« UK Parliament Report Blasts Government’s Bioenergy Policies; Calls for 2nd-Gen Biofuels on Road and in Aviation | Main | First European Contracts for Allison Two-Mode Heavy-Duty Hybrid System »
California Attorney General Sues Big Six Automakers for Global Warming Damages
20 September 2006
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against leading US and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles’ emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.
Filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America.
The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit. Lockyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California.
Currently, automakers are challenging in Federal court California’s law regulating the emissions of greenhouse emissions. (Earlier post.) In their federal-court lawsuit, the automakers claim the regulations, adopted in 2005 through legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, are pre-empted by federal law.
Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing. Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.
—Attorney General Lockyer
The complaint alleges 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,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.
As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30% in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint. California is the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit filed by Lockyer, 11 other Attorneys General, two cities and major environmental groups challenging the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous parties have submitted amicus briefs supporting the states, including climate scientists, three former EPA Administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and environmental and religious groups.
In addition, Lockyer, along with nine other state Attorneys General, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the Bush Administration’s new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. That complaint alleges the rules fail to address the effects on the environment and global warming.
According to a report recently submitted by the Climate Action Team to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the consequences of climate change in California will be severe.
We are seeing the harmful impacts of global warming today, and if we continue with business as usual, we can expect to see more and larger impacts in the future. As a coastal state, an agricultural state, and a state that relies on its Sierra snow pack, California has an enormous stake in acting now to combat global warming.
—Attorney General Lockyer
Resources:
Global Warming Public Nuisance complaint
September 20, 2006 in Climate Change, Policy | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6115466
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California Attorney General Sues Big Six Automakers for Global Warming Damages :
Comments
Stupid suit, mfr's should close all California plants and refuse to sell or service in the state of California. Idiots in that state should not be driving.
Posted by: ka | Sep 20, 2006 11:16:44 AM
Well its about time things started to get serious around here. We can't wait, or take our chances on the next president.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 20, 2006 11:17:08 AM
"Idiots in that State should not be driving". Yeah, right. Why not apply the same logic to the rest of the states? The cars are doing the same things there as well. Something has to occur to move things along faster than they are going. If it has to come down to litigation blame Bush for not instigating something more intelligent and flexible years ago.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 20, 2006 11:23:12 AM
Marcus:
You can also blame the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed 95-0 in the Senate:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 20, 2006 11:48:51 AM
Yes blame Bush for not raising CAFE standards unlike Clilnton...oh wait, he didn't do a damn thing either.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 20, 2006 11:50:04 AM
When is the fine gentleman going to file a lawsuit against the operators of those vehicles? If I run over someone they come after me not GM right? I would like to see the state attorney general file a suit againt the people of California.
This is one of the most immature lawsuits I have seen. And that is saying something in this country.
I would rather blame Cheney/Halliburton, it is so much easier.
JRod.
Posted by: JRod | Sep 20, 2006 12:04:40 PM
You guys are idiots if you think this suit will go anywhere or accomplish anything.
Bill Lockyer is well known for his empty headed political posturing. He would sue his mom if he thought it would make some sort of hip PC statement.
Posted by: Joff Pentz | Sep 20, 2006 12:22:17 PM
This is awesome, they should sue all the technology companies too for all the electricity their datacenters use. That will help drive the continued business exodus from California to all the other states which is good news for the other members of the lower 48.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Sep 20, 2006 12:31:41 PM
I knew Americans were litigeous ... this one's nothing short of astouding. Isn't there some kind of annual award for the most rediculous lawsuit?
Posted by: Neil | Sep 20, 2006 12:39:54 PM
I don't expect any settlement in this litigous matter, but it certainly might get a few more heads in Washington to come up from the sand where they have been buried.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Sep 20, 2006 1:04:29 PM
What do you expect from the land of fruits and nuts? I just wish they would stay in California. They are coming to Arizona and bringing their nonsense with them.
Posted by: Herb Sewl | Sep 20, 2006 1:38:48 PM
I hope they drive all the businesses out of California. Honestly, we're tired of dealing with them all. I hope they sue all businesses for 80 trillion dollars and split it all among us Californians. We could use the money, and it would teach some heads in the Washington sands a lesson!
Posted by: FiY CO3 | Sep 20, 2006 1:52:55 PM
The automakers sued the California state, so the California state is suing back.
Posted by: Energex42 | Sep 20, 2006 2:04:54 PM
You can also blame the 1997...
Blame something that's a decade old?
