I received the following note from a reader of this blog:
“Last Wednesday the state of California, the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases sued the country’s largest automobile manufacturers, seeking billions of dollars for environmental damage caused by automobile emissions.
It was the state’s latest effort to combat the effects of greenhouse gases. The lawsuit drew praise and criticism for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who filed it on behalf of the state.
“The complaint, which an auto industry trade group called a “nuisance” suit, names General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co, Toyota Motor Corp, the US arm of Germany’s DaimlerChrysler AG and the North American units of Japan’s Honda Motor Co and Nissan Motor Co Ltd.
Mr Lockyer says he is seeking “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars” from the auto makers in the lawsuit, which has been filed in US District Court in northern California.
Environmental groups have praised the actions to the lawsuit, saying it represents another weapon for the state as it seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions and spur the auto industry to build vehicles that pollute less.”
“Legal experts had mixed views about the lawsuit’s viability. Sean Hecht, a UCLA environmental law expert, called the approach “not unreasonable” under precedents that go back to English common law.
“It’s novel, but based on standard nuisance law, they certainly have a shot at convincing a judge that the burdens this industry imposes on society are too great,” Hecht said.
But USC tort law expert Greg Keating wondered whether Lockyer was trying to advance an untenable argument that automakers collectively are creating a nuisance by selling cars that emit carbon dioxide. “I doubt it has legs,” he said.
Industry are most concerned and say the suit opens the door to lawsuits targeting any activity that uses fossil fuel for energy.”
CNN has run a philosophical piece “Is this the end of the road for the car?”
The lawsuit comes less than a month after California law makers adopted the nation’s first global warming law, mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
“The bill would require a 25% cut in emissions of greenhouse gases between now and 2020 and is likely to use mandatory emissions caps on power plants, refineries and other heavy industry as well as energy efficiency measures and an emissions trading program.
To reach 1990 levels of greenhouse gases, as the law mandates, experts say California will need to eliminate 174 million metric tons. About one-third would come as a result of an earlier car tailpipe emissions law in California that has been challenged by automakers in court.
Although the economic effects of a mandatory cut in emissions could be sweeping, California has a lot at stake in the battle against global warming, perhaps more than any other state, climate experts say.
Its water supplies, its top industry — agriculture — and its most popular recreational activities all depend on a healthy climate, as do forests, deserts, ocean ecosystems and the species that inhabit them.
Amid concern about worldwide climate change, the Californian Assembly approved the bill by a 46-31 vote. It passed 23 to 14 in the Senate.
California is the world’s 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for 10% of the carbon dioxide produced nationally and 2.5% globally”. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warm1sep01,1,3291716.story
Some commentators have said the whole business will be ruinous for the Californian economy and drive investment out of the state. However others have foreshadowed a big opportunity for trading in emission credits and that the whole initiative will position California ahead of the game. The legislation has escape provisions for “emergency” circumstances. The Economist reports an increasing number of businesses getting “into” climate change.
The emissions cap bill now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that he would sign it. He is running for re-election in November and trailing in the polls. Arnie hypocritically has a collection of eight Hummers but hey – he’s a big guy. Anyway this makes one wonder how much greenhouse reality we all really want.
So are California legislators mad, bad or visionary?“
I wonder how a government that has built roads and freeways for cars to travel on, can now sue car manufacturers for environmental damage from emissions?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Mad, bad, or vionary? ‘Pointless.’ The effect on ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change?’ Nil.
Let’s stop confusing climate change with the man-made influence, that goes way beyond CO2, and remains hidden within the noise of natural variability. Let’s stop the linear extrapolation of short term changes in a non-linear chaotic climate system. Own up. Who really believes that attempting to predictably manipulate atmospheric CO2, or paying ‘green taxes,’ unilaterally or globally, will be successful or have any measureable effect?
Paul,
Not only will global emissions control have a measurable effect, they are essential to a robust global economy. Your bit about “extrapolation of linear trends” is pure ignorance, despite the big words.
