California Sues Automakers for Global Warming 725
ajs writes "Reuters is reporting that the state of California is suing automakers over global warming. California is claiming that automakers have 'harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health,' of the state. The targeted automakers are Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co."
Re:*smug grin* (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
For a number of years, CA's strict emmissions have been met by all auto manufacturer's anyway. There is no special CA car like there was in the 80's.
When there was such an arrangement, bringing in an out of state car incurred a penalty fee on registration. For me it would have been $300 some odd dollars (ironically more than half the price of the car). But before I could register it, the car was deemed a gross polluter and I was forced to sell it out of state.
As far as I know, there was no way to retrofit a car to match the standards. Many a hobbyist have expressed how much they wish they could just pass some straight forward test for emissions, thats it end of story. But the car has to have some sort of pedigree, meaning either the engine you put in the car becomes the standard for the emissions test. You can only put in an engine from a newer car, and it has to be manufactured for CA (if that applies to that year).
But that is all from memory. Its been a while.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:4, Informative)
The real solution from an automotive perspective is to federally mandate gas milage standards
That's already in effect, though in a rather cryptic and ineffective manner. Each automaker has to meet a certain cumulative MPG rating. 1 Ford Festiva @ 40 mpg + 1 Explorer @ 15 mpg = 27.5 mpg average for Ford. That's part of the reason Ford (and GM, and others) produce ungodly ugly, tiny, gas sipping crapmobiles that few people buy. It offsets the effect of the H2's, Escalades, and Expeditions that people are buying. Or at least were buying.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, stop selling in the 8th largest economy in the world. I'm sure that would work great for them.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm assuming you aren't from CA? I don't know about the rest of the state, but in San Diego ridiculously small parking sports are already common. Besides, it doesn't seem to help. Assholes with Hummers just take up two spots instead of squeezing into one.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
The CA "special" emissions work largely by becoming the de facto standard, since their emissions standards get adopted by several other states, not just California. Roughly 25% of the cars made meet whatever the Californians required at the time it was made, because to put it simply, it would cost more to design separate Civic, California Editions and Civic, Everyone Else Editions, except when the cost of manufacture is greater than the cost of designing a completely separate poorer-mileage version of the car.
Interesting fact I found looking this stuff up: Only California can make more-stringent emissions requirements [workingforchange.com] (see paragraph 6 about "why should anyone care"). No state can require less pollution than California requires.
And yes, if you want to register a car in California it has to pass California's tests [berkeley.edu]. Or you pay more. If your chips don't make the exhaust exceed their smog levels or whatever they're checking for these days, then I'm pretty sure that they won't make you change them. Of course, you could always just forget to mention them
Re:Political statement only (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:2, Informative)
Say it with me now: "Increases in prices are not inflation."
Increases in prices cannot cause inflation even if the side effects of commodity price increases cause many (or all) prices to rise.
Inflation is the devaluation of currency (a medium of exchange) which results in higher quantities of the currency (colloquially known as "price") required to represent the same amount of wealth.
So long as we keep believing that the general rise in cost (in dollars) is due to scarcity or some other market function (instead of the money/debt-forgiveness factory called the US Mint), we're doomed to a debt-laden crash far worse that would normally be tolerated in a self-regulated environment. Sure, taking another hit from the pipe pushes off the chills and the aches for a while, but how long can you keep it up, and will it kill you when you can't do that anymore?
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
1) the price has to get well above $3 per gallon as an average over the entire US (so it should be $4/g in places with traditionally high prices like california).
2) the price has to stay up that way for a long time (not $3 this month and $2 next). By 'long' I mean 5+ years. Long enough to give consumers the ability to change cars and homes. (running out to purchase a new hybrid does not make short or even medium term financial sense when compared to a 15mpg land yacht that is already paid for. the car loan makes the cost of gas cheap)
In the short term, most folks can take the financial hit up to a point, and at that time they start to drive smarter. But there is a limit to how much you will save by 'driving smarter'.
In the long term, folks will buy new cars that get better mileage, purchase a house that is closer to work, get a job that is closer to their house, etc. But the prices have to stay high. Today, folks are looking at the mpg ratings. If the price goes down tomorrow, they will start to look at things like legroom and horse power ratings (bigger is better if gas is $1.50 a gallon)
Thus, in the long term, higher gas prices will result in lower consumption. http://www.slate.com/id/2126981/ [slate.com] has a nice summary of why it is inelastic in the short term and elastic in the long term, and why we still like our 10 mpg cars. And you know that the folks providing the gas to us know that it is not in their best interest to keep the prices high for long.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
Ford SUV sales lead to loss [ohio.com]: "7/21/2006 - Ford Motor Co. reported an unexpected quarterly loss Thursday as sales of sport-utility vehicles plunged amid rising gasoline prices. The loss threatened Chief Executive Officer William Clay Ford Jr.'s plan to revive the No. 2 U.S. automaker."
