Six weeks until the election.

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.

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...

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps the resident apologists can explain what happened with S. J. RES. 5, introduced on 2/16/05.

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.

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.

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.

Lollipops and gumdrops for everyone! Let's dance along gold-paved streets! Global warming is a hoax!

Lalala!!

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.

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.

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.

the people who supply the wealth

???

Obsequiousness.

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.

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.

Bogus theory of global warming! Frivolous lawsuits! Peaceful firearms! Pass out the candy canes!

Lala!

Ah, yes. Our glorious leaders are at it again. It's hard to be a patriot these days, isn't it.

Lawrence Miller,

Enjoy the last years of denial!

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.

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.