Posted by: jw | Sep 20, 2006 2:14:10 PM
Yes blame Bush for not raising CAFE standards unlike Clilnton...oh wait, he didn't do a damn thing either.
Clinton tried to raise the gas tax 50 cents and got skewered on the issue - by the Republicans and a lot of the oil state Democrats.
You too young to recall that?
Posted by: jw | Sep 20, 2006 2:16:12 PM
Dosent it get down to CO2 vs. NOx, both of which can be handled with smaller displacement engines?
While the AGs at it why not sue EPA, CARB and DOT as they are equally to blame for the incomprehensible regs.
Finally, is there anything stupider sounding than grams/mile? This country needs to go metric once and for all.
Posted by: fred | Sep 20, 2006 2:19:43 PM
If you run over someone because your equipment was faulty they would only come after you if you were rich...otherwise they go where the money is and that would be the manufacturer. The challenge is to show where the equipment was faulty (an example would be the Tobacco related lawsuits. No one sued smokers for second hand smoke, they want after philip morris and rj reynolds).
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 20, 2006 2:19:52 PM
Are YOU too young to remember the Democrats controlled both houses of congress for Clinton's first two years of presidency? They had free reign to do whatever they wanted to, no excuses and they blew it.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Sep 20, 2006 2:19:55 PM
Just also wanted to say that I knew the standard cast of hyenas would pounce on this red meat with every predictable whine about "blame Bush - it's so easy", "damn lawyers", "fruits and nuts", and so on.
In case you haven't noticed, this blog is published from the land of fruits and nuts.
What I find interesting is that the states are forced to turn to these measures, since the federal government isn't doing anything to deal with the problem. There are tangible economic costs borne by states - especially coastal ones - and whether you consider this the proper means of redressing the problem, the logic is certainly clear. If someone knowingly engages in something which causes harm to another party, then there's grounds in this country for getting compensation for that.
Unfortunately the article contains too many inflammatory factors, and thus the sad and predictable responses which add nothing.
Posted by: jw | Sep 20, 2006 2:21:45 PM
Are YOU too young to remember the Democrats controlled both houses of congress for Clinton's first two years of presidency?
Nope. Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned he got shut down by a faction of his own party. Try paying attention to what people write and maybe you won't say such silly things.
They had free reign to do whatever they wanted to, no excuses and they blew it.
"Free reign"? The original assertion was with respect to Clinton, not his party, so he had little in the way of "free reign" to do anything that the Congress didn't first pass. As for the Congress, unless a party has clear consensus on a certain issue and has enough votes to stop a filibuster (which the 103rd Democrats did not), the notion of "free reign" is ridiculous. They also could, and did, pay a price at the voting booth, especially with respect to the passing of deficit reduction legislation.
Auto and oil state Democrats traditionally (and predictably) tend to side with the economic interests of their home states rather than with any environmental agenda which is part of the national agenda for the party. This is why it's so difficult to get progress on plenty of things like fuel efficiency standards or gas taxes -- there's not much incentive on either side of the aisle to pursue something like that.
Looking back at the 103rd Congress, the only bill I found proposed was by a (no surprise) Michigan Democrat to rescind CAFE altogether.
Posted by: jw | Sep 20, 2006 2:35:30 PM
I'm sorry guys but in an environment where Bush's EPA doesn't consider CO2 a pollutant and where the automakers are suing California for imposing CO2 emissions standards I'm not surprized at all that there is a counter offensive and good luck to them whether its just hot air or not. Cervus, no where does it say that the senate agreed never to enable a well thought out policy on reducing CO2 emissions. Studies of the California reductions policy predict economic gains. Perhaps if the other states were as economically important as California then these companies might leave. Unfortunately for those of of you wishing a California exodus, that's just not the case and therein lies the power of California setting the standards for the rest of the country.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 20, 2006 2:40:29 PM
This is a classic scam by dirty politicians. Claim that a product is costing the government tax revenue due to increased health costs and sue them. Big Tobacco is a prime example. The states could raise the tax on cigarettes and recover the costs directly. But if they do that the trial lawyers union will not give the politicians hefty campaign contributions. The lawyers get their cut and the politicians get their cut. Everyone is happy, except for the taxpayer. If they really want to cut C02 emissions, raise the gas tax. Somehow that is not as popular as suing car companies.
