California is suing carmakers for global warming

[mawilson 2,133]

What happened to personal responsibility? If I want to buy a gas guzzler, why should

the auto maker be punished for it?

Right. And who should stop you from dumping toxic waste in your backyard? After all, it's YOUR backyard, right?

Exactly. You would punish me for dumping the toxic waste in my backyard,

not the toxic waste manufacturer, right?

Right. It's not the crack dealers...it's the crackheads. Personal responsability all the way. Companies only provide the products and services that are in demand and have no social or environmental responsability whatsoever.

So in effect you're saying that if I dump toxic waste in my backyard, it's not my fault --

let's blame the company that sold me the toxic waste!

It's the same twisted logic that lets people sue McDonalds because hamburgers made

them fat.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What happened to personal responsibility? If I want to buy a gas guzzler, why should

the auto maker be punished for it?

Right. And who should stop you from dumping toxic waste in your backyard? After all, it's YOUR backyard, right?

Exactly. You would punish me for dumping the toxic waste in my backyard,

not the toxic waste manufacturer, right?

Right. It's not the crack dealers...it's the crackheads. Personal responsability all the way. Companies only provide the products and services that are in demand and have no social or environmental responsability whatsoever.

So in effect you're saying that if I dump toxic waste in my backyard, it's not my fault --

let's blame the company that sold me the toxic waste!

It's the same twisted logic that lets people sue McDonalds because hamburgers made

them fat.

What's wrong with saying that auto makers have a responsability to produce and market more fuel effecient cars? What about the landmark lawsuits against auto makers to require safety belts?

Edited September 21, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[cmartyn 0]

McDonalds makes you fat?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

McDonalds makes you fat?

There'd be an outrage if McDonald's were selling kids crack. Some chemicals are redeemable because they're 'legal', while other chemicals are demonized because they are illegal.

[mawilson 2,133]

What's wrong with saying that auto makers have a responsability to produce and market more fuel effecient cars? What about the landmark lawsuits against auto makers to require safety belts?

Sorry, I just don't feel the same way. They are a business and their primary

responsibility is to make safe, reliable cars. Safety is important. Fuel efficiency

doesn't enter the equation.

Why should car manufacturers be held to higher standards than other businesses?

I don't buy the pollution argument because cars are not the worst pollutants.

Motorbikes churn out more pollution than cars even though they make up only a

tiny fraction of vehicles on the road. Why not start with Boeing -- their planes emit

a lot more ####### than all the gas guzzlers in the world put together. What about

power stations and factories?

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

What's wrong with saying that auto makers have a responsability to produce and market more fuel effecient cars? What about the landmark lawsuits against auto makers to require safety belts?

Sorry, I just don't feel the same way. They are a business and their primary

responsibility is to make safe, reliable cars. Safety is important. Fuel efficiency

doesn't enter the equation.

Why should car manufacturers be held to higher standards than other businesses?

I don't buy the pollution argument because cars are not the worst pollutants.

Motorbikes churn out more pollution than cars even though they make up only a

tiny fraction of vehicles on the road. Why not start with Boeing -- their planes emit

a lot more ####### than all the gas guzzlers in the world put together. What about

power stations and factories?

basically, what people are saying is the car manufacturers should make our choices for us and provide us only with a selection of high mpg vehicles, thus avoiding the topic of personal responsibility.

[mawilson 2,133]

basically, what people are saying is the car manufacturers should make our choices for us and provide us only with a selection of high mpg vehicles, thus avoiding the topic of personal responsibility.

Which would suck, because then I wouldn't be able to buy a gas-guzzling sports car if I wanted to.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's wrong with saying that auto makers have a responsability to produce and market more fuel effecient cars? What about the landmark lawsuits against auto makers to require safety belts?

Sorry, I just don't feel the same way. They are a business and their primary

responsibility is to make safe, reliable cars. Safety is important. Fuel efficiency

doesn't enter the equation.

Why should car manufacturers be held to higher standards than other businesses?

I don't buy the pollution argument because cars are not the worst pollutants.

Motorbikes churn out more pollution than cars even though they make up only a

tiny fraction of vehicles on the road. Why not start with Boeing -- their planes emit

a lot more ####### than all the gas guzzlers in the world put together. What about

power stations and factories?

Why not? The byproduct of combustible engines is smog and other forms of pollution which effects the air you breathe. Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment. I'm not sure why public health is not as important as public safety.

