish expression, why should this plan (and lawsuit) be any different than any other plan and lawsuit? You know the movie: Who Killed The Electric Car?
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/index.html
posted by rotoman at 11:13 AM on September 21, 2006

Justinian said...
"I dunno, can we in California sue the rest of you for mooching off our economy?"

--Hmm, how much would you be suing for? As of late, your entire economy is worth about 30 cents. (If you're talking about the entertainment "industry")
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 1:11 PM on September 21, 2006

The sorts of social reform that people are asking for is going to have to come from the top down. Suggesting that global warming and the future of the planet should be a result of many millions of individual choices is absurd. It's precisely the governments job to step in and enforce change when something has become a threat to the welfare of the people. The changes needed are going to have to be mandated, and they may as well be mandated at the industry level. Here we have an industry with a long record of thwarting alternative energy movements and they have once again been dodging their obligations to the people of the planet to create a cleaner car. Unfortunately, law suits are the last real form of coercion left when dealing with gigantic corporations.
posted by my homunculus is drowning at 1:20 PM on September 21, 2006

Okay, add "Californians" to the growing list of "The Only Group of People It's Okay to Hate." Fact is, this is a counter-suit to the automakers' attempt to use Activist Judges to evade their responsibilities under California Law. Yep, counter-suits can, and usually should, ask for damages without losing their 'intellectual purity'. Lockyear is 'termed out' as California Attorney General (even the Republicans are realizing that term limits are stupid, and that's another political trend that's starting here), and is pursuing a different Sacramento job, but it's a lateral move at best.

The rest of the Anti-California screeds are naked jealousy. Everybody knows the sun is supposed to SET over the ocean.
posted by wendell at 2:04 PM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

california uber alles baby
posted by joeblough at 3:46 PM on September 21, 2006