California is suing carmakers for global warming

[Fischkoepfin 1]

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.

I totally agree. Fuel standards are somewhat pointless and too much government regulation of an industry that is perfectly able to regulate itself. Why else would the big 3 automakers in the US have no problems whatsoever producing cars that way exceed US standards for other markets. Gas prices in Europe and Japan are outraegously high, putting the burden of conservation on the consumer and rather than issuing fuel standard guidelines allowing automakers to average fuel consumption between their cars, those government, like California just did, issue emission standard which every new vehicle needs to fall under.

At the other end, used cars, cars that fail to meet the new emissions standard are taxed higher (with a delay of about 10-15 years), thus encouraging owners to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

I'm always surprised how much people oppose government regulation of all sorts of useful things, like helmets, seat belts, and the like, but when it comes to pointless regulation that in effect caters to an industry rather than the needs to the environment, people suddenly trust that regulation works (fuel standards being just one item in a long list of failed industry-oriented "regulation". Food safety is another)

[cmartyn 0]

Awesome, turn the clock back to 1979 and replace Car with Cigarette and Voila.. My neigbours car gave my kid cancer.. 20 years from now we will ban cars. It was fun while it lasted.

[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.

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.

I totally agree. Fuel standards are somewhat pointless and too much government regulation of an industry that is perfectly able to regulate itself. Why else would the big 3 automakers in the US have no problems whatsoever producing cars that way exceed US standards for other markets. Gas prices in Europe and Japan are outraegously high, putting the burden of conservation on the consumer and rather than issuing fuel standard guidelines allowing automakers to average fuel consumption between their cars, those government, like California just did, issue emission standard which every new vehicle needs to fall under.

At the other end, used cars, cars that fail to meet the new emissions standard are taxed higher (with a delay of about 10-15 years), thus encouraging owners to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

I'm always surprised how much people oppose government regulation of all sorts of useful things, like helmets, seat belts, and the like, but when it comes to pointless regulation that in effect caters to an industry rather than the needs to the environment, people suddenly trust that regulation works (fuel standards being just one item in a long list of failed industry-oriented "regulation". Food safety is another)

Contrary to what Reinhard said about Japan, they do set standards for fuel efficiency...

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Transport have decided to set the world’s first fuel economy standards for large trucks and buses in an attempt to curb Japan’s CO2 emissions.

Such an unprecedented step (heavy-duty vehicles are untouched by fuel economy regulations worldwide) would put additional pressure on engine makers, who are already putting a great deal of effort into meeting increasingly strict emissions regulations.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/japan_to_issue_.html

Reinhard,

I'd like to point a flaw in your argument that it the gas that causes the pollution and not the vehicles - the gas doesn't become a pollutant until it is burned and that doesn't happen by itself - the catalyst is the car.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Contrary to what Reinhard said about Japan, they do set standards for fuel efficiency...

Odd: I didn't mention Japan once.

I'd like to point a flaw in your argument that it the gas that causes the pollution and not the vehicles - the gas doesn't become a pollutant until it is burned and that doesn't happen by itself - the catalyst is the car.

Suing the car manufacturers for any pollution their vehicles may cause is as ridiculous as suing McDonald's for the nutritional deficiencies in their menu. Nobody is having a gun put to their head to either eat the ####### McDonald's sells or to drive the ####### GM produces. It's the individuals that are responsible for the pollution and nobody else. The state of California itself is negligent since it keeps issuing registrations for these pollutants and licenses to their operators.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Contrary to what Reinhard said about Japan, they do set standards for fuel efficiency...

Odd: I didn't mention Japan once.

I'd like to point a flaw in your argument that it the gas that causes the pollution and not the vehicles - the gas doesn't become a pollutant until it is burned and that doesn't happen by itself - the catalyst is the car.

Suing the car manufacturers for any pollution their vehicles may cause is as ridiculous as suing McDonald's for the nutritional deficiencies in their menu. Nobody is having a gun put to their head to either eat the ####### McDonald's sells or to drive the ####### GM produces. It's the individuals that are responsible for the pollution and nobody else. The state of California itself is negligent since it keeps issuing registrations for these pollutants and licenses to their operators.

to further that train of thought, one could sue charmin for hemorrhoids

[Jasman0717 8]

It's election time in California! Come November 8th it will be all forgotten.

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

Contrary to what Reinhard said about Japan, they do set standards for fuel efficiency...

Odd: I didn't mention Japan once.

I'd like to point a flaw in your argument that it the gas that causes the pollution and not the vehicles - the gas doesn't become a pollutant until it is burned and that doesn't happen by itself - the catalyst is the car.