Posted by: Joe Rocker | Sep 20, 2006 2:57:01 PM
Recall all the cars sold in CA in the last 10 years, convert them to CNG or crush them, customers choice, never mind that there would be no place to fill them up. those choosing the crush get a golf cart with lead acid batteries. Lockyer the opportunist is a moron, at least he could have filed this when the Big 3 were solvent. If he wins, Chapter 11 will cure the problem. CA should sue CARB (themselves.) They have their own emission standards. What? They forgot to spec CO2! MOVE for dismissal, ASK for SANCTIONS, Frivolous.....
Posted by: John Schreiber | Sep 20, 2006 3:39:09 PM
Cervus, no where does it say that the senate agreed never to enable a well thought out policy on reducing CO2 emissions.
No, it says that the Senate will not approve emissions restrictions that 1) do not include Developing Countries, and 2) Where they would economically damage us. Hence why the Kyoto Protocol would not have been ratified even when Clinton was in office and the Democrats had control of the Senate. As the 95-0 vote shows.
Unfortunately for those of of you wishing a California exodus, that's just not the case and therein lies the power of California setting the standards for the rest of the country.
Nissan relocated to Tennessee. Boeing is closing its Long Beach assembly plant. As for California setting the standards for the rest of the country, only the Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The United States is not ruled from California. As large as our economy is, we are still a minority in a nation of 300 million.
The fact that Toyota and Honda, who make very fuel-efficient hybrids and have the most efficient fleets on the market, tells me that even if the average car got twice the mileage they do at present, Lockyer would still be suing.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 20, 2006 4:11:26 PM
"CA should sue CARB (themselves.) They have their own emission standards. What? They forgot to spec CO2! MOVE for dismissal, ASK for SANCTIONS, Frivolous....."
John, California is getting sued right now by the automakers exactly for trying to control CO2 emissions as you propose.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 20, 2006 4:12:05 PM
Six weeks until the election.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | Sep 20, 2006 4:21:17 PM
I think some basic physics is in order. When hydrocarbons are burned one of the results is CO2. Suing auto manufacturers for CO2 emissions is like suing gun manufacturers for shooting deaths. . . oh wait the idiots tried that too.
This is completely useless, and in fact the original suit from the automakers is valid. Efficiency standards are mandated from the Federal level, not the state level, and a state standard on CO2 emmisions is in fact an efficiency regulation (see above). If these morons want to do that legally, they could just tax the heck out of gasoline. . .but apparently that makes too much sense.
Posted by: Yes I Am A Rocket Scientist | Sep 20, 2006 4:59:52 PM
The auto industry has for decades published fuel economy data for its products, exactly as required by the EPA. True, the test procedures currently used to produce those data no longer reflect typical driving patterns. Also, the E85 loophole in CAFE arguably constitutes an even more egregious form of false advertising. However, on both counts the industry is following federal laws, which are a matter of public record.
Ergo, there is no evidence that carmakers ever deliberately suppressed any evidence regarding the global warming impact of their products. Since a fuel economy of x MPG US on gasoline implies emissions of ~9100/x grams of CO2/mi, articulating the greenhouse gas footprint of driving a vehicle would not in fact add any new information, merely additional convenience in the purchasing decision. In plain English: owners rather than carmakers are responsible for all GHG emitted during the operation of their vehicles.
Note that all liabilities associated with indirect GHG emissions due to product manufacture and logistics are deemed to be included in the purchase transaction at the prevailing market rate (presently zero). This applies not just to cars but to all manufactured goods and also to traded services. In plain English: carmakers are responsible for GHG emissions associated with the manufacture and logisitics of their products.
However, even if any one instance of environmental damage could be attributed to global warming, the fraction that is due to human activity is still a matter of scientific debate. Besides, all GHG emitters - including those out of state and overseas, reaching back several centuries - would be liable for their share of that anthropogenic component, on a reciprocal basis. Since the US as a whole and California in particular emits more CO2 per capita than just about anyone else in the world, introducing legal liability for the consequences of global warming could easily boomerang on the plaintiff. Be careful what you wish for...
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 20, 2006 5:14:39 PM
Cervus I am not talking specifically about the Kyoto protocal. I am talking about any effective policy for reducing CO2 in the US. Are you saying the present administration has had its hands tied for the last 9 years by this resolution and that's why it hasn't done anything? Also remember that the evidence has steadily increased since Clinton's time. It would have been much harder back then to convince the public.
Also the question of where factories are located is separate from whether a manufacturer decides to make cars for California.
