Does a State have the right . . .

[Rich Parsons]

Link here: http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...KOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23

To an article about California bringing suit against car manufacturers.

The last time California did something like this made a law that if you wanted to sell cars in the state 2% had to be electric. Most companies bought into Golf carts and called them "vehicles".

While I support creating tighter emissions for if you do not start somewhere no progress is made, what bothers me are the laws that people can pass to make a product sell. That is not real Capitalism, but we should not get side tracked on that.

Will the suit be benefical in the end or will cost more money to the state?

Will a car company or two decide not to sell cars in the state to make a point?

It could be suicide if others make it, but I wonder how long the elected officials would remain if people in California could not buy their Honda's and Toyota's?

 

[Don Roley]

What scares the hell out of me is that I doubt this is going to be the last law suit by local goverments that want money.

The tabbaco lawsuit was about a product that was argued to be known by the producers for decades to be harmful and they kept it a secret. We all know that tabacco causes cancer and we can see the effects on the system with our own eyes.

In this case, the effects of these cars are not even known. We do not how big a role they play, the damage (or benifit- NY just had its best apple crop ever) that may happen and the real debate over global warming has been around for less than a couple of decades.

If this is the standard that a state can use to extract money from an industry, where are they going to stop? I used to think the next big thing the lawyers went after would be beer companies due to their selling cold beer and thus encouraging all the drunken driving fatalities. I was wrong- for now.... But who will be next on the chopping block?

 

[hongkongfooey]

More unchecked liberalism.

 

[hongkongfooey]

Why are people afraid to post their names when they give out bad karma?

 

[Kacey]

Why are people afraid to post their names when they give out bad karma?

For the same reason they're afraid to give their names when they report their neighbors' barking dogs or noisy party to the police, or their coworkers' poor work, and so on - because they want to state their opinion without repercussion, and they want people to like them even if they don't agree with them... and you're right, it really sucks.

 

[Ping898]

I have a problem with this lawsuit strictly from the standpoint of as far as I can tell the car manufacturer's were following all federal laws and I assume state laws. So I think it is wrong to sue someone when they are following the rules, if it isn't good enough, then strengthen the rules. And granted California appears to have started that and the law is being held up in court, but still, I think the lawsuit against the manufacturer's is wrong....

 

[hongkongfooey]

I have a problem with this lawsuit strictly from the standpoint of as far as I can tell the car manufacturer's were following all federal laws and I assume state laws. So I think it is wrong to sue someone when they are following the rules, if it isn't good enough, then strengthen the rules. And granted California appears to have started that and the law is being held up in court, but still, I think the lawsuit against the manufacturer's is wrong....

California was also the first state to bring a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. Just politics as usual. Someone somewhere is getting payed off

 

[Rich Parsons]

I have a problem with this lawsuit strictly from the standpoint of as far as I can tell the car manufacturer's were following all federal laws and I assume state laws. So I think it is wrong to sue someone when they are following the rules, if it isn't good enough, then strengthen the rules. And granted California appears to have started that and the law is being held up in court, but still, I think the lawsuit against the manufacturer's is wrong....

The most powerful single organization in any state of the USA is the California Air Resource Board.

They have more resources and man power than the EPA.

They drive the what the EPA does but enacting more strict requirements (* Which is good over time if done properly *) then the EPA takes teh same requirements and make them requriements for the themselves as well.

So Californaia dictates what will happen to vehicles and emissions in the whole USA. (* Also note that Europe is now also looking into also following or catching up with our requriements on Diesels which CARB also dictates. *).

So this state decided to go out and hire people to manage and monitor with tools and test stands the requirments they have made mandatory by law to sell product in their state. So the cost is past onto to the consumer for the changes to the product, but teh state also has this huge over head that they have created and are responsible for. So, now they want to go make teh car manufactureres pay for this as well, which means that the Consumer will have to pay for it.

