Quid Pro Quo

It's only the beginning.

There are more lawyers waiting to graduate then there are lawyers practicing law.

If you think the number of frivolous suits are high now, you haven't seen anything yet!

Why bother with the smallfry why not sue Microsoft for making computers more user freindly for the masses,Im sure the heat generated by all the computers is almost as big a problem as the gas created by cows passing wind hey why not sue the cows .Only in Calafornia.I cant spell souix,sooo,sew.

Its sad when I don't find any of this surprising. (Shakes head)

I live in the UK where we tend to use a lot smaller cars. I find it rather amusing (well, and pathetic) that one of the least green countries in the world has a state that is now sueing the car makers for making big gas guzzling cars that North American's all want to drive - it's more like a rediculous Hollywood movie!

I come from the UK, but live in the USA.

Human behavior has a lot to do with global warming. Just look at the M4 into London each morning, nose to tail, most cars with one passenger. The same is true in LA each morning. Car pool lanes that typically are light and six lanes of slow moving cars with one occupant.

When the cars are going in the same direction, many to the same or very close destinations, why do people prefer to sit in heavy traffic when some of the problem could be solved by car pool?

It's easy to answer. People must have thier own space! The through of "sharing" does not occur to most people!

How about turning the heating down two degrees or turning the temperature up two degrees when air conditioning is running? How about turning a few lights off. There are many small things that many people can do that would help reduce global warming, but not much is being done globally to help!

I noticed that another UK'er in the referenced article spelled ridiculous "rediculous". Is that the British spelling or just a typo?

Personally I think they should tax thin people. Clearly they are exercising too much and creating excessive amounts of CO2. Overweight people are obviously doing their share in removing carbon from the environment.

I'm thinking that Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan should stop selling thier vehicals in CA. and just see how long it takes for them to drop the lawsuit.

I can't wait to see what happens if the bill to increase oil companies taxes passes in California's next electoin.

It won't. Why wait?

Probably not much chance of either, except in the imagination. Most likely resolution is a consent order...probably what the lawyers on both sides have set out to get in the first place. "What?" you say? A suit with prenegotiated outcomes? More or less, yes. Lest we forget, it wasn't so long ago that the California insurance commissioner ran into trouble for extracting political money from big business under the color of official duty...but mostly for doing so behind closed door...he might have saved his job, and reputation, by going the public (whatever that is) hearing route. Having rubbed up against the civil jurisprudence system--winning cases that ought to have won (outside of California) and losing a case that (if not for the setting aside of statute law from the bench) was a cinch to win (in California), I tend to be a scant cynical about the whole Calif. v. Toyota etal. exhibition; to look at the situation, and the players, to see what might be in it for both of them.

Consider first that the suit was filed just before, not after, an upcoming election. (Beyond the obvious, there's no chance of resolution--of adjudicated winners or losers--before the election.) Might it not be that the publicity will give a boost to the encumbent AG--against increasing challenge to the one-party-government status quo? (...and give national exposure to an aspiring California parochial seeking out of state exposure and name recognizability?) And, who cares that the suit does not result in anything tangible for voters, so long as the image of "fighting for the voters" (double meaning intended) is conveyed and can be duly re-publicized (i.e., advertised) at the approprate time before polling begins? (Witness the recent county service workers' strike in Sacramento--a polite affair which was quickly resolved without any serious disruption of service (as if service was ever intended to be disrupted !), and without any significant concessions; a union action which seemed intended primarily to [shake hands and] mutually remind the entrenched powers that be, and the union, who their benefactors have always been.) Then, what's in it for the (so-called) defendants in the action. Having been duly placed on notice (without which the plaintiff cause would die before second gavel), how could their interests be advanced by going to trial, instead of seeking settlement short of trial? A good answer (to the dedendants' mulling over..., talking with their adversaries..., and proceeding to trial) might be, simply, that out-of-court settlements do nothing to establish precedent...precedent which might be applied to good effect against future causes (for real money damages), in other jurisdictions and other courts. As to the expense, who's to care so long as the case participants on both sides get their due--both in attorney fees and in decreased future liability; and so long as the perception is maintained (or concealed) that the taxpayers did not (or did) foot the bill.

A surprising (or not so surprising) thing is how quickly the "news item" has fallen silent--a good thing on its face, actually, as there is then no time for the public, or the media reporters (having been schooled by the public) to wise up. So it only remains to be seen what "new" coverage (i.e., tv campaign spots) will emerge on the airwaves when November rolls around.