Lockyer is counter suing (Toyota and Honda have joined the rest in suing California over CO2 regulations). He is saying to the automakers that if they want a fight they'll get a fight. The original CO2 emissions requirements that were proposed that the carmakers have decided to try and block were not going to make these companies broke. They oppose any regulation on principle (reminds me of someone..). It was the same story for catalytic converters in 1975. The car makers winged they couldn't do it, sued California, lost and then couphed them up. People are still buying their cars and I don't think anyone wants to reverse that decision. It has made a world of positive difference. I bet you would have been on the carmakers side on that one, no?
Posted by: marcus | Sep 20, 2006 5:19:59 PM
CA has tried to curb CO2 in the past with programs to get older cars off the road. That met resistance with car collectors worried that perfectly good running cars would be targeted.
Now they want to regulate the CO2 directly like they do with other emissions. That is meeting with resistance from car companies. So they are fighting back by suing a, very visable, source of the emissions they are trying to control.
I don't like all of the law reguarding emissions in the golden state, but this all comes back to responsability. Kind of like when your parent leave you at home w/o a baby sitter; the first time is sooner if you are a good kid. If we had controled this ourselves then "big brother" wouldn't have had to step in and save us from our selves. We would rather, it seems, rip out that clean burning, fuel efficient 4cyl or v6 and drop in a big block v8.
The guy I work with want to take the cat conv off is brand new Chevy truck because he wants it to sound cool. Another friend talked about the late nineties Mustang he pulled the EFI off and put a double pumper Holley on. And I know from being around people in several states from Montana and Wyoming to Florida that most people would not bother keeping emissions down unless it ment more power, gas mileage, or sounded cool. Some are just suspious of anything government, others are just cheap.
It is too bad that it has come to this, but maybe it will shake up the law makers back east. We didn't sign Kyoto. EPA requires states to meet certain air quality standards and they do what they have to to meet them. I believe this is CA trying to meet it's air quality standards, among other things.
Besides, doesn't it say the supreme court is reviewing suits filed by 11 attorney generals, several cities and counties?
Posted by: Jason | Sep 20, 2006 5:23:39 PM
California required auto makers to lower emmisions to a tougher standard then the feds required. This required the auto makers to actually lower fuel efficency on some cars to reduce emmisions. California cannot sue over this, they are at least part of the problem in the first place.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Sep 20, 2006 5:39:11 PM
Rafael:
That's the most sensible response I've seen posted on this topic so far.
Marcus:
It was the same story for catalytic converters in 1975. The car makers winged they couldn't do it, sued California, lost and then couphed them up. People are still buying their cars and I don't think anyone wants to reverse that decision. It has made a world of positive difference. I bet you would have been on the carmakers side on that one, no?
Actually I would've been on the regulators side on that one. But CO2 is qualitatively different than other things that once came out of our tailpipes. It's completely non-toxic to humans in the atmosphere, and has lab-verified fertilization effects in higher concentrations. CO2 levels have beem much higher in the past (1000ppm or more), over the course of millions of years. From my reading of our geologic history our planet is actually unusually cold right now.
The climate changes. Life adapts, as it always has. We must adapt as well.
As for this countersuit, I refer to Rocket Scientist's post above regarding the Auto Companies' present lawsuit. It is a de facto regulation on fuel economy. Frankly, I think that oil prices will continue their upward trend over the next several years (even with the recent drop, it's still $60 a barrel) and make the point moot anyway. The market will force automakers to increase their fuel economy or they'll just go out of business.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 20, 2006 5:53:43 PM
Cervus, you are never one to pass up a chance to down play climate change. You might want to look up how long its taken in the past for climate to change and correlate that with species extinctions.
As for the defacto efficiency arguement I quote from the lawyers concerned:
Auto Industry Claim: California’s vehicle global warming regulations are preempted by
the federal CAFE fuel economy standards because they are “related to” fuel economy and
would “frustrate the accomplishment of federal objectives.”
RESPONSE:
1. California’s Clean Cars law is not related to fuel economy. The law reduces the
amount of global warming pollutants that can be emitted from new cars, it does not
regulate fuel economy. Automakers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a variety
of ways including by using alternative fuel vehicles, by changing improving air
conditioning systems, or by improving fuel economy.
2. Congress has authorized California to set emission standards—including global
warming regulations—even if they have an effect on fuel economy. The CAFE
statute explicitly requires that NHTSA take California auto emission standards that are
approved under the Clean Air Act into account when setting CAFE standards
3. Because the CAFE standards are actually only “minimum” standards, federal
objectives would be “frustrated” only if the automakers were unable to comply with
CAFE as a result of the global warming regulations. However, even the automakers
admit that by complying with the California global warming standards they would
merely exceed the current minimum CAFE standards.
