Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

California sues car companies!

Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5191007F-EC5D-4A1C-BE64-C1863AB710FC.htm
The US state of California has sued six of the world's largest car manufacturers for contributing to global warming.

The lawsuits, filed on Wednesday, said that greenhouse gases produced by their vehicles have caused billions of dollars of environmental damage.

Dear god, only in America.

This does take stupidity to a whole new level. Shall we go sue Airlines, Plane Companies, Taxi Firms, erm, Shipyards?

The Government?

Factories?

Where will the idiocy end?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I first heard about this story late last week on Radio 4, of all places. I was utterly baffled when I heard about it. I understand why they'd be taking this action, but what I don't understand is why wasn't this started years ago?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    stargalaxy wrote:
    I first heard about this story late last week on Radio 4, of all places. I was utterly baffled when I heard about it. I understand why they'd be taking this action, but what I don't understand is why wasn't this started years ago?

    So do ou suggest we sue all companies that make products we use and serve thier purpose well?

    Sue anyone or anthing that pollutes? Shall we sue cow farmers for the methane cows produce? How about sue coal companies for selling fossil fuels? Oil companies?

    Shall we condem the victorians for the industrial revolution?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So much as I find the story breathtakingly funny I fear the State of California is barking up the wrong tree. If anyone is to be sued it should be the selfish cunts who buy a monster truck for city driving or other such unsuitable uses such vehicles were not designed for.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote:
    So much as I find the story breathtakingly funny I fear the State of California is barking up the wrong tree. If anyone is to be sued it should be the selfish cunts who buy a monster truck for city driving or other such unsuitable uses such vehicles were not designed for.

    Your signature link is a 404. Is this some sort of in-joke, or just a broken site? Funny as 404's are, I fail to see the joke. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh... it was a website listing Israeli products to boycott. I blame the Zionist-lizard world alliance for the taking down of the website

    ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5191007F-EC5D-4A1C-BE64-C1863AB710FC.htm



    Dear god, only in America.

    This does take stupidity to a whole new level. Shall we go sue Airlines, Plane Companies, Taxi Firms, erm, Shipyards?

    The Government?

    Factories?

    Where will the idiocy end?

    thought I'd make a point of order here. This is not America we're talking about, this is California. They're in their own little world down there, bunch of aging yupies pining to get back to their hippie days.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh... it was a website listing Israeli products to boycott. I blame the Zionist-lizard world alliance for the taking down of the website

    ;)

    They probably found there server was made using Israeli computer chips and had to boycott themselves
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seems a bit of a daft idea to me. Just a weird form of taxation. better to incentivise greener vehicles and fuel. Look at how well it worked in switching people from leaded to unleaded, by gradually increasing the tax differential between them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh... it was a website listing Israeli products to boycott. I blame the Zionist-lizard world alliance for the taking down of the website

    ;)

    Do you boycott any other countries? If not, why are you treating Israel differently?

    I take it you wouldn't use Israeli pharmaceutical products?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you boycott any other countries? If not, why are you treating Israel differently?
    Boycotting one wrongdoer is better than boycotting none at all. Yes/no?
    I take it you wouldn't use Israeli pharmaceutical products?
    As I've explained to Wendy in the past, the scientific and medical community usually does work for the good of mankind. Nor that I have consciously used any such products anyway.

    An Israeli farmer harvesting on stolen land, corporations financing the Israeli government or hardware companies selling them modified bulldozers so they can destroy Palestinian homes en masse and leave thousands of families homeless are very deserving of a boycott- and in the case of the latter, of having their HQ burnt to the ground, preferably with the entire boardroom still inside.

    If you ask me the biggest chance of success would come from a cultural, academic and sporting boycott a la Apartheid South Africa, seeing as the US government would sooner bankrupt itself than stop providing Israel with all the cash and military hardware it wants.

    But still, until that happens (nor that it will any time soon) allow me to have a clear conscience and to ensure none of my money knowingly goes to companies that are actively involved in the oppression and occupation of Palestine and participate in the unspeakable atrocities inflicted on the Palestinians.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    So do you suggest we sue all companies that make products we use and serve their purpose well?