Mad, bad, or visionary? Maybe it makes sense in the legal world, I don’t know, but I don’t agree with it in an ethical sense and I am sceptical that it will be effective in the practical sense. I think sometimes an industry should pay for its pollution and it is appropriate for the gov’t to force them. They can then push the costs back down the line to consumers. That is the only hope that market forces have in dealing with that kind of concern.
But in this instance I think it is just allowing abdication of personal responsibility. Drivers should bear the costs of their actions, if the costs become prohibitive then automakers will be forced to address poor mileage and such. This is how taxes can be used to make up for the short sighted tunnel vision of pure unregulated capitalism.
So, of course I sympathize with the motives, but I disagree with this suit.
“This is how taxes can be used to make up for the short sighted tunnel vision of pure unregulated capitalism.”
We’ll ignore the redundancies of your post; but please attribute your paraphrasal — in this case, it’s Marx, isn’t it?.
I’ve seen it often said in an earlier thread that it is impossible to test the AGW theory. It may well be possible, however, to test AGW policy. In California.
If someone suggests California will test AGW theory as well, it will be good to remember that California produces 2.5 percent of global anthro CO2. If California manages to implement this law, it will reduce the state’s CO2 emissions by 25 percent, thereby reducing world atmospheric CO2 by 0.625 percent.
Since this will have no discernible impact on global temperature, the benefits of their efforts to “cool the world” will be effectively zero.
Coby, some up to date climate Science here:
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/presentations/PPT-69.pdf
Abstract:
“The needed focus for the study of climate forcings is on the regional and local scales. Global averaged forcings are only be important to the extent that they provide useful information on these space scales. Global and zonally-averaged surface temperature trend assessments that are used to assess climate forcings, besides having major difficulties in
terms of how this metric is diagnosed and analyzed, do not provide significant information on the climate forcings on the regional scales.
Examples of the major role of heterogeneous climate forcings, including how their effects teleconnect globally, will be presented at the meeting.
In terms of climate forcings on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.
In addition, the concept of where climate system heat changes fits into the broader perspective of climate variability and change will be discussed. Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.
A conclusion of our research is that to seek to significantly influence regional and local scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
Its another form of extortion, instead of taxing the citizens directly the State will tax the citizens via a secondary route. The people should turn around and counter sue the State for not providing better public transport and a better freeway system so that they are not forced to become excessive greenhouse gas emitters. Who knows, they might even get legal aid.
The best test will be to see how many people leave California and how many stay, they might just end up with a state of immigrants low on gases and high on welfare whilst the smart money relocates.
McCall, it’s islamo-facism now, remeber? Call me an islamo-facist. Commie is so yesterday.
rog,
I hear such predictions of economic doom so often. Can you provide me a couple of historical examples of economic disaster within an order of magnitude of what you predict for Californa ever happening due to environmental regulation?
I know the Montreal protocol did not turn out to be the disaster predicted by some (eg Baliunas “losses of trillions of dollars will rip through the economy”), also the Clean Air Act did not seem to turn out as bad as industry feared, nor did removing lead from gasoline.
A sceptic like you must have very good evidence for such a strong view.
Coby, read “For Good and Evil” by Adams. It is an entire book documenting how civilizations have collapsed due to excessive taxation.
Paul,
Was that the wrong link by any chance? I did not find the words you quoted in it.
But I am not sure what exactly your point is? If your point is the conclusion:
“to seek to significantly influence regional and local scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose”
I have no argument with that, nor do I understand how it is in conflict with my comment. It does weaken the lawsuit IMO, but I do not endorse the lawsuit.
adams,
Well then we would be wise to avoid excessive taxation and go for appropriate taxation instead. Of course that requires determining what excessive is and what appropriate is.
Sorry, Paul, right link, found it.
But of course California should have already collapsed 10 times over already from forcing auto-makers to have the most stringent air pollution laws. But all involved have adapted and the place is as busy as ever. Perhaps it’s all in the mind for the can’t do’s.
Perhaps there’s far too much econo-alarmism?
Dont you get to read the papers Luke/coby?
California is broke.
If they are suing for recovery of cost due to environmental damage caused by GHG emissions, presumably they would have to identify the actual damage, prove that it was caused by GHG emissions, that those emissions came from cars manufactured by the defendants, and prove the cost of the damage.