So I would offer: that the whole thing is not altogether unlike being invited to observe, but not dance in, a masque'd ball.

In theory, environmentalists should not be driving cars or flying in planes without determining emission levels from their vehicles . I would better appreciate such voices.

Okay?? Then...?

The suit will have to be thrown out as frivolous.

You have to wonder, is the AG a complete nutcase? If he is trying to make some political point, what might that point it be? Many of California's environmental initiatives have lead the way for the rest of the nation (what happens in CA happens in the EPA 2 - 5 years later. California can reasonably argue that they need standards different than those in Montana, because they have far higher population density and polution levels. What seems whacko for Montana makes sense in CA. And the fact that the EPA eventually follows makes one think they are not so whacko, after all, just bellwethers.

But then this suit -- the AG is clearly whacko. Could the news release be a hoax?

Sadly, it is no hoax. The AG is simply going after the "big pockets". But who is really to blame? Isn't California culpable by licencing, inspecting, and approving these cars for operation? In the case of power plant emissions, isn't it the OPERATORS, not the BUILDERS of the plants that California holds responsible? Why not sue the car owner/operators? It is simply political grandstanding.

-Bill Morrow

There is an election coming up in the state.

Unfortunately, to the shame of the state, too many Californians buy into the idea that the real united states, and the world, looks to California as a trendsetter--both in matters of jurisprudence and otherwise. If they only knew that the other states look to California only to learn how not to do things; now not to cause their own states to be the objects of derision.

The automaker would do well to slap a countersuit against both the democrat AG personally and his department: for driving those vehicles and causing that pollution.

And if it were not a hopelessly democratic state, a recall would be in order for abuse of power; and for not knowing that California has no jurisdiction over other states.

So is the AG a nutcase? Probably just stupendously naive. And blindly ambitious...everything as usual in the golden state.

"The suit alleges that these companies' vehicles damaged the ozone layer hovering over California."
If they are serious about ozone layer/global warming/pollution, why don't they just ban private cars from central LA and provide an efficient public transport system? NB that is not, as you may think, an oxymoron - I can remember several.
Of course, that might cost someone his/her next election if the public transport was as bad as the ones I've suffered for the last twenty years....

Next we'll see a lawsuit against handgun manufactures.

...already been tried; already been shot down. Anything else?

Californians must consider investing in energy efficient bicycles. There is still hope for advancement in the area of non-conventional energy sources. Any research in fuel cells or solar panels must study the impact each component has above California's ozone layer.

What?????? Come again!

People have to start changing their lifestyle habits. Does anybody really nead a V8 engine to haul them around? Does anybody really need a 2.5 ton Envoy, or Escallade for them or their kids? Does anybody really need a mass produced 300hp car? No they dont. But as long as the big three automakers build suv's and trucks which are not deemed passenger vehicles and subject to the same safety laws, emissions and fuel economy (CAFE regulations), we buy them because we are suckers. Do you know that the CAFE (fuel economy rates) have not risen since Bush was first elected??? Why??

Has anybody seen the latest Hummer commercials stating that buying a Hummer will get your man-hood back? What a load of crap. And people buy that. In Quebec, the most popular car in th eprovince has been the Honda Civic for countless years. We still see suv's and trucks, but not as often. Even less in Europe. I was in Greece few years back, lucky if I saw 1/2 dozen suvs during my week stay.

I am just amazed how we North Americans are when it comes to the environment and how we try to fix it. We dont. Now we have a bunch of lawyers who want to sue the car companies so that thry can bill millions of dollars to fuel their big *ss cars and trucks.

Sorry, but my 0.02$ just ran out!

Simple solution: Auto MFG recall all vehicles in CA.

Ok, so they sue and win a billion dollars.

If you place a billion 1 dollar notes over the californian highways that might reduce the amount of gases escaping into the atmosphere.

Otherwise, i cant see what they are trying to achieve.

But then again, the American motto "If you cant beat them, sue them"

We are talking money once again..

How does that compare to manufacture of ozone - I think it is an inert gas. Or is nascent oxygen toxic or something? If there is a way of monitoring actual volume of automobile emissions per year (from these mfrs. at least), a plant could generate and replenish say 110% of that amount.

These mfrs. could combine to produce the required amounts from a central facility.

Any suggestions?

Yes. Prepare for an onslaught...from others who know what ozone is.