|
California Sues Big Six Automakers, (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'd say more of the latter. People wonder why it's so expensive to do anything in California. Emblematic of our overly-litigious society, particularly on the left coast.
Maybe their goals are genuine at heart, but in the end I don't see how this would be the best path to get there. |
This indeed is the best path to get there because it boils down to one simple fact of life ... this is what Californians want to do to make up for what they see is a lack of progress at the federal level and there's not a goddamn thing the federal government can or should do about it. If the expensiveness or litigous nature of California (or the left coast) were such an eyesore one must wonder why so many people continue to flock to California to make it such a trend-setter in consumer demand not just in the US but globally. The fact of the matter is is that California consists of such a huge block of the US GDP that usually what California wants ends up being what the US gets because no manufacturer is going to say no to such a huge consumer market. Here's something to consider: criticize California all you want, but it made itself an 800lb gorilla that can't be ignored because it attracts people and productivity.
I think it's clear that many are frustrating by what they see as a lack of initiative on the part of manufacturers to curb emmissions in part due to a failure by the feds to address the issue. I mean come on, lobbyists have prevented any meaningful raise in mpg fuel efficiency, hummers are given huge tax credits for being "commerical" vehicles, I mean really wtf? Yea Cali could always sue the "consumer" but we're talking about an inelastic product here. Some people can't afford hybrids. Others need pickups, minivans, or SUVs for work or family life. The consumer has about as much of an effect on mileage and emissions as they do with drug safety. Yes if the problem is exacerbated enough they'll have an effect, but some people will be in a position where they can't say no for whatever reason.
I say more power to california. It's a state issue that doesn't concern me. If manufacturers don't like it than don't sell cars in California. If the people of Cali don't like it than go vote. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
I know that many manufacturers are heavily researching this technology and while there are already a few working models that run on it its still a few years away from being ready for the average customer.
The other thing is that for his to work every gas station needs to offer refueling for fuel cells and since many of them are privately owned they will hesitate unless they know they will get customers and customers will hesitate in buying a fuel cell car unless they know they can refuel anywhere. The last thing i need when on a trip is to run out of hydrogen somewhere becouse the last few pumps offer only petrol.
Also how much do you want to bet that sooner or later the eco terrorists are going to have problem with fuel cells also. Not with the exaust on car obviously but with the way hydrogen is produced
| quote: | From the Wiki article you posted
Fuel cells are often promoted as being potentially emission-free if they burn hydrogen, in contrast to currently more common fuels such as methane or natural gas that generate carbon dioxide. However, hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. Electrolysis, which requires electricity, is used to extract hydrogen from water. As of 2004, 50% of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal, 20% comes from nuclear, 18% from natural gas, 7% from hydroelectricity, 3% from petroleum and the remaining 3% mostly coming from geothermal, solar and biomass. [2] When hydrogen is produced through electrolysis, the energy comes from these sources. Though the fuel cell itself will only emit heat and water as waste, pollution is produced to make the hydrogen that it runs on. Hydrogen production is only as clean as the energy sources used to produce it. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
This indeed is the best path to get there because it boils down to one simple fact of life ... this is what Californians want to do to make up for what they see is a lack of progress at the federal level and there's not a goddamn thing the federal government can or should do about it. If the expensiveness or litigous nature of California (or the left coast) were such an eyesore one must wonder why so many people continue to flock to California to make it such a trend-setter in consumer demand not just in the US but globally. The fact of the matter is is that California consists of such a huge block of the US GDP that usually what California wants ends up being what the US gets because no manufacturer is going to say no to such a huge consumer market. Here's something to consider: criticize California all you want, but it made itself an 800lb gorilla that can't be ignored because it attracts people and productivity.
I think it's clear that many are frustrating by what they see as a lack of initiative on the part of manufacturers to curb emmissions in part due to a failure by the feds to address the issue. I mean come on, lobbyists have prevented any meaningful raise in mpg fuel efficiency, hummers are given huge tax credits for being "commerical" vehicles, I mean really wtf? Yea Cali could always sue the "consumer" but we're talking about an inelastic product here. Some people can't afford hybrids. Others need pickups, minivans, or SUVs for work or family life. The consumer has about as much of an effect on mileage and emissions as they do with drug safety. Yes if the problem is exacerbated enough they'll have an effect, but some people will be in a position where they can't say no for whatever reason.
