California Sues Companies for Global Warming!

All my comments on this thread due nothing but reflect the ludacris nature of the lawsuit. I don't know which suit is more ridiculous... this one or the McDonald's suit by fat people who can't skip a meal. Speaking of, maybe drive-thru restaurants should be co-defendents on this global warming warming lawsuit as they influence people to sit in the car with the engine idling generating far more carbon-dioxide than if they went in and stood in line.

Maybe the state of California is also responsible as they:
1. Give out driver's licenses which encourage people to drive cars and pollute.
2. Put so much money into roads which encourage people to drive
3. Don't put in enough money for traffic to move smoothly on their highways, thus causing traffic jams which generate more pollution than free moving vehicles.
4. Put far more money into roads than into public transport
5. Allow cars in their state even after knowing the negative effects of pollutions for at least as long as the auto manufacturers (the manufacturers found out about this from academics of who some are at public universities of which some are in California and funded by California, so therefore California must know about the effects as they pay the academics, yet they still allow the cars in their state.

 

Here's a good context for the argument of governmental regulation. Self-regulation, as the current administration and Republican party love to proffer, is wonderful in an morally honest society. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist these days, especially in corporate America. Yes, this is slightly off topic, but befitting none the less.

Just my $0.02; btw I'm not a dem affilitate, though it may appear that way.

-kt

 

Litigation or not the Earth will keep doing its thing. We are only here under the good graces of Mother Nature...She will flick us off when the time is right.

 

The Attorney General of California is a kook, plain and simple. He screwed up a whole election a while back by mis quoting what the propositions were about on the ballot info handed out to voters. These incompetent narcissistic folks can indeed get themselves elected and now he is up for something new, needs to make a name for himself I guess.

 

You're perfectly entitled to take that policy position. What is irresponsible however is for the AG of California to attempt to make national policy on such a monumental issue through lawsuits.

He should be sanctioned for even bringing such a case. There is no way he can prove that car emissions caused climate change or that anyone has been harmed by any such climate change. Even the most radical global warming scare mongers predict temperature changes of less than one degree F over our lifetimes. With tobacco, at least they had people who had credible claims of being harmed by the product. Moreover, the federal government has extensively regulated vehicle emissions for decades.

What we are seeing here is a grandstanding politician using a typical liberal ploy, namely trying to get the courts to implement a policy they can't get enacted through the democratic process.

 

I do agree with you, but unfortunately, it sometimes requires a good law-suit or two to get the government to make a policy shift for the better. Besides if the company(ies) liable then the company is liable (I, myself, don't know what the arguments are here so I won't claim to know).

As far as our energy usage in general... America could prosper in the 21st century through alternative energy inovation, as we did with being a manufacturing/technology leader in the 20th. Not to mention it's only admirable to be a good stewart of mother earth. We (mankind) haven't exactly been astute in that department... at all.

 

Plantiffs who file meritless lawsuits should have to pay the costs incurred by the defense.

The people who filed the lawsuit dont drive? They should just sue themselves.

Just another shyster shakedown.

Then again I better be careful. Just by calling someone a shyster I could be sued.

Ridiculous.

Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally “one who defecates,” from the verb scheissen, “to defecate,” with the English suffix -ster, “one who does,” substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a bitch. Sheisser is generally thought to have been borrowed directly into English as the word shicer, which, among other things, is an Australian English term for an unproductive mine or claim, a sense that is also recorded for