Calif. suit on car greenhouse gases dismissed. Is this crazy?

Question

By Adam Tanner
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by California's attorney general on Monday seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from six automakers for damaging the state with climate-changing greenhouse gases.
Martin Jenkins, a federal judge in the Northern District of California, said the issue of global warming should be decided in the political rather than legal arena.
"The Court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government," Jenkins wrote in approving the automakers' motion to dismiss the case.
The suit, filed in September, targeted General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co, Toyota Motor Corp, the U.S. arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler AG and the North American units of Japan's Honda Motor Co and Nissan Motor Co Ltd.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1736580020070918?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Isn’t a lawsuit like this going a bit overboard? Is California’s attorney general for real? Does he expect people to walk to work?

Answer 1

Tying up the courts with frivolous lawsuits a lot like this Senator is doing when he is suing God to make the point "anybody can sue anybody."

This whole global warming, heating, combustion crap is getting on my nerves. And the fact that the very people who preach its dangers and everything do nothing about it themselves. I do not see politicians or celebrities that preach global warming giving up their multiple mansions, private jets and entourage of vehicles to protect the environment. I do not see Al "serving one of the most endangered fish at daughter's wedding dinner" Gore giving up his big house and private jet. I don't know about anyone else, but I think the average citizen does more to combat "global warming" than these shysters do without even knowing it. Because the average citizen wants to save money by conserving the use of heat, water and electricity so their bills will not be so high each month. And especially do not have private jets in our backyards ready to takeoff anytime we want.

It is absurd if you actually look at it. All these politicians and celebrities that are for global warming, by their logic, are the ones who are the biggest contributors to their little problem.

Answer 2

All cars that burn gasoline or diesel fuel emit CO2, carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas. In order to eliminate this problem of greenhouse gas CO2 being emitted from automobiles, the internal combustion and diesel engines in automobiles should be phased out (in about 10 year) after which they will be completely prohibited.

The gasoline and diesel fuel powered cars should be replaced by electric automobile. One the companies that make electric cars is Telsa Motors in California which h makes an electric sports car. http://www.telsamotors.com The electric power to run these cars can come from new wind farms throughout California, as well a efficient solar cells that can be attached to the car to maintain the charge of the battery.

No gasoline or diesel fuel needed!!!! Electric cars, windmill farms and solar cells are the answer for eliminating greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide ) from auto emissions.

Answer 3

Sorta yes sorta no.... Cars are not the only source of greenhouse gases.... there's planes, trains, autos, motorcycles, power plants, ships, boats, lawn mowers. weed eaters and a variety of other combustion engines that are contributing and then there how many other nations in the world? The whole world would have to be sued.

Personally I blame PIGS and their flatulence and I'm willing to do my part by taking a certain pig named BACON off a certain someone's hand and turn him into several tasty Christmas and Thanksgiving hams and a few pork roast as well. It's the very least I could do for the world.

Answer 4

I'msure the attorney general knew forom the outset that the suit would be dismissed. However, there is a logic to this.

keep in mind that the whole issue of what policies should be implemented to combat global warming is a "hot" political button--and is ggoing to become more so.

This is --from a polotical science/sociology perspective, a "claims-making" strategy. The goal is to put the opposition (here, corporations whose products contribute to global warming" on the defensive-and the attorney got exactly what I suspect he was after. Now he has a formal court ruling that, in effect, endorses political action against such manufacturers if they continue to drag their feet on implementing new technologies, etc.

Quite aside from personal opinions on the particular issue of global warming--this is an example of how the players in an issue go about the process of "framing " an issue in terms that are advantageous to their position/agenda. In any issue, all the players engage in thhis "framing" effort, using whatever tactics and strategies they find useful.

For example, here's one of the ways this might prove useful. Let's say California passes a law imposing somerestrictions on auto makers--and they challenge it in court on the basis that the state doesn't have jurisdiction to impose the restriction. The judge's ruling on this lawsuit would then ecome evidence--and possibly very powerful evidence--that the state did have the authority to impose the restriction.

Answer 5

California has long had tougher emission control laws in place than the rest of the nation.

If the Auto companies have been meeting these standards, the suite is pointless. However, if the named auto companies have been bypassing the standards set by the California legislature, the case would have merit.

Answer 6

All he was trying to do is raise money for the state of California at the expense of the automakers, which means at the expense of the rest of the country.

Personally, I'd prefer the judge had heard the case. Then we'd see just how thin the "scientific proof" really is.

Answer 7

The oceans, volcanic activity and forest fires are the biggest source of greenhouse gases. Cars produce very little in comparison. The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (>90% of the total) is water vapour.

Answer 8

It is very overboard, but be ready for much more of this. As long as people give credibility to Al Gore and his politically motivated movement, these types of cases will become commonplace.

What has to happen to stop this blatant abuse of the judicial system is first, scientific explanation of what a "theory" is and second, the judicial and/or political systems requiring scientific proof of what greenhouse gases are, where they physically come from and that man is solely and specifically responsible for their production.

And as for if they expect people to walk to work, they do. They seem to conveniently forget that if we no longer use automobiles and greenhouse gas-producing vehicles, our enemies won't. At least for the time being, this judge has done the right thing. Thank goodness!

Answer 9

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. So, the AG should really be filing suit against God (like the idiot in Nebraska, Senator Ernie Chambers (D - Omaha) ) for creating nature.

Answer 10

California will just appeal it to "The Ninth Circus Court" and get a fovorable ruling. Then as usual the media will play it up as a win. Two years later, The Supreme Court will overturn "The Ninth Circus" (as they do in about 90% of The Ninth's rulings).