Posted by: marcus | Sep 20, 2006 6:54:20 PM
Ah, the myth about the Senate and the Kyoto Protocol.
Read the details:
"the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
...(B) result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"
Gee, they voted against harming the US economy (which, itself, is a flawed assumption) -- what a shock.
Posted by: jw | Sep 20, 2006 7:15:49 PM
Perhaps the resident apologists can explain what happened with S. J. RES. 5, introduced on 2/16/05.
Posted by: jw | Sep 20, 2006 7:17:51 PM
I agree with earlier posts that this is really a tit-for-tat in the fight to regulate vehicle GHG emissions. What may happen in the next 20 years is lawsuits brought by countries or regions strongly affected like Micronesia or Bangledesh as sea level rise accelerates. Databases with GHG emissions of big emitters like utilities, oil companies, and anyone else that could be a target for a multibillion dollar payout are likely being put together right now. The tobacco lawsuits may look like small potatos in comparison. Exxon's profit alone in the past 12 months is over $40 billion.
Posted by: mark | Sep 20, 2006 7:56:14 PM
More government is not the answer. The world is already drowning under a tsunami of government laws, wars, taxes, regulation, punishment, and oppression. The alternative is less government. Lower barriers to trade and production which will subject The big auto makers to more competition. There is a humongus demand for smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles. Likewise, there is a big demand for competitivly priced hybrids and electric drives which is not being met. The barriers to market entry are too high.
I remember the late sixties when US auto makers were opened to competition and people started buying volkeswagons. They swept the country because they were a good value, fuel efficient, reliable, and competitivly priced. Today, the demand is much bigger and growing because of high energy prices, peak oil, and environmental concerns.
Useing force causes people to resist which results in a big waste of human energy and resources. At the same time, the policy of more laws and regulations protects big business from competition.
Central planning has failed throughout history. Pushing people around doesn't produce much because people do not like being pushed. Free people doing what they want are happy and produce more.
To all those who still want government mandated solutions, consider the fact that these central planners are subsidiseing ethanol and hydrogen.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 20, 2006 10:26:51 PM
Cars and pick-ups produce about 10% (may be 15% in California) of antropogenic GHG emissions, and all antropogenic GHG emissions accounts for about 5% of natural carbon emissions. Both numbers certainly exaterate human role in carbon balance, being calculated with climate change agenda in mind. So who will be sued next: utility? Farms? Forest fires? Wetlands? All mammals? Ocean itself?
The more I read about Climate Change, the more damaging it seems to me – it causes catastrophic brain degradation.
Posted by: andrey | Sep 20, 2006 10:43:30 PM
Lollipops and gumdrops for everyone! Let's dance along gold-paved streets! Global warming is a hoax!
Lalala!!
Posted by: lala | Sep 21, 2006 9:19:40 AM
It is brillant- do you actually think that the damage currently being done will not continue to increase on a expediential scale. We have to get control of the carbon emmission before the damage is irreverible. California may not win their lawsuit but it will bring enough attention to an inconvenient truth.
Posted by: Kristi | Sep 21, 2006 9:31:32 AM
This lawsuit is truly the dumbest lawsuit in US history, an admittedly lofty standard (up in the ionosphere?).
Without arguing against the climate change impact of GHGs, which I don't dispute, I think this silly AG should be suing his own state's residents - ALL of them - for driving those cars and buying those nasty petroleum based fuels which are contributing to climate change. While he's at it, he should sue all of OPEC and every other oil producing state.
I don't say this lightly, but the AG should lose his license to practice law for this. It makes an absolute mockery of his office.
Posted by: zach | Sep 21, 2006 9:35:01 AM
If they are going to punish anyone, punish those who use the cars. How? By taxing the gas they use. They say the are pro-business in the U.S but as soon as they need a scapegoat watch out. We are all responsible for global warming therefore we should all pay. A tax on gas would be a good way to start instead of going after the people who supply the wealth they go after those who use it. Without consumers the business doesn't exist therefore the people are at fault.
Posted by: Jeremy Hughes | Sep 21, 2006 12:49:58 PM
the people who supply the wealth
???
Obsequiousness.