In essence California does not want their tax payes to burden the cost their actions, instead they want the complet population of the USA to take that burden on as part of the cost of purchasing a vehicle anywhere.

I wish I could throw my virtual rock at their real house of glass to show how circular they are in their own distructiveness. Yet, that would be PC or polite or the Green thing to do. To look at the complete system and try to understand the motives of those involved.

California backed out of the Electric car when the infrastructure hit them in the face, and the Japanese (* Their favorite car makers *) only made Golf Carts and sold them with titles to count as vehicles.

So while I agree that California has done some good work and it has cuased good benefits for closed loop controls and better fuel economy they have created their own monster and now no longer want to pay for it.

So once again it is no longer anyones fault, so the complete population must pay for it. Eventually someone has to work and bring home money to buy the objects that have these hidden costs of doing business in them.

Down with California

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Link here: http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...KOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=23

To an article about California bringing suit against car manufacturers.

The last time California did something like this made a law that if you wanted to sell cars in the state 2% had to be electric. Most companies bought into Golf carts and called them "vehicles".

While I support creating tighter emissions for if you do not start somewhere no progress is made, what bothers me are the laws that people can pass to make a product sell. That is not real Capitalism, but we should not get side tracked on that.

Will the suit be benefical in the end or will cost more money to the state?

Will a car company or two decide not to sell cars in the state to make a point?

It could be suicide if others make it, but I wonder how long the elected officials would remain if people in California could not buy their Honda's and Toyota's?

Rich,

One out of four kids in the L.A. area have lung lesions from air pollution. In that light, California has every right to set emission standards.

GM came out with an electric car that apparently worked well, went fast, and that the leasers loved. It got eighty miles to the charge, and the designer of the battery system said the miles per charge technology easily could up to 300.

The Wiki link below has reviews and a synopsis of the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car," which I posted about elsewhere. The link also has GM's blog to counter the movie's claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?


California has long been a seed-crystal state. What they do, other states often follow.




Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich,

One out of four kids in the L.A. area have lung lesions from air pollution. In that light, California has every right to set emission standards.

GM came out with an electric car that apparently worked well, went fast, and that the leasers loved. It got eighty miles to the charge, and the designer of the battery system said the miles per charge technology easily could up to 300.

The Wiki link below has reviews and a synopsis of the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car," which I posted about elsewhere. The link also has GM's blog to counter the movie's claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?


California has long been a seed-crystal state. What they do, other states often follow.




Regards,


Steve

Steve,

Thank you for giving me this lead in.

One, I am sorry for the poor children who have health issues. I honestly wish it were not so.

But let me ask these questions?

When California made it a LAW to have 2% of all vehicles sold inte hte sate be Zero Emissions at the tail pipe (* Let us not look at the emisions at the power plant for that is much worse with the sulfur coal *), where was the state with the infrastructure they promised? They delayed and the cost went up and it became a point of risking looking bad to the voters by raising their taxes for people wha wanted electric cars.

And Yes GM was the ONLY, I repeat the ONLY vehicle manufacture that even tried to meet this regulations. We made a car, and as you stated for lease, for GM had law suits pending for Lead poisions to people. Yes, GM paid for proper disposal of lead paint and batteries, but the companies go out of business and years later people build a subdivision there and then people get sick, so GM got sued. They leased to avoid the legal issues and to guarentee that the batteries were disposed of properly.

But, where was Toyota and Honda and the other favorite Japanese companies? They bought Golf cart companies and sold the vehicles with titles so now the count as zero emission vehciles.

So, why did not the other companies do it?

So why did not the State build the infrastructure?

Why did not the state push and build a mass transist system?

How come California has not bought into the idea of hybrid buses that save money on repairs and also on emissions and gasoline/diesel usage.

While I support clean air, and making improvements and making air safe to breath, I wonder why they have not done these other things that a stupid engineer from Michigan can see as plain as day.