I’m sure they have thought of how they will do this, but it will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they have for environmental damage caused by greenhouse gases.
“it will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they have for environmental damage caused by greenhouse gases”
I agree, that will not be easy. I can’t even imagine how they would be able to make a case for it. We’e only just recently (TAR, though I don’t about the SAR) established attribution of global temperature change. Regional enironmental damages? That’s a couple of major steps harder I would imagine.
Maybe they will be addressing global damages?
Schiller, if you think that California enacting its own Kyoto mandates is purely symbolic, imagine how I feel about South Australia, population 1.5 million, doing the same. We would be emitting about .1% of global GHG emissions right now, yet our spendthrift Labor gov’t led by “Media” Mike Rann and his band of yuppies is embarked on an ambitious program to make SA the leading state for renewable energy.
They even got praise from Al Gore during his recent visit. You can imagine how that made their tails wag!
Gosh rog,
Imagine living in a place where you must eat 25 percent less food, travel 25 percent less, heat or cool your home 25 percent less, and and do everything else that consumes energy 25 percent less. The smart ones would be the first to leave. I personally applaud California; the CO2 legislation will prove to the world the failure of “the planned ecology.”
Apparently the collapse of the Soviet Union was insufficient to teach the vice of the “planned economy.” Bring it on.
Just a reminder: discredited theories live on as idologies.
With California’s long history of creating fantasy I am not sure that they are ready for reality, just borrow more cash and build more parks.
Such disregard for the value of money is a common thread that binds greenies with lefties.
Borrowing more cash and building more parks is what the European CAP is all about. California and Europe can crash together. They won’t enjoy it.
It is the revenge of the gods for the so-called “aquarian revolution”. My guess is that they will shoot their collective mouth off loudly and then quietly slip out of town for a “better life”.
I wonder how the air pollution from the external combustion of big bushfires in California compares with that produced by internal combustion engines. Anybody got any interesting stats? If it’s greater, logic suggests that the Californians should sue the Fire Brigade, or even God?
According to my stats, when carbon trading and caps on the industrial production of energy stifles the use of petrochemicals, the use of “naturally renewable biomass” for things like cooking and heating will soar, and with it, CO2 emissions and suspended particulates. Californian forest fires will become a thing of the past, as natives forage for brush and twigs which used to be the “underburden” that posed a public hazard in the past. The forest will then be sustainable, and Californians will live in harmony with nature, at an estimated $128 annual income per capita and a life expectancy that will justify Erlich’s wildest dreams. Then Africa can offer Califonia food aid, which the Californians will refuse because of the DDT used to combat malaria and the “unknown consequences” food aid might pose to Californians if there were trace amounts in the food aid. Refugees will become “migrant workers” in the rest of the US and there will be public calls for putting a fence around California. Mexicans will head south, as an impoverished California offers no reasonable job opportunities. But that’s just what my computer model says.
Davey: Re sueing god. Billy connolly tried it and it didn’t work! I think they made a film out of it.
You are correct, Chrisl. Billy makes me laugh until the ears stream down. But wait, do you have a reference to a peer reviewed paper (preferably in Nature) on that? Sorry, can’t believe it otherwise.
McCall, is it you George??
I have some interesting whaling articles to discuss, maybe I am going to post them later today back at the very old whaling thread that only David and I visit..
Wish to go back to the whaling discussion again especially now after being crucified and flogged in the GMO thread…
If depressed by the state of affairs Californians could move to Germany, they only have to work 28.8 hours a week and the living is free and easy
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20450266-1702,00.html
You werent crucified Ann, you just fell over
” McCall, is it you George?? ”
Nope ..
” If depressed by the state of affairs Californians could move to Germany, they only have to work 28.8 hours a week and the living is free and easy ”
I wish Rog – that article refers to older labour laws / practices at VW … they are trying to get rid of them all over Germany in certain industries. I´d try your ” they only have to work 28.8 hours a week and the living is free and easy ” comment on my local tax office but i doubt they would agree … LOL … personal income tax for an unmarried person in Germany starts at 50% … free and easy my butt ..LOL..
Arnold signed the bill into law:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/environment.california.reut/index.html