Calif. sues carmakers over greenhouse...

Calif. sues carmakers over greenhouse gas

There are 20 comments on the Political Gateway story from Sep 20, 2006, titled Calif. sues carmakers over greenhouse gas. In it, Political Gateway reports that:

California is suing the six largest U.S. and Japanese automakers in federal court for damages in connection with greenhouse gas emissions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Political Gateway.

C Jordan

Ashland, VA

#1 Sep 21, 2006
If they don't like cars in California, tell them to walk. There are only so many emissions controls you can put on a car.
dud fivers UK

India

#2 Oct 25, 2006
C Jordan wrote:
If they don't like cars in California, tell them to walk. There are only so many emissions controls you can put on a car.
they really are cuckoo in la-la land! what will they do next? sue the sun for making the world hotter?
they buy about 4 cars per household, live in a natural smog bowl and then sue the car makers for making the air polluted! Also, they can't walk, there are parts of the USA where the police will shoot you for walking, it looks very suspicious!
IbdaMann

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Apr 22, 2018
"But you evade science and tout politics."

-Mr. Bozo

Dear Mr. Bozo,

Have you noticed...

ALL your posts are connected to a belief in CAGW politics.
hojo

Rock Island, IL

#8 Apr 23, 2018
IbdaMann wrote:
"But you evade science and tout politics."

-Mr. Bozo

Dear Mr. Bozo,

Have you noticed...

ALL your posts are connected to a belief in CAGW politics.
Bozo, the man - made climate change "clown" totally relies upon Democratic leftist "pollution propaganda in order to advance the population control one world government control ideology. First it was 20th century Global Cooling " heavily promoted by Paul Ehrlich's fake predictions,supported by NASA,the NOAA as well as the 34 National Academy of Sciences that the average temperature of the planet would be minus 11 degrees colder causing world wide freezing with England being uninhabitable by the year 2000. When the 21st century arrived and Ehrlichs NASA and the NOAA pseudoscience predictions turned out be a government scam. Then NASA, NOAA and the Academies decided that global cooling would last for the next 1000 years (a safe call, since one) would be around to prove them true or false).....NEXT came the Global Warming hoax by AL Gore and again NASA , the NOAA and the '34" government "puppet" Academies claiming that in 100 years the temperature average would be 12-15 degrees hotter causing famine devastation and world wide death of millions and millions of people.(Another safe prediction in order to cover their (lying be-hinds)......So...which one IS IT!.Which one are we suppose to believe!!! Global Cooling predicted from the 20th century or Global Warming in and from the 21st century!....Simple answer and conclusion! Both are Government hoaxes, Both are Government scams! Both are Propagandized Pseudoscience!
whiney beech

Bloomingdale, IN

#9 Apr 23, 2018
My cow farted, and the wind was coming from the east.
whiney beech

Bloomingdale, IN

#10 Apr 23, 2018
Car dealerships, and gas stations should leave California.
Concave

Beverly Hills, CA

#11 Apr 23, 2018
whiney beech wrote:
Car dealerships, and gas stations should leave California.
Commiefornia has three or four crude oil refineries that make plenty of vile gasses. Then there's this crap science based CARB. How in the hell does Commiefornia get away with setting the emissions standards in all cars sold in all States of the Union? Don't believe me, go to the nearest dealership and look on the vehicle sticker. Among the 'many' bits of information you will find somewhere near the top a statement like: California emissions compliant. The Federal Government needs to "man up" and stop this stupidity.
Jess Askin

Minneapolis, MN

#12 Apr 24, 2018
Concave wrote:
<quoted text>Commiefornia has three or four crude oil refineries that make plenty of vile gasses. Then there's this crap science based CARB. How in the hell does Commiefornia get away with setting the emissions standards in all cars sold in all States of the Union? Don't believe me, go to the nearest dealership and look on the vehicle sticker. Among the 'many' bits of information you will find somewhere near the top a statement like: California emissions compliant. The Federal Government needs to "man up" and stop this stupidity.
It almost sounds like you are not in favor of fuel efficiency for vehicles available for purchase.

If so ...why?

If not ...what's your point?
whiney beech

Bloomingdale, IN

#13 Apr 24, 2018
Jess Askin wrote:
<quoted text>

It almost sounds like you are not in favor of fuel efficiency for vehicles available for purchase.

If so ...why?

If not ...what's your point?
If we still have a free market, fuel costs, insurance costs, can drive car purchases. California can go back to the dark ages, and fail further financially as far as I am concerned.

No wonder part of California wants to form their own states.
Concave

Beverly Hills, CA

#14 Apr 24, 2018
Jess Askin wrote:
<quoted text>

It almost sounds like you are not in favor of fuel efficiency for vehicles available for purchase.

If so ...why?

If not ...what's your point?
MY POINT is quite clear home boy. Commiefornia a STATE has been allowed to use crap science by agencies like CARB to set emissions standards for the entire country, DUH. Fuel efficiency has little to DO with specious emissions targets. L.A. still has some of the lousiest air quality of any other City of the Union. YOU want to follow a dumbass over a cliff for no purpose other than to follow, get it on. LOL
whiney beech

Bloomingdale, IN

#15 Apr 24, 2018
Concave wrote:
<quoted text>MY POINT is quite clear home boy. Commiefornia a STATE has been allowed to use crap science by agencies like CARB to set emissions standards for the entire country, DUH. Fuel efficiency has little to DO with specious emissions targets. L.A. still has some of the lousiest air quality of any other City of the Union. YOU want to follow a dumbass over a cliff for no purpose other than to follow, get it on. LOL
Well suck on a running diesel pipe! Does the consumption of beans cause methane to be formed? Is that the problem in L.A.?