Suing the car manufacturers for any pollution their vehicles may cause is as ridiculous as suing McDonald's for the nutritional deficiencies in their menu. Nobody is having a gun put to their head to either eat the ####### McDonald's sells or to drive the ####### GM produces. It's the individuals that are responsible for the pollution and nobody else. The state of California itself is negligent since it keeps issuing registrations for these pollutants and licenses to their operators.

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

Today, with proven technology, the U.S. can do much better. Europe and Japan, facing similar challenges, have shown that it is possible to achieve much higher average fuel economy. The European Union has set a goal of 44 mpg by 2008 for new vehicles, including light trucks, up from 37 mpg in 2002; and Japan has set a goal of 48 mpg by 2010, up from 46 mpg in 2002. Surely the U.S. can achieve 40 mpg or more by 2016.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_i...amp;issue_id=24

[Garfield fan 0]

It's election time in California! Come November 8th it will be all forgotten.

Ah, I knew there must be something behind this...

[Mirorgate 0]

Today, with proven technology, the U.S. can do much better. Europe and Japan, facing similar challenges, have shown that it is possible to achieve much higher average fuel economy. The European Union has set a goal of 44 mpg by 2008 for new vehicles, including light trucks, up from 37 mpg in 2002; and Japan has set a goal of 48 mpg by 2010, up from 46 mpg in 2002. Surely the U.S. can achieve 40 mpg or more by 2016.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_i...amp;issue_id=24

those are still ####### goals... they should be setting them at about 80+ MPG's. We have the technology for it.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Contrary to what Reinhard said about Japan, they do set standards for fuel efficiency...

Odd: I didn't mention Japan once.

I'd like to point a flaw in your argument that it the gas that causes the pollution and not the vehicles - the gas doesn't become a pollutant until it is burned and that doesn't happen by itself - the catalyst is the car.

Suing the car manufacturers for any pollution their vehicles may cause is as ridiculous as suing McDonald's for the nutritional deficiencies in their menu. Nobody is having a gun put to their head to either eat the ####### McDonald's sells or to drive the ####### GM produces. It's the individuals that are responsible for the pollution and nobody else. The state of California itself is negligent since it keeps issuing registrations for these pollutants and licenses to their operators.

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

Today, with proven technology, the U.S. can do much better. Europe and Japan, facing similar challenges, have shown that it is possible to achieve much higher average fuel economy. The European Union has set a goal of 44 mpg by 2008 for new vehicles, including light trucks, up from 37 mpg in 2002; and Japan has set a goal of 48 mpg by 2010, up from 46 mpg in 2002. Surely the U.S. can achieve 40 mpg or more by 2016.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_i...amp;issue_id=24

Hey, I brought up Japan. Didn't know about their new legislation, sorry (as to EU-fuel economy standards, I just checked and they just have an new emission standard for 2008 targeting CO2, NOX, and soot). But I still think fuel economy standards (especially if they are fleet averages) are a bunch of bs. Emission standards per vehicle are a much better way to go, which is why I consider California's proposal a very good idea and the lawsuit useful. You can't blame a carmaker for making gas guzzlers, but you can blame them for the fact that engines don't burn fuels cleanly and efficiently.

As to the fuel economy in other countries vs. the US, in most cases it is a result of consumer pressure combined with emission standards. US-automakers meet these standards without any problems in Europe and Asia, while pretending that it is impossible here, which shows that something is horribly wrong with their arguments.

Edit: I just found this paper addressing the benefits and drawbacks of EURO-5 (the next step in reducing emissions). It gives good information on emission standards and why they are necessary. http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/P...05-09_euro5.pdf

Edited September 22, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[mawilson 2,133]

those are still ####### goals... they should be setting them at about 80+ MPG's. We have the technology for it.

Generally speaking, the more powerful the engine, the worse its fuel economy. What if

I don't want to buy a piss poor 1L Prius that does 60mpg?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

You keep making it more complicated than necessary. California could refuse to register vehicles that do not meet whatever fuel efficiency standard the state sees fit. It does that in terms of emissions standards that are tighter than those of the rest of the nation but refuses to do that along the lines of fuel efficiency. The state is also free to bases taxes on fuel efficiency, raise taxes on gas, etc. There's a lot of things the state can do other than wasting taxpayer funds taking a cheap shot at car manufacturers at election time.

[Mirorgate 0]

those are still ####### goals... they should be setting them at about 80+ MPG's. We have the technology for it.

Generally speaking, the more powerful the engine, the worse its fuel economy. What if

I don't want to buy a piss poor 1L Prius that does 60mpg?

Dont have to. If a guy (back in late 80's) can tool around in his garage and get is alfa romeo spider to get 80+.. why cant car manufacturers make their cars get same?

[mmmbop1976 1]

i'm suing cows for producing methane gas

Edited September 22, 2006 by mmmbop1976

[eric&gen 0]

Everyone drop your SUV, cars or whatever you have and start riding bicycles lol. That will save on gas and clean up the air a little lol...