Chrysler has slower truck and SUV sales [thewest.com.au]: "9/18/2006 - DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group said at the weekend it could lose about $US1.27 billion this year, a much deeper loss than it forecast in July because of mounting inventory and slower truck and SUV sales."
German premium car makers hit by slump in SUV sales [monstersandcritics.com]: "9/13/2006 - Germany's premium car makers are feeling the pinch as consumers in the United States, the world's biggest car market, are turning their backs on fuel-guzzling SUVs."
Chrysler slashes production of trucks, SUVs [smartmoney.com]: "9/19/2006 - In the meantime, the company plans to significantly scale back on truck and SUV output due to a decline in sales of such vehicles. Trucks and SUVs, which historically represent about three-quarters of Chrysler's volume and return generous profits, have been under pressure in the U.S. due to high gasoline prices, [DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter] Zetsche said."
Wrong! (Score:2, Informative)
The Wall Street Journal actually ran an article TODAY about how light truck and SUV sales are dropping and it's about to cost GM the farm.
Try researching BEFORE you post.
Impressive Spin (Score:5, Informative)
Let's make it a little bit more clear. California are not launching the lawsuit on the basis that "They're producing too much greenhouse gases". They're launching it on the basis that the automakers are not complying with regulations laid down by the Californian government - regulations which have been tied up by multiple lawsuits from the involved automakers. This is a countersuit - an attempt to get the courts on the government's side so that the automakers have nowhere left to turn and have to comply if they are to continue selling in the state. By most people's estimations, a government forcing companies to comply with their laws for the good of its constituents is fine and entirely within their right, but even most people who would have no problems with it when laid out like that are arguing against it here because it's been presented just so.
A very impressive (and simple, too) piece of spin - technically true, and makes the other party look like a fool.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:2, Informative)
I have seen H2s and F-350s with computer repair business and realtor business names plastered on them, what do they need those large vehicles for? Tax breaks is all I can come up with.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not Quite... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, California is an odd state, with more Democrats than anything else, but also a larger independent/decline-to-state fraction than most states. It's why, despite a generally left-leaning population, four of the last six governors have been Republican, going back to Reagan. California Republicans tend to be a little different from what one might consider mainstream Republicans, though, tending to run more towards the middle of the road (Bob Dornan notwithstanding).
Half of the state budget is mandated to go to education. The problem, however, is that the state's schools often struggle with enormous bureaucracies and a population that includes high numbers of children of both legal and illegal migrants, which have their own unique set of difficulties as they can move at odd points in the school year, making it difficult to keep them up to par. At $8000 or so per student average funding, there's no reason that there should be declared a funding shortfall. However, much gets eaten up in helping these below-average students.
There's no problem with revenues. The problem lies with the Legislature's insistence on spending every dime of new income without paying off old debts. The last couple of years have seen unexpected jumps in revenue in the order of billions of dollars. Half of it has to go to education, but the other half is immediately seized for pet projects. Existing pet projects are already hurting things (look at the number of panels that meet only a few times a month -- if that often -- and pay the members tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for very little actual work), and they just add more.
Part of me just wants to quit the state. For the moment, I will be voting to re-elect the governor, because as much as I want to see Terminator 4 and True Lies 2, I fear the consequences of Angelides in office more than I want to see new movies. Having a Republican in office at least offers a semblance of a bulwark against the Democrat-controlled Legislature's drive to ruin the state.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true. That would only be true with the original lead acid designs. Here are some other possibilities:
You're also assuming old vehicle designs. Those old estimates of 60 minutes per charge were based on standard car designs from many years ago. Modern vehicles are much, much lighter than cars built when the first attempt was made at EV cars. That alone makes a huge difference. And there have also been advances in electric drive train efficiency.
It's a whole different world than it was back when EV cars could only go an hour per charge.
As for the power grid, I mentioned that already. Obviously, that has to be fixed first, but IMHO, that MUST be fixed anyway whether we move to EV cars or not.
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh.....all of what I'm talking about is perfectly legal for road use in the states I know about.
It is perfectly legal to swap out exhausts...chips...reprogram your ICU and add on superchargers or turbos aftermarket....
About the only thing that is listed as 'off road use only' is a straight pipe, where you remove the catalytic converter...
Re:Oh for the love of..... (Score:3, Informative)