California sues car companies over global warming

[Balthamael]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5365728.stm

 

Yeah, the topic description is virtually dripping of sarcasm. Although, I guess a lawsuit is a standard response to any problem at this point.

[Atreides]

Just what Ford and GM needed. Not.

[Oerwinde]

Should sue crisco too for making those aerosol cooking sprays too.

[Fenghuang]

Well maybe this'll make people take global warming more seriously?

 

I mean, global warming is serious business.

[Volourn]

No, no it isn't. People exaggerate it.

 

And, this lawsuit is retarded and another reason to not take environmental nuts seriously.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Volourn

[Lare Kikkeli]

No, no it isn't. People exaggerate it.

 

And, this lawsuit is retared and another reason to not take environmental nuts seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

[kumquatq3]

Meltdown: Ice Cracks at North Pole

 

Satellite images of the Arctic show large openings in the perennial ice cover, yet another consequence of greenhouse warming, scientists announced this week.

 

 

The Arctic's thick perennial sea ice typically survives the warmth of the summer and lasts through the year. But satellite images taken in late August show that up to 10 percent of the perennial sea ice has been fractured by summer storms. The surprising change involves an area larger than the size of the British Isles.

 

I just ran into this, not trying to be the forums global warming nut

[Blank]

This is like sueing companies that make guns because people get shot to death with them. The company makes it, sells it, but is not liable as to what people do with it. That's like sueing a maker of a programming language because people wrote harmful code with it.

 

People smoke cigarettes, which are harmful to them, but they still do it, because they obviously like it. Should cigarette companies stop making cigarettes because people are harmed by them? People accept the side-effects. And based on the fact that everyone is driving a car around with reckless abandon as to the environment (even while they know the damage is being done), I make a claim that people are willingly negligent about the effects their driving has on the environment, and that they accept the effects as a cigarette smoker does.

 

If I were defending the car makers, I would present these types of cases.

[Pop]

Comparing car companies to cigarrete makers is erroneous. Global Warming was viewed with general skepticism up until the 90s, whereas cigarretes have been definitively known to be harmful for the last 5 decades. Car companies could reasonably argue that they were ignorant to the risk they posed to the environment. The comparison to gun makers is also flawed. The purpose of a gun is to shoot, which directly and deliberately harms. The purpose of a car is to drive, and the harm it does to the environment is secondary.

 

I highly doubt that anybody is going to make a case with this. They could make a case that automakers have derailed efforts to provide alternatives to their products and thus contributed to the problem of Global Warming, but not that they are intentionally destroying the Earth for destruction's sake. There's a big difference.

[Blank]

Comparing car companies to cigarrete makers is erroneous. Global Warming was viewed with general skepticism up until the 90s, whereas cigarretes have been definitively known to be harmful for the last 5 decades.

Right, but people use the cars even now that we know the harmful effects. Heck, the case is about the harmful effects, and about compensating the Californian people, so the people sueing know that in driving to the court, they are contributing to harm themselves. Based on the reality that people still drive cars, nobody seriously cares that they are harming the environment. To put the blame solely on the car makers is flawed, in that, they didn't drive the car, they only provided it.

Car companies could reasonably argue that they were ignorant to the risk they posed to the environment. The comparison to gun makers is also flawed. The purpose of a gun is to shoot, which directly and deliberately harms. The purpose of a car is to drive, and the harm it does to the environment is secondary.

Secondary, but now considered a bad side-effect. People know that the side-effect is there, but they don't stop driving the cars. How is the car maker guilty for continuing to provide something that people want regardless of the toll on the environment, which they know of now?

I highly doubt that anybody is going to make a case with this. They could make a case that automakers have derailed efforts to provide alternatives to their products and thus contributed to the problem of Global Warming, but not that they are intentionally destroying the Earth for destruction's sake. There's a big difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, it would be hard to make a case against car-makers. I see my points are a little poopy on the edges, but I was just trying to think of some easy defense ideas against the rather absurd lawsuit. Your idea (quoted directly above) is probably better than mine are :">

 

Oh, and I forgot to add the complimentary

Edited September 22, 2006 by Blank

[Pope]

No, no it isn't. People exaggerate it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you would know how?

 

I suppose you've been studying the effects of gas emissions to the environment during your NWN breaks?

[Tigranes]

Look, Jack Thompson!

