California is suing carmakers for global warming

[dalegg 143]

Taxing cigarettes didn't discourage people from smoking. You can't simply manipulate the price to discourage consumer trends as indicative what mawilson said about the more expensive SUV's like BMW.

That's right. All you have to do is make it illegal to drive SUVs in restaurants and bars.

[Heracles 417]

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.

What would all of the hollywood actors drive then??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

What would all of the hollywood actors drive then??

Madonna lives in London. Drives a mini I believe

[Cassie 8]

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.

What would all of the hollywood actors drive then??

well, I do know that Leonardo diCaprio drives a Prius, just like me.

[Heracles 417]

Madonna lives in London. Drives a mini I believe

I like that.. Lives in London and criticizes the US but travels here often to collect her paycheck or is that George Clooney..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

Well....a big and expensive car is a symbol of status more than anything else.

People will always buy expensive things that they don't really need just because

they can. You don't have to like it, but one stupid lawsuit is not going to change it.

Gas prices will change it. Not a foolish and frivolous lawsuit. Look at the decrease in SUV sales since gas hit $3.00 a gallon. That's how you attack the guzzlers if you're really serious about it - via the fuel price.

Taxing cigarettes didn't discourage people from smoking. You can't simply manipulate the price to discourage consumer trends as indicative what mawilson said about the more expensive SUV's like BMW.

Oh, gas guzzlers are addictive now?

The fact remains that SUV sales dropped quite significantly when gas hit $3.00/gallon. I'd imagine that there'd be less SUV's on the road and those out there driven much less if gas was at, say, $5.00/gallon.

See, with the cig tax, there's online cigarette shopping - they ship that ####### to your house and people circumvent high state taxes that way. Try and have gas shipped to your house from across the country...

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

Taxing cigarettes didn't discourage people from smoking. You can't simply manipulate the price to discourage consumer trends as indicative what mawilson said about the more expensive SUV's like BMW.

Oh, gas guzzlers are addictive now?

The fact remains that SUV sales dropped quite significantly when gas hit $3.00/gallon. I'd imagine that there'd be less SUV's on the road and those out there driven much less if gas was at, say, $5.00/gallon.

See, with the cig tax, there's online cigarette shopping - they ship that ####### to your house and people circumvent high state taxes that way. Try and have gas shipped to your house from across the country...

That's not what I was implying. You're argument is that you believe gas prices can influence customer trends and I'm saying thats not happening. Does it influence what kind of car someone drives? To an extent sure. However, I would argue it is too small of an influence to really make a viable impact. I would agree that the gas we pay at the pumps should accurately reflect the cost, but you cannot ignore the responsability the auto industry has in making autmobiles that are not only safe to drive, but produce the minimal amount of pollution (to which fuel efficiency is part of) for their necessary function. That function being transportion - period, no matter how much we've become emotionally attached to our automobiles.

But getting back to this lawsuit - it's claim is that the auto industry has deliberately marketed larger, less fuel efficiency in violation of the acts passed which called for the industry to push forward the technology and provide more fuel efficient cars. Is that not a legitimate complaint?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

But getting back to this lawsuit - it's claim is that the auto industry has deliberately marketed larger, less fuel efficiency in violation of the acts passed which called for the industry to push forward the technology and provide more fuel efficient cars. Is that not a legitimate complaint?

That is quite a legitimate complaint and it is quite interesting that the car manufacturers answer it by questioning the legitimacy of states to enforce their own standards in lieu of the federal government to do so. By refocusing California's attempts to reduce emissions in the larger debate of federal vs. state rights, the car manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon of conservative judicial activists (see the verdict on medical marihuana which rejects states' rights to regulate drugs by pointing to the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce which is only peripherally important in either case) and draw attention away from the real issue.

What all this in effect shows is that despite all professions of states' rights in so-called "moral" issues (abortion, etc), when it comes to issues concerning big business (like fuel economy and emission standards or drug laws), a strong federal government comes in quite handy and is preferred not only by so-called "states' rights" politicians but also the judiciary. Funny, isn't it?

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

But getting back to this lawsuit - it's claim is that the auto industry has deliberately marketed larger, less fuel efficiency in violation of the acts passed which called for the industry to push forward the technology and provide more fuel efficient cars. Is that not a legitimate complaint?

That is quite a legitimate complaint and it is quite interesting that the car manufacturers answer it by questioning the legitimacy of states to enforce their own standards in lieu of the federal government to do so. By refocusing California's attempts to reduce emissions in the larger debate of federal vs. state rights, the car manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon of conservative judicial activists (see the verdict on medical marihuana which rejects states' rights to regulate drugs by pointing to the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce which is only peripherally important in either case) and draw attention away from the real issue.

What all this in effect shows is that despite all professions of states' rights in so-called "moral" issues (abortion, etc), when it comes to issues concerning big business (like fuel economy and emission standards or drug laws), a strong federal government comes in quite handy and is preferred not only by so-called "states' rights" politicians but also the judiciary. Funny, isn't it?

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Not selling their products in the largest state (read also: largest market) in the US? Yeah, I can see the manufacturers opting for that one. NOT!

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

But getting back to this lawsuit - it's claim is that the auto industry has deliberately marketed larger, less fuel efficiency in violation of the acts passed which called for the industry to push forward the technology and provide more fuel efficient cars. Is that not a legitimate complaint?

That is quite a legitimate complaint and it is quite interesting that the car manufacturers answer it by questioning the legitimacy of states to enforce their own standards in lieu of the federal government to do so. By refocusing California's attempts to reduce emissions in the larger debate of federal vs. state rights, the car manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon of conservative judicial activists (see the verdict on medical marihuana which rejects states' rights to regulate drugs by pointing to the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce which is only peripherally important in either case) and draw attention away from the real issue.

What all this in effect shows is that despite all professions of states' rights in so-called "moral" issues (abortion, etc), when it comes to issues concerning big business (like fuel economy and emission standards or drug laws), a strong federal government comes in quite handy and is preferred not only by so-called "states' rights" politicians but also the judiciary. Funny, isn't it?

Yes, indeed.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Not selling their products in the largest state (read also: largest market) in the US? Yeah, I can see the manufacturers opting for that one. NOT!

sell and be sued...or stop selling and not be sued. hmmmm.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Not selling their products in the largest state (read also: largest market) in the US? Yeah, I can see the manufacturers opting for that one. NOT!

sell and be sued...or stop selling and not be sued. hmmmm.

... bean-counters job...

[Heracles 417]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

[Fischkoepfin 1]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

No, but I can imagine the outcry from all the conservatives inhabiting Southern California screaming even louder than the few actors who actually live in L.A.. Ever wondered who put Arnie in power in the first place if the state is sooooooo overrun by "liberal actors"??