Six Automakers Sued in California for Pollution

[peliROJO]

I'm trying to get my head around this lawsuit for pollution. Later in the article is says Lockyer is probably just doing this because he's running for election in a month. That seems most likely.

I'm totally for cleaning up the enviornment, and if you can sue companies for polution I have a large list of companies in Texas that should be on the receiving end.

What do ya'll think about this? Is this lawsuit going to get thrown out, dropped, suppressed? Notice that it says there's a similar case in New York.

Originally Posted by Sci-Tech Today

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story....d=112006A2ACM8

By Samantha Young
September 21, 2006 7:46AM

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer claims California already is dealing with the effects of global warming and its projected consequences. He said the auto companies should be held accountable for past and future actions harming Californians' health and damaging the state's environment.

California is suing the auto industry over tailpipe emissions, marking the first time a state has sought monetary damages for the impact of global warming by vehicles.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Wednesday sued the six largest U.S. and Japanese automakers, claiming they have causing millions of dollars in damage by creating greenhouse gases.

Lockyer is suing on the theory that greenhouse gases are a "public nuisance" under both California and federal law, an argument similar to one being pursued in a case before the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals in New York.

Vehicles are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in California. "In effect, we're getting the taxpayers' money back," Lockyer said in a telephone interview.

The lawsuit names Chrysler Motors Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor North America Inc., American Honda Motor Co. and Nissan North America Inc.

[Tim]

While yes, it's undoubtedly a politicking ploy, it doesn't surprise me that it's coming out of California. California has decided to forego national standards and input ones that are even more strict. Schwarzenegger is choosing for the state that he wants to put it in line with the Kyoto protocol.

[ShowcaseFG2]

I bet it's going to get tossed.

[Cookstar]

This is stupid! Internal combustion engines are legal and auto manufacturers have bent over backwards to accommodate California and its overly stringent emissions laws. So what do they get it return? California makes them bend forward and then sticks them in the rear. I think this lawsuit is more of an attempt to line the coffers of the state treasury so the money can be diverted to programs that have nothing to do with cleaning the environment. They are "getting the taxpayers' money back" to fund more useless programs. There is no way the state would be able to put a price on how much damage auto emissions have done to the environment there. This lawsuit is simply a money and power grab by the state of California.

The problem is not the cars that are coming from the factory, but it is those older cars and trucks which are burning oil and have failing emissions systems. If you're interested in cleaner air, target those cars. Auto manufacturers today are producing engines and emissions systems which produce negligible amounts of pollutants.

Of course, the targets of this lawsuit are only the six largest auto manufacturers doing business in the United States. They are going after the deep pockets. Unfortunately, some of these big corporations like GM and Ford are already hurting and cutting jobs. Frivolous lawsuits such as this one will further worsen their financial situations, possibly resulting in more job cuts.

I know big business is often maligned in our country, but no entity who has abided by the laws of a state and this country should be subject to this kind of abuse of power. The state is pursuing the auto manufacturers through a bastardization of the concept of "public nuisance". In this case, manufacturers have continued to meet the increasing demands of the the state of California with specific emissions packages leaving California unable to advance their case in accordance to its own statutes.

If you think this lawsuit will get thrown out, don't be so sure. There are a lot of stupid lawsuits that clog our court systems each year and the state of California would have a great deal of influence in getting this case to be heard. Unfortunately, if California is successful, many other states may choose to follow its lead and sue themselves much like in the tobacco company lawsuits.

If the case is thrown out of court this time, don't think we've heard the last of it. Eventually, some state will get this issue heard in court which will set a precedent that allows other states to get in on the act.

[Tim]

While its methods may be controversial, the claimed goal is good. No business, large or small, should rest on its haunches thinking that it has acheived the bare minimum, legally, environmentally, or technologically. That's called stagnation. There can always be improvement. There are whole fuel technologies that have yet to be standardized and thereby cost effectively mass-produced.

I say kudos to California for being a trend-setter and for setting the bar high. If it takes an "expensive" law-suit to set the wheels of change in motion, so be it. I for one am glad that big tobacco was taken down by California and the like.