[Lucius]

Volo doesn't have to know, he uses Vologic

[Judge Hades]

Well maybe this'll make people take global warming more seriously? 

 

I mean, global warming is serious business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. This is the coldest August/September Iowa has ever had.

[Kroney]

No, no it isn't. People exaggerate it.

 

And, this lawsuit is retarded and another reason to not take environmental nuts seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone.

 

350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Kroney

[Judge Hades]

Yes, but in terms in the millions of years the earth has existed weather it is hard to predict or blame one thing on. I am all for lowering emissions but saying that only the car manufacturers are causing the problem is ludricous.

[Kroney]

Yes, but in terms in the millions of years the earth has existed weather it is hard to predict or blame one thing on.  I am all for lowering emissions but saying that only the car manufacturers are causing the problem is ludricous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I quite agree it's not the fault of car manufacturers directly. The root of the problem lies in mass industry pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over a period of 250 years.

 

At this point pointing fingers of blame is worthless. Penalising those who refuse to conform to pollution laws and agreements isn't.

 

Note that I am speaking generally, not necessarily in direct response to Balth's link.

[Judge Hades]

A lot of car companies are changing though, and we have new fuel alternatives that taking hold. To expect things to change overnight is silly. It will take time, like 20 to 30 years. Its not like we are in any immediate danger.

[astr0creep]

Either Arnie is harvesting some votes for the coming election or he's trying not to keep his job so he can go and make T4.

[Atreides]

At this point pointing fingers of blame is worthless. Penalising those who refuse to conform to pollution laws and agreements isn't.

The poluters are the consumers. Normal people that press the pedals, waste energy and stuff. Since the Euros are in touch with this kinda stuff we can experiment with some environment head tax on them to fix the environment.

[Arkan]

Car companies aren't to blame, or maybe are only partially. For automobiles are dependent on the propulsion system which they use. If you want to sue someone for something like this, sue the oil companies for giving the public the stuff that actually harms the atmosphere. Car companies can only do so much, as regardless of whatever system they use to reduce emmission, the fact remains that fossil fuels are still being used which will always have harmful byproducts. Also, it is the oil companies who are stifling progression to newer, cleaner forms of energy, thus they are the ones who must share the blame in this matter of global warming .

 

However, that being said, the general public must take the rest of the blame for they are allowing this to happen. It is funny, as someone pointed out, that people are much more commonly aware of the harmful effects of the byproducts of fossil fuels, yet they still must use them in order to get where they're going, especially to any courthouse for any number of rediculous lawsuits (not naming any names here). If the general publich truly cared about the harm being done to this planet, we would change our ways or demand a feasible alternative post-haste...which we are not. Thus, we are all to blame; automakers, oil companies, and the public, alike.

[Rosbjerg]

Thus, we are all to blame; automakers, oil companies, and the public, alike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen!

 

I absolutely loathe the hypocrisy of the average consumer .. We are all the reason why things are as they are.. if you want something to change then start with yourself! damn I could shot the next "enviromentalist" that starts preaching to me about how bad everyone else is, while he's smoking a joint and driving a van..

 

that said, I share Hades thought on this matter .. I don't believe we are really to blame for this! it's being blown way out of proportion - but I'm not saying there's no problem, because there is, but start doing something tangable instead of driving this ridiculous witchhunt! - alas I'm no scientest or activist - So in essence I'm as sad as the average consumer.....

[Atreides]

Do you smoke joints?

[LadyCrimson]

I'm environmentally concerned but meh...as has been said, it's everyone's fault, not just 'big business' or whatnot. Maybe if California spent more money on mass transit that fits the local lifestyles and car-dependant spread-out city layouts, people might actually use them. But that would cost too much to rehaul city designs and create fleets/systems, easier to sue.

 

I can understand the motivation behind this frivilous suit but it's not the way to go about it. They may as well sue every individual who ever bought a car.

[Kroney]

At this point pointing fingers of blame is worthless. Penalising those who refuse to conform to pollution laws and agreements isn't.

The poluters are the consumers. Normal people that press the pedals, waste energy and stuff. Since the Euros are in touch with this kinda stuff we can experiment with some environment head tax on them to fix the environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The polluters who are causing the problems are big business industries and the governments who refuse to restrict their rates of pollution. The biggest polluter on the planet by far is the US. Let's head tax them instead, since they're the worst offenders.