I say more power to california. It's a state issue that doesn't concern me. If manufacturers don't like it than don't sell cars in California. If the people of Cali don't like it than go vote. |
First of all--which Californians? Certainly not ALL Californians are for this? Secondly, just a few years ago when Gray Davis was given the boot we learned that California is one of the most unfriendly places for business in the entire country due to their onerous tax burden among other things, so perhaps you should qualify that statement a bit more. We all know the weather and scenery out there is great, and perhaps that is the real draw.
Bleh--the economist's solution is to always have people pay more for something as in theory it will bring about efficient change in the market. However creating a big lawsuit benefits big law first but in the name of the consumer (when the reality is that the end-game equals higher prices for everyone). Aren't they basically suing themselves? Consumers are the ones that choose the cars they drive and thus create pollution problems when they choose to drive more SUVs and such. It's not automakers forcing SUV's down people's throats (yet they get sued at the end of the day).
Then again, the cars people drive in California are sometimes so ludicrious that a little change in consumer behavior out there might be good for a few of them. But a lawsuit instigated by California that potentially could have ramifications for all of us...I say less power to 'em!;) |
|
|
| Temperate |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
I know that many manufacturers are heavily researching this technology and while there are already a few working models that run on it its still a few years away from being ready for the average customer.
The other thing is that for his to work every gas station needs to offer refueling for fuel cells and since many of them are privately owned they will hesitate unless they know they will get customers and customers will hesitate in buying a fuel cell car unless they know they can refuel anywhere. The last thing i need when on a trip is to run out of hydrogen somewhere becouse the last few pumps offer only petrol.
Also how much do you want to bet that sooner or later the eco terrorists are going to have problem with fuel cells also. Not with the exaust on car obviously but with the way hydrogen is produced |
The government needs to issue some guidelines. They could make it manditory for every gas station to install hydrogen fuel tanks for refuelling. It's the future! :) |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'd say more of the latter. People wonder why it's so expensive to do anything in California. Emblematic of our overly-litigious society, particularly on the left coast.
Maybe their goals are genuine at heart, but in the end I don't see how this would be the best path to get there. |
So ... do nothing instead? And ridicule those that take action? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
So ... do nothing instead? And ridicule those that take action? |
Did I suggest doing nothing? Did I ridicule anyone? Is suing a company really taking action? All that accomplishes is making companies less likely to want to do business with you--and lets your hotshot lawyer friend get a new evnironmentally friendly Porsche.
I believe in efficient markets and I don't think a lawsuit is the way to get to the goal. As much as I shake in my boots when I say it, perhaps more stringent federal regulations are the best way to institute any meaningful change. All a lawsuit is going to do is financially punish the companies that we are trying to change. Now instead of having hundreds of millions of dollars available for R&D which could actually help alleviate in the problem in the future, you will have money strong-armed away into lawyers pockets and inefficient government coffers. Punish the companies for responding to consumer demands, by jove! This is nothing more than industrial chutzpah.
Public companies are not very likely to invest in any projects which are unprofitable. Not because they don't want to, but because they have to answer to shareholders. The quickest way to alienate shareholders is by pissing away money that they have placed in your confidence. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Oh lets blame the corporations. What a bunch of ing tree-huggers we have running rampant here.
First off, sue the consumers. There are now cheap cars available (while perhaps not exactly easy on the eyes) that get fantastic mileage and are somewhat cleaner for the environment. Now, if demand for these cars was so astounding and consumers were really all just so good-hearted, the eveil corporations would produce more environmentaly friendly cars to cater to the demand shift. BUT, this hasn't really happened, at least in the magnitude needed, so who is to blame? Companies seeking profits like any other capitalist entity would, or the consumers who like to bitch while they drive in their less efficient cars.
This really chafes my nuts since I want to move to Cali, but these goddamn hippies man. |
Wow. You sound like such a hick. Considering how much you hate anything "librul" or "left-wing," you should really stay out of Cali, you'd ing hate it there. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
First of all--which Californians? Certainly not ALL Californians are for this? Secondly, just a few years ago when Gray Davis was given the boot we learned that California is one of the most unfriendly places for business in the entire country due to their onerous tax burden among other things, so perhaps you should qualify that statement a bit more. We all know the weather and scenery out there is great, and perhaps that is the real draw.
|
Based upon widespread support for the AB 1493 emissions curbing law (which automakers proceeded to sue California to stop the law haha), I would presume that the majority of Californians support suing automakers for failing to curb emissions. Is there evidence to suggest otherwise? For some reason I doubt weather and the countryside is the reason why California consists of a third of US GDP. There are a lot of nicer places or comprable places that aren't so "unfriendly" when it comes to taxes and businesses as you so describe. I think the type of community and the lifestyle of that community plays a very big role in choosing where you want to live.
| quote: |
Bleh--the economist's solution is to always have people pay more for something as in theory it will bring about efficient change in the market. However creating a big lawsuit benefits big law first but in the name of the consumer (when the reality is that the end-game equals higher prices for everyone). Aren't they basically suing themselves? Consumers are the ones that choose the cars they drive and thus create pollution problems when they choose to drive more SUVs and such. It's not automakers forcing SUV's down people's throats (yet they get sued at the end of the day).