    But cars don't serve their purpose well. Technically, cars only need to be capable of doing 70mph for example. So they could have much more fuel efficient engines if they weren't designed as race cars. Then there's the hybrid petrol/battery engines etc. that have been largely ignored. And most cars don't need to be as anywhere near as big or heavy.

    Basically, cars could have been made a hell of a lot greener.

    And as for car use in cities in general ...

    *leaves to start his own thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only in America can fat people sue the restaurants that made them fat, smokers sue tabacco companies for giving them lung cancer and California sue car companies for polluting the environment. Stupid lawsuit, which means California will probably win.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only in America can fat people sue the restaurants that made them fat, smokers sue tabacco companies for giving them lung cancer and California sue car companies for polluting the environment. Stupid lawsuit, which means California will probably win.
    The concept of personal responsibility seems strangely absent from all the actions that you name there. Then again, if you sued everyone who'd ever bought one of these cars that cause high levels of pollution, where would it end?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But cars don't serve their purpose well. Technically, cars only need to be capable of doing 70mph for example. So they could have much more fuel efficient engines if they weren't designed as race cars. Then there's the hybrid petrol/battery engines etc. that have been largely ignored. And most cars don't need to be as anywhere near as big or heavy.
    This is true. In the last ten years, they've made huge progress in making the engines of the average car far more fuel efficiant. But they've put them in cars that on average are much heavier, so basically, the fuel consumption has been pretty much identical for that amount of time. Of course some of this extra weight as gone into making cars safer, which is a positive addition, but a lot is down to luxuries too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US state of California has sued six of the world's largest car manufacturers for contributing to global warming.

    The lawsuits, filed on Wednesday, said that greenhouse gases produced by their vehicles have caused billions of dollars of environmental damage.

    How do you sue a dinosaur ? And which one(s) is(are) to blame ? :chin:

    http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2096&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
    The finding is relevant to the ongoing climate change discussion, IUB geologist Simon Brassell says, because it portrays an ancient Earth whose temperatures shifted erratically due to changes in carbon cycling and did so without human input.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeker, regardless of whether suing car companies is fair or makes any sense, only a complete fool or corrupt fuck in the payroll of an oil corporation could possibly deny climate change and global warming in the last century have increased dramatically and dangerously, and that that change has been man-made.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Seeker, regardless of whether suing car companies is fair or makes any sense, only a complete fool or corrupt fuck in the payroll of an oil corporation could possibly deny climate change and global warming in the last century have increased dramatically and dangerously, and that that change has been man-made.

    IF your assertion is correct then it must be the former because nobody has forwarded my renumeration.

    BUT that is a big "IF", isn`t it ?

    I would say that it is foolish to jump to conclusions.

    How do you know that any change is "man-made" ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By about 17.5 million tons of evidence.

    To ignore and deny that evidence is akin to flat earthers denying all the evidence there is on the earth being a sphere, or to some religious fundamentalists pretending the earth is 6,000 years old. Simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    To ignore and deny that evidence is akin to flat earthers denying all the evidence there is on the earth being a sphere, or to some religious fundamentalists pretending the earth is 6,000 years old. Simple as.

    No it's not and such false claims discredit you.

    Questioning Global Warming.

    Instead of ridiculing those that dissent why not take a look? The Scientific Alliance certainly has supporters far more qualified than you or I.

    To reject the findings of those questioning climate change based on the fact that they form a minority in the scientific community is absurd. You would have to be pretty ignorant not to know that most significant scientific findings have happened when a small minority has questioned established orthodoxies.

    It is indisputable that there are many highly respected and highly qualified scientists amongst those questioning the climate change lobby. And it is false to characterise these people as in the pockets of oil companies; those involved in the Scientific Alliance are academics that have excelled in their field and who have reached their conclusions independently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems a bit silly to sue companies for something they weren't obliged to do in the past..

    I think it's much more sensible to set new emissions targets for cars so manufacturers would only be allowed to sell cleaner cars, charge more tax for cars that achieve lower MPG figures (so people would be put off buying them) and offer incentives for people to trade in their old gas guzzling cars and trucks for more ecofriendly versions and have the old ones recycled.