Posted by: jw | Sep 21, 2006 1:13:06 PM
All polluters should pay. Let the market play. For ground transportation vehicles, the most practical approach is to progressively (2 cents/gal per month) multiply by (3 to 5 times) the federal gas tax (starting after the coming election) and impose progressive hefty sliding State registration fees based on the average yearly CO2 produced by a given vehicle.
Within 5 years, the sale of gas guzzlers would be down to almost zero and most cars would do 50 mpg or more. The price of crude Oil would probably come down to $40/barrel or less. Yearly GHG/CO2 would come down by 2 to 4 tons per vehicle. USA may even go beyond the Kyoto objectives by 2012.
The federal government yearly deficits would come down by more than 50% and many States would have surpluses.
Those two measures won't cost a penny to apply because they exist already. Changing the existing tax/registration rates is by far the most economical and profitable cure to OIL addiction.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Sep 21, 2006 1:41:21 PM
Using the bogus theory of human induced global warming to sue automobile manufacturers does not suprise me, I was expecting something like this. Frivolous lawsuits have one cause to blame those who have the money that they can sue for.
Bill Lockyer also has tried bogus things against the peaceful ownership of firearms. Bill Lockyer, and others like him, need to be removed from office.
Posted by: Lawrence Miller | Sep 21, 2006 5:22:47 PM
Bogus theory of global warming! Frivolous lawsuits! Peaceful firearms! Pass out the candy canes!
Lala!
Posted by: lala | Sep 21, 2006 6:05:16 PM
Ah, yes. Our glorious leaders are at it again. It's hard to be a patriot these days, isn't it.
Posted by: Bob | Sep 21, 2006 7:49:39 PM
Lawrence Miller,
Enjoy the last years of denial!
Posted by: anne | Sep 22, 2006 3:15:17 AM
My sincere condolences to all who are so shocked and saddened that the government of California is seriously acting, on a number of fronts, to do its *part* to reduce the threat of climate change. The state is in a titantic struggle against an entrenched group of giant greed-driven interests. This is similar to the stuggle against big tobacco. Just as in that case we need to go after the pushers as well as the abusers. Frankly, I think gas taxes should get a huge hike and hummers and similar mileage vehicles should face stiff pollution taxes.
Anyhow, back to those suffering and fearing for the poor auto company victims, and for those decrying "big government" that never works. I sincerely wish you well as you find places to live more to your liking. Some candiates might be Africa (I understand there's not too much government over there, check out Darfur!) Bangladesh (very pleasant near the warming and raising ocean), and of course Iraq (beacon of freedom).
I also regret the discomfort of people who are personall superior to all those living in California and who have attained wisdom of legal and political affairs that exceeds that of Mr. Lockyer. Good luck in your distinguished careers and please report back on your progress in reducing the climate crisis. Or in case you have no such career, at least return here and remind us of your surpassing abilities.
Posted by: RoySV | Sep 22, 2006 7:43:40 AM
Whatever.
Just a laugher from the clowns on the left coast. At least they are only wasting their own money. It will soon go the way of the lawsuits against gun manufacturers. And only the Kalifornia taxpayers will be crying.
Posted by: nemo | Sep 22, 2006 11:57:24 AM
Kalifornia! Klowns! Klintoon! Tax and spend! Lollipops for everyone!
Lala!
Posted by: lala | Sep 22, 2006 2:58:39 PM
"for those decrying "big government" that never works. I sincerely wish you well as you find places to live more to your liking. Some candiates might be Africa (I understand there's not too much government over there,.."
Wrong. Government controls everything in Africa. Private enterprise, except at the very lowest levels, is nonexistent.
"and of course Iraq (beacon of freedom)."
First, George Bush and his War Party claim that Iraq is free. So, if Iraq is not free, your infallible government has failed and is lying about it. Second, Iraq is currently being run by the most powerful government in history along with the most powerful miltary in history and can kill, arrest, and even torture anyone they want. This unlimited government power has failed to produce the intended results.
You have provided great examples of goverment failure, central planning failure, and the failure of force to produce a better society.
"Just as in that case we need to go after the pushers as well as the abusers.."
Another example of government violation of individual rights. By the way, anyone who thinks that they have a right to tell another what he may eat, drink, or smoke,
is a fool who is in need of treatment and education.
Rick, defender of freedom
Posted by: Freedom_First | Sep 22, 2006 11:20:33 PM
Can it be known as to who are the car makers/persons wanting technology to meet Kyoto protocol, as the technology is economically available.
Posted by: SKT | Sep 29, 2006 10:20:20 PM