Then again, the cars people drive in California are sometimes so ludicrious that a little change in consumer behavior out there might be good for a few of them. But a lawsuit instigated by California that potentially could have ramifications for all of us...I say less power to 'em!;) |
Well in this instance I would say that there exists a market externality where there is no incentive for automakers to limit emissions. Just like there's no incentive for factory A to not pollute a public river even if it hurts the people living downriver. The only way to achieve market efficiency is to make factory A pay for its pollution of a public good by creating regulations or use the legal system to extract punitive or compensatory damages. Think about it, the auto industry is an oligopoly. Why should any of the automakers spend any R&D funds to reduce emissions when it will likely result in a more expensive vehicle that most consumers can ill-afford to pay a premium for and it's just not economically worthwhile? |
|
|
| philliez |
I think its abusrd and is a ridiculous way to go about "pushing the automotive industry to make more economical vehicles.
Progress is constantly being made on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and really what is holding is lack of a cheap/efficient way to produce lots of hydrogen |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Based upon widespread support for the AB 1493 emissions curbing law (which automakers proceeded to sue California to stop the law haha), I would presume that the majority of Californians support suing automakers for failing to curb emissions. |
Admittedly I am not familliar with AB 1493, but I will say that this is much like tobacco litigation (which drives me up the wall). Automakers don't cause emissions--people who drive their cars do. If the people of California are soo concerned about global warming and emissions standards, why haven't they chosen to drive greener cars? Similarly, cigarette makers don't force people to smoke and therefore aren't directly responsible for causing cancer--yet they are sued for billions despite the big warning label on packs of smokes that says "THIS IS BAD FOR YOU."
| quote: | | For some reason I doubt weather and the countryside is the reason why California consists of a third of US GDP. |
Actually there is a lot of evidence (certainly several studies as I read one recently) that suggest that external factors such as weather that are not specifically tied to productivity are a major driver behind sustained economic growth. I wish I could remember the study, but it was mentioned in the context of some Asian/Pac-Rim countries--possibly Vietnam or Singapore or somewhere like that. California contains some of the most fertile farm land in North America, is one of the biggest states in the union, has some of the best weather, has the largest stretch of coastline of any single state--yet I sense that you are being dismissive of these externalities as a positive influence on California's production. Maybe I just mis-read you as I'm not certain if this argument is staying on topic.
| quote: | | Well in this instance I would say that there exists a market externality where there is no incentive for automakers to limit emissions. |
There is--it's called when consumers use their power of pocketbook to NOT buy an environmentally unfriendly vehicle. If you truly believe in efficient markets, it doesn't take a massive, frivolous lawsuit to create change, rather it takes a change in consumer behavior. IMHO, suing the automakers over emissions won't do much to change consumers' behavior. They'll likely just pay a little more for their next SUV and feel good about the fact that they punished some big, evil corporation.
| quote: | | Just like there's no incentive for factory A to not pollute a public river even if it hurts the people living downriver. The only way to achieve market efficiency is to make factory A pay for its pollution of a public good by creating regulations or use the legal system to extract punitive or compensatory damages. |
And I'm on board with the first part--it's a similar idea to Warren Buffet's plan to elimiate the trade deficit. Regulating and creating guidelines or issuing credits/changing the system will certainly work better than a lawsuit that ultimately benefits lawyers and hurts consumers. The legal system is a poor channel to use to institute positive change. I think if it is ever to be used, it should be done so as a last resort, and that is why I disagree with your seemingly glib statement that this "indeed is the best path to go down." |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
All I got to say is .... "Who killed electric car?"
And you should know what I think/believe. I am referring to the now famous video ... |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
All I got to say is .... "Who killed electric car?"
And you should know what I think/believe. I am referring to the now famous video ... |
You mind elaborating more, all your posts are "oh heres one tidbit of information, it doesnt even express my point of view but here you go" :wtf: Seriously, i dont know why but its erm kind of annoying, everything you say has a 'im right regardless of' undertone. |
|
|
|
|