    It's the people that buy and drive the cars that are polluting, not the manufacturers themselves - but car drivers have voting rights, manufacturers don't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's much more sensible to set new emissions targets for cars so manufacturers would only be allowed to sell cleaner cars

    Meh. If I could afford a big Bentley I should be allowed one. If only..
    offer incentives for people to trade in their old gas guzzling cars and trucks for more ecofriendly versions and have the old ones recycled.

    Much of the environmental impact from a car comes from when it is built. Swapping an older car that still works for a brand new hybrid is extremely environmentally damaging. Lots of things from a car cannot be recycled...

    It would help the environment a lot more if people kept things longer and repaired stuff instead of just getting new things...And anyway older cars are so much cooler.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No it's not and such false claims discredit you.

    Questioning Global Warming.
    The immense majority of the scientific community have believed- and backed up by evidence- for nigh on decades of the disastrous man-made effects on global climate. Since the appearance of that BBC article tons more of pretty damning evidence have surfaced.
    Instead of ridiculing those that dissent why not take a look? The Scientific Alliance certainly has supporters far more qualified than you or I.

    To reject the findings of those questioning climate change based on the fact that they form a minority in the scientific community is absurd.
    However to reject them on the basis that the evidence to support man-made global warming is extremely sound and tens of thousands of times more abundant and plausible than the conjetures and feeble evidence of the 'skeptics' is perfectably reasonable.

    The only absurd thing here is denying the obvious.

    It's even more absurd because the immense majority of those denying the obvious do so with ulterior motives, not because of their selfless interest in debate and research.
    It is indisputable that there are many highly respected and highly qualified scientists amongst those questioning the climate change lobby. And it is false to characterise these people as in the pockets of oil companies; those involved in the Scientific Alliance are academics that have excelled in their field and who have reached their conclusions independently.
    Those 'many' are in fact a rather small group. Which, and this is the main point, have next to fuck all to support their allegations.

    And I wouldn't put too much trust in them. It is universal knowledge that the likes of Exxon have been funding 'skeptic' scientists and lobby groups for years. And even most of those who are not funded by or connected to oil corporations are doing this for political or personal reasons. Like indeed the founders of your beloved Scientific Alliance:

    http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Meh. If I could afford a big Bentley I should be allowed one. If only..

    Much of the environmental impact from a car comes from when it is built. Swapping an older car that still works for a brand new hybrid is extremely environmentally damaging. Lots of things from a car cannot be recycled...

    It would help the environment a lot more if people kept things longer and repaired stuff instead of just getting new things...And anyway older cars are so much cooler.


    Well you can't have everything can you.

    You can keep a 20 year old truck that does 10 MPG or swap it for a modern hybrid that does 40 MPG - if you really were that serious we'd go back to having horse and buggies

    And yeah the rich people will always be able to afford the huge tax increases - that's just life ... but to make a differene otth environment you don't have to target every single person - you have to tackle the vast majority which are just normal people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The immense majority of the scientific community have believed- and backed up by evidence- for nigh on decades of the disastrous man-made effects on global climate.

    Could you offer some of this evidence up for scrutiny ?

    Furthermore, whilst you are doing your scientific research, you may also discover how "the immense majority of the scientific community" are funded.

    Would YOU say that the funding is influential to the conclusion reached ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do a search Seeker. There have been practically weekly new findings, reports and evidence announced, and reported at great lenght at a number of media organisations from newspapers to TV stations for the last decade. As you know full well, but seemly choose to ignore.

    The rightwingers (sorry, skeptics and advocates for scientific debate) on the other hand have very little indeed to support their claims.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Do a search Seeker. There have been practically weekly new findings, reports and evidence announced, and reported at great lenght at a number of media organisations from newspapers to TV stations for the last decade. As you know full well, but seemly choose to ignore.

    The rightwingers (sorry, skeptics and advocates for scientific debate) on the other hand have very little indeed to support their claims.

    I agree there are plenty of reports etc. The ones that I have been privy to look like,at best,only guesses to me. Perhaps information is being withheld ?

    (On a personal note, are you aware that you appear very polarised in your thinking , and therefore your assessment of situations? Saints and sinners are prevalent in many of your posts.)
Sign In or Register to comment.