STUCK IN STUPID GEAR
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've seen lately, and that's counting Olberman's rant about Bush the other day :
"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, The Associated Press said. Attorney General Bill Lockyer last Wednesday sued the six largest U.S. and Japanese automakers, claiming they have caused millions of dollars in damage by creating greenhouse gases, AP said.
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, AP said. Vehicles are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, AP said.
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., AP said."
- Light & Medium Truck report
The idea of a government entity suing a manufacturer for selling a legal product that consumers want is nothing new, though. Witness the Big Tobacco settlement of a few years ago, of which our own Heidi Heitkamp was a proud participant. Global warming is just the new grievance du jour. This stretches credulity to the breaking point, however. I hope for the sake of all society that some judge swats down the idiot lawyers that cooked this one up, in both New York and California. I won't hold my breath, though.
This brings to mind a situation of a few years back. Various police departments around the country sued Ford Motor Company over some defect in the Crown Victoria car- and then complained when Ford wouldn't sell them any more units the following year!
In a state like California- that is responsible for the phenomena of car culture as much as or more than Detroit and totally dependent on the automobile, what possible good can come of this? Should a lawsuit be won by the state, the most hopeful outcome might be simply a dramatic increase in the price of cars sold in California. the worst outcome would be a huge cutback in the number of cars sold there. And since California cars in many cases have different emission equipment than 49 state cars, consumers will not be able to simply buy their cars out of state.
Morons. Simply morons.
"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, The Associated Press said. Attorney General Bill Lockyer last Wednesday sued the six largest U.S. and Japanese automakers, claiming they have caused millions of dollars in damage by creating greenhouse gases, AP said.
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, AP said. Vehicles are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, AP said.
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., AP said."
- Light & Medium Truck report
The idea of a government entity suing a manufacturer for selling a legal product that consumers want is nothing new, though. Witness the Big Tobacco settlement of a few years ago, of which our own Heidi Heitkamp was a proud participant. Global warming is just the new grievance du jour. This stretches credulity to the breaking point, however. I hope for the sake of all society that some judge swats down the idiot lawyers that cooked this one up, in both New York and California. I won't hold my breath, though.
This brings to mind a situation of a few years back. Various police departments around the country sued Ford Motor Company over some defect in the Crown Victoria car- and then complained when Ford wouldn't sell them any more units the following year!
In a state like California- that is responsible for the phenomena of car culture as much as or more than Detroit and totally dependent on the automobile, what possible good can come of this? Should a lawsuit be won by the state, the most hopeful outcome might be simply a dramatic increase in the price of cars sold in California. the worst outcome would be a huge cutback in the number of cars sold there. And since California cars in many cases have different emission equipment than 49 state cars, consumers will not be able to simply buy their cars out of state.
Morons. Simply morons.
posted by Good Ol' Boy at 9:07 AM
10 Comments:
Why don't you hyperlink all those blogs on the right side of your blog?
If "Global warming is just the new grievance du jour," as you say, then why did Bush say recently:
And obviously people are concerned about rising fuel prices. All the more reason to get off oil and to promote alternatives, such as ethanol or battery technologies that will enable us to drive the first 40 miles on electricity.
We’re spending about $1.2 billion over the next 10 years to develop hydrogen fuel cells.
We need to get away from hydrocarbons here in America, for economic security, for national security and for environment reasons, as well.
This is interesting, because that's the exact same thing he mocked Gore for in the debates, when he stated "“Unlike Al Gore, I don’t consider the internal-combustion engine a threat to the future of mankind. I consider it a remarkable testimony to American ingenuity.”
Is it a threat, or isn't it? Do we need to "get away from hydrocarbons...for environmental reasons" or don't we?
Does this mean that Bush thinks Gore was right all along, or has he just recently come to this conclusion? After all, Gore has been promoting alternative fuel cars since Earth in the Balance came out in 1992.
The same Algore that invented the internet that brings us all together here?
I'm not sure, but nobody is denying the fact it's getting warmer, the conflict
is whether it's caused by my driving to get a pound of beef or the cow's gas
before he got to the butcher shop.
I cannot speak for the President, but if he truly does believe hydrocarbons are a threat, then I disagree with him. Like I disagree with him on social spending and a few other things.
CY, you really think that Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet? BWAHAHAHA!I'm glad I'm not as easily influenced as you are.
GOB, good answer. I respect that.
I was just playing Devil's Advocate. I, for one, am happy with my V8 SUV, and put it to good use.
sarcasm:
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
IE: The same Algore that invented the internet that brings us all together here?
Yup, I wish I didn't need my V8 SUV, but it works. :-)
an·tag·o·nism
n.
1. Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. See Synonyms at enmity.
2. The condition of being an opposing principle, force, or factor.
e.g. "CY, you really think that Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet? BWAHAHAHA!I'm glad I'm not as easily influenced as you are."
Wow! Claiming to employ literary devices in an attempt to retract a statement is fun!
Holy Thesaurus, Batman!
What ever happened to personal responsibility? I thought that if you produced a product or service, you should be responsible for making sure it was a good product. American car companies having been producing good products for a long time.
By most all measures, modern cars ARE good products- the fact that they emit hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen has never been a secret. The truth is, they are so much better and cleaner now than they have ever been. When I started in the repair business 30 years ago, you could not be in an enclosed area, even a large one, with a running car. Now, in all reality, you can. There are really not enough emissions to kill you unless you really try. In fact, in a smog-laden city, the air coming OUT of a car is cleaner than that going IN.
How hard should they have to try to reduce emissions further, and at what cost to the consumer? We long ago reached the point of diminishing returns regarding fuel economy, emissions, and really, even safety. An additional dollar spent now doesn't yield the commensurate returns it did even ten years ago, in these respects.
Post a Comment
<< Home