This is an issue of CARB not wanting to give up authority and also people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. Make the laws for emissions in their city, but is it fair that the cost now has to be distributed to every person who buys a vehicle?

 

[Flatlander]

How come California has not bought into the idea of hybrid buses that save money on repairs and also on emissions and gasoline/diesel usage.

This issue alone highlights the lunacy of the lawsuit. How can the State declare the liability of the auto companies without first having addressed their own choices?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This issue alone highlights the lunacy of the lawsuit. How can the State declare the liability of the auto companies without first having addressed their own choices?

They have bought into the idea of hybrid buses. Google it.

I just wrote a two hour post answering Rich, and accidentally deleted the references...and the entire post...but CA is indeed going with hybrid buses.

Synopsis:

CARB backed down when GM sued them in 2001. GM killed the car because of this. It was easier killing it than trying to meet the standard.

The infrastructure for an EV is simple. You plug it in at home.

The former chief of GM, Rich Wagoner, was quoted in Motor Trend magazine as saying killing the EV was his biggest mistake while he was at the helm.

And Rich...don't bring it up if you don't want it answered...but it is cheaper and much cleaner to run an electric or plug in hybrid car off a coal grid. I found three studies to support this.

And ALL that stuff was in the post that I accidentally deleted. I had it on "preview," thought I posted it, and closed the application. Two hours shot.

I can get you the resources if you like...but I'll have to do it later.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

it is cheaper and much cleaner to run an electric or plug in hybrid car off a coal grid. I found three studies to support this.

Wow, I find this surprising. Not that I disbelieve you, I just find it surprising. And please accept my condolences on your wasted post. That sucks. Happened to me last night, due to a freeze up on my home PC. I hate that computer.....

 

[Rich Parsons]

They have bought into the idea of hybrid buses. Google it.

Yes they have now. But they have not done so at the scale that would indicate their total innocence of trying to resolve the issue.

I just wrote a two hour post answering Rich, and accidentally deleted the references...and the entire post...but CA is indeed going with hybrid buses.

Sorry about the lost post, I would have enjoyed reading it.

Synopsis:

CARB backed down when GM sued them in 2001. GM killed the car because of this. It was easier killing it than trying to meet the standard.

What standard? Zero Emissions, It met them. Meeting the new warranty requirements that CARB had in place? Part of the reason for the lease only on top of the law suits for lead disposal.

The infrastructure for an EV is simple. You plug it in at home.

Actually it was between $1,200 to $1,800 per house hold to install. But that does not guarentee that your local substation could handle the voltage draw.

The former chief of GM, Rich Wagoner, was quoted in Motor Trend magazine as saying killing the EV was his biggest mistake while he was at the helm.

Yes he did. He admited he killed the program. But even with the program being so great why did not others build one?

And Rich...don't bring it up if you don't want it answered...but it is cheaper and much cleaner to run an electric or plug in hybrid car off a coal grid. I found three studies to support this.

Of course I wanted it answered so we coudl talk about it and the perceptions of what is presented in the media.

And ALL that stuff was in the post that I accidentally deleted. I had it on "preview," thought I posted it, and closed the application. Two hours shot.

I do wish I could have read it.

I can get you the resources if you like...but I'll have to do it later.

Regards,


Steve

Peace

 

[Touch Of Death]

More unchecked liberalism.

No, it got checked into a joke by GM. If we switched to hybrids we wouldn't be spending our son's and daughter's lives so cheaply now and in the future.
Sean

 

[Rich Parsons]

No, it got checked into a joke by GM. If we switched to hybrids we wouldn't be spending our son's and daughter's lives so cheaply now and in the future.
Sean

TOD,

GM is not innocent.

GM is not the best company.

GM iis not in the category of never making a msitake.

But, I am confused by your comment.

Is GM the joke? Which is ok to say.

Is GM doing Hybrids now just like the others, so the Joke is on California or the Joke is on GM for being late to the game?

Curious. For all have valid points to be discussed.