One would think with all of the emission testing in good ole Cal. the air would be pure as the driven snowflakes.
Jess Askin

Minneapolis, MN

#16 Apr 25, 2018
Concave wrote:
<quoted text>MY POINT is quite clear home boy. Commiefornia a STATE has been allowed to use crap science by agencies like CARB to set emissions standards for the entire country, DUH. Fuel efficiency has little to DO with specious emissions targets. L.A. still has some of the lousiest air quality of any other City of the Union. YOU want to follow a dumbass over a cliff for no purpose other than to follow, get it on. LOL
Still, the fact remains; more fuel efficient vehicles burns cleaner than the less fuel efficient.

As for following "a dumbass" who purchases a more fuel effiecient vehicle ....with the choice between two vehicles which suit my requirements (all else being equal) sure, I would probably buy the one that cost the least to operate. Wouldn't you?
whiney beech

Bloomingdale, IN

#17 Apr 25, 2018
Jess Askin wrote:
<quoted text>

Still, the fact remains; more fuel efficient vehicles burns cleaner than the less fuel efficient.

As for following "a dumbass" who purchases a more fuel effiecient vehicle ....with the choice between two vehicles which suit my requirements (all else being equal) sure, I would probably buy the one that cost the least to operate. Wouldn't you?
In 1972 a Chevy half ton truck with an automatic tranny cranked out 20 MPG all day long. In 1973 when the first pollution control equiptment hit the Chevy 350 mpg went up to 11mpg if you were going downhill. Big improvement.

A 1996 dodge cummins diesel got 20 or more mpg. The newer ones get 15 or 16mpg normally with the added bone-us of having to purchase DEF so the machine will run.

Yes-cost to own and run does enter into a decision to purchase.

So my question is, if mpg goes down, but pollution from the exhaust goes down where is the extra fuel being wasted?
Jess Askin

Minneapolis, MN

#18 Apr 25, 2018
whiney beech wrote:
<quoted text>

A 1996 dodge cummins diesel got 20 or more mpg. The newer ones get 15 or 16mpg normally with the added bone-us of having to purchase DEF so the machine will run.

Yes-cost to own and run does enter into a decision to purchase.

So my question is, if mpg goes down, but pollution from the exhaust goes down where is the extra fuel being wasted?
...IF both mpg goes down and pollution from the exhaust goes down then a question of fuel being wasted is pertinent.

But since the late 60s ...the trend has been towards a more fuel efficient fleet with less pollution (FYI; CO2 is not pollution).
Concave

Beverly Hills, CA

#19 Apr 25, 2018
Jess Askin wrote:
<quoted text>

Still, the fact remains; more fuel efficient vehicles burns cleaner than the less fuel efficient.

As for following "a dumbass" who purchases a more fuel effiecient vehicle ....with the choice between two vehicles which suit my requirements (all else being equal) sure, I would probably buy the one that cost the least to operate. Wouldn't you?
NO dumbass, it's NOT a fact, just like CARB you have NO facts. The "cheapest" car YOU could buy and meet your 'requirements' might just be a 2005 BMW. So, where's your crap handed logic there?
Jess Askin

Minneapolis, MN

#21 Apr 25, 2018
Concave wrote:
<quoted text>NO dumbass, it's NOT a fact, just like CARB you have NO facts. The "cheapest" car YOU could buy and meet your 'requirements' might just be a 2005 BMW. So, where's your crap handed logic there?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot are you ranting about?
-Jess Askin
Concave

Beverly Hills, CA

#22 Apr 25, 2018
Jess Askin wrote:
<quoted text>

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot are you ranting about?
-Jess Askin
YOUR massive ignorance and irrelevancy on the subject speed racer.
Jess Askin

Minneapolis, MN

#23 Apr 25, 2018
Concave wrote:
<quoted text>YOUR massive ignorance and irrelevancy on the subject speed racer.
Wow!

Jess talkin about the trend in the U. S.'cafe standards'.

What is this "subject speed racer"?

-JA
whiney beech

Bloomingdale, IN

#24 Apr 25, 2018
Jess Askin wrote:
<quoted text>

...IF both mpg goes down and pollution from the exhaust goes down then a question of fuel being wasted is pertinent.

But since the late 60s ...the trend has been towards a more fuel efficient fleet with less pollution (FYI; CO2 is not pollution).
CO2 does make the green grass grow, along with other plants.
Jess Askin

Minneapolis, MN

#25 Apr 25, 2018
whiney beech wrote:
<quoted text>

CO2 does make the green grass grow, along with other plants.
Yes, a relevant point. The burning of fossil fuels does enhance the carbon cycle (aka 'life cycle').

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 4 hr Into The Night 42,270
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Wed hojo 12,458
News Government Climate Report Warns of Worsening U.... Tue whiney beech 56
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming (Mar '18) Dec 11 Into The Night 507
News Inslee wants 100 percent clean energy in Washin... Dec 10 Solarman 1
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) Dec 10 hojo 7,061
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) Dec 10 Patriot AKA Bozo 5,779