[Mirorgate 0]

Why not? The byproduct of combustible engines is smog and other forms of pollution which effects the air you breathe. Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment. I'm not sure why public health is not as important as public safety.

Emissions testing is already here, as well as catalytic converters. What should have been regulated more IMO is furthering the definition of "vehicle improvment" in the laws as written. I could care less about touch pad entry into a car.... just get me better mileage than 30MPG and saying that its awesome when we have the tech to make each car go over 80MPG's.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why not? The byproduct of combustible engines is smog and other forms of pollution which effects the air you breathe. Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment. I'm not sure why public health is not as important as public safety.

Emissions testing is already here, as well as catalytic converters. What should have been regulated more IMO is furthering the definition of "vehicle improvment" in the laws as written. I could care less about touch pad entry into a car.... just get me better mileage than 30MPG and saying that its awesome when we have the tech to make each car go over 80MPG's.

But haven't the auto makers successfully lobbied against higher fuel effeciency standards?

[Garfield fan 0]

Why not? The byproduct of combustible engines is smog and other forms of pollution which effects the air you breathe. Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment. I'm not sure why public health is not as important as public safety.

Emissions testing is already here, as well as catalytic converters. What should have been regulated more IMO is furthering the definition of "vehicle improvment" in the laws as written. I could care less about touch pad entry into a car.... just get me better mileage than 30MPG and saying that its awesome when we have the tech to make each car go over 80MPG's.

But haven't the auto makers successfully lobbied against higher fuel effeciency standards?

So whose fault is that ? The auto makers' who lobbied the government or the government who subdued to the lobbyist ?

Edited September 22, 2006 by Garfield fan

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment.

That dog don't hunt.

If anything, it's the gas that you and I burn in those engines that ends up as this sick stuff that exits the car's tailpipe. The car in and by itself doesn't pollute a first thing. No gas, no driver, no pollution. It's that simple. If you want to put a price on the impact on the environment, then the gas needs to be taxed more. Of course, no politician has the guts to do that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment.

That dog don't hunt.

If anything, it's the gas that you and I burn in those engines that ends up as this sick stuff that exits the car's tailpipe. The car in and by itself doesn't pollute a first thing. No gas, no driver, no pollution. It's that simple. If you want to put a price on the impact on the environment, then the gas needs to be taxed more. Of course, no politician has the guts to do that.

That's ignoring that the auto makers design combustible engines that vary greatly in terms of fuel consumption. America's auto industry is aware that combustible engines produce air pollution and they are an integral part of a solution to reduce that effect. Whether this lawsuit will stick or not is irrelevent. Auto makers should be held responsible to push new design and technology towards higher fuel effeciency standards. Leaving car design in terms of fuel effeciency entirely up to the market is shortsighted. If consumer demand were such that only vehicles that would get less than a mile to the gallon were being sold, we should just accept that? Ridiculous.

[mawilson 2,133]

If consumer demand were such that only vehicles that would get less than a mile to the gallon were being sold, we should just accept that?

Yes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not only does it make sense that we regulate how much pollution cars create but we need to hold auto maker's responsible for the impact on our environment.

That dog don't hunt.

If anything, it's the gas that you and I burn in those engines that ends up as this sick stuff that exits the car's tailpipe. The car in and by itself doesn't pollute a first thing. No gas, no driver, no pollution. It's that simple. If you want to put a price on the impact on the environment, then the gas needs to be taxed more. Of course, no politician has the guts to do that.

That's ignoring that the auto makers design combustible engines that vary greatly in terms of fuel consumption. America's auto industry is aware that combustible engines produce air pollution and they are an integral part of a solution to reduce that effect. Whether this lawsuit will stick or not is irrelevent. Auto makers should be held responsible to push new design and technology towards higher fuel effeciency standards. Leaving car design in terms of fuel effeciency entirely up to the market is shortsighted. If consumer demand were such that only vehicles that would get less than a mile to the gallon were being sold, we should just accept that? Ridiculous.

Again, if gas was priced to include the cost of the impact on the environment it has, would there be any demand for vehicles that get less than a mile to the gallon? I don't think so. Look at Europe. The main reason, if not the one and only reason, that cars over there are more fuel efficient is because gas is very expensive and the consumer demands fuel efficient vehicles.

Edited September 22, 2006 by ET-US2004