[Cookstar]

Originally Posted by Tim

While its methods may be controversial, the claimed goal is good. No business, large or small, should rest on its haunches thinking that it has acheived the bare minimum, legally, environmentally, or technologically. That's called stagnation. There can always be improvement. There are whole fuel technologies that have yet to be standardized and thereby cost effectively mass-produced.

I say kudos to California for being a trend-setter and for setting the bar high. If it takes an "expensive" law-suit to set the wheels of change in motion, so be it. I for one am glad that big tobacco was taken down by California and the like.

I am skeptical of the "claimed goal" of California. I think they see a big money pit here. Manufacturers have not stagnated in pursuit of these technologies in the state because legally they have not been allowed to do so. They have continually been forced to pursue lower and lower emissions levels in their cars and have continued to meet the standards. Honda has been especially diligent in this regard with most of their vehicles being considered ULEVs or LEVs by CARB.

[CaliGuy]

Well, hmmmm. I think the lawsuit is complete bs. That said, I belive the state will prevail and other will follow suit as well (much like Cookstar stated in re to the tobacco companies).

It is unfortunate that we live in such a litigious society...what's next? Sue the polar ice caps for melting?

And just let me tell you about CARB...It is a bunch of bs aimed at squeezing money out of auto manufacturers and aftermarket companies. For example...how in the hell is an intake gonna cause more emissions? It wont, but, for those of us unlucky Californians we get to pay the extra cost of the CARB approval so we can pass emissions....CARB is simply a racket...nothing more...

[peliROJO]

^^ That's why I was interested by this comment:

Honda spokesman David Iida in Detroit said the company was unfamiliar with the lawsuit but said Honda believes the federal government should raise fuel-economy standards as a means to address global warming.

Surely he said more than that, or wanted to say more. :) In my opinion Honda has been awesome about fuel-economy. He should have thrown a shameless plug about the new '07 hybrids. :)

[Kakashi]

[CaliGuy]

Here's another thing. If they really want to punish auto makers for this shouldn't they be suing all the companies that make diesel engines for trucks and busses that spew out that crap all day? Just goes to show that this is complete bs...

[2fast4u2]

Originally Posted by Cookstar

This is stupid! Internal combustion engines are legal and auto manufacturers have bent over backwards to accommodate California and its overly stringent emissions laws. So what do they get it return? California makes them bend forward and then sticks them in the rear. I think this lawsuit is more of an attempt to line the coffers of the state treasury so the money can be diverted to programs that have nothing to do with cleaning the environment. They are "getting the taxpayers' money back" to fund more useless programs. There is no way the state would be able to put a price on how much damage auto emissions have done to the environment there. This lawsuit is simply a money and power grab by the state of California.

The problem is not the cars that are coming from the factory, but it is those older cars and trucks which are burning oil and have failing emissions systems. If you're interested in cleaner air, target those cars. Auto manufacturers today are producing engines and emissions systems which produce negligible amounts of pollutants.

Of course, the targets of this lawsuit are only the six largest auto manufacturers doing business in the United States. They are going after the deep pockets. Unfortunately, some of these big corporations like GM and Ford are already hurting and cutting jobs. Frivolous lawsuits such as this one will further worsen their financial situations, possibly resulting in more job cuts.

I know big business is often maligned in our country, but no entity who has abided by the laws of a state and this country should be subject to this kind of abuse of power. The state is pursuing the auto manufacturers through a bastardization of the concept of "public nuisance". In this case, manufacturers have continued to meet the increasing demands of the the state of California with specific emissions packages leaving California unable to advance their case in accordance to its own statutes.

If you think this lawsuit will get thrown out, don't be so sure. There are a lot of stupid lawsuits that clog our court systems each year and the state of California would have a great deal of influence in getting this case to be heard. Unfortunately, if California is successful, many other states may choose to follow its lead and sue themselves much like in the tobacco company lawsuits.

If the case is thrown out of court this time, don't think we've heard the last of it. Eventually, some state will get this issue heard in court which will set a precedent that allows other states to get in on the act.

[CivicWithNav]

what the hell ?


those people who are suing shouldn't be driving a car

stupid as hell.

[8thgenuser]

We Californians are just a bunch of tree hugging hippies!

Down with all internal combustion cars! They are !

But please don't take my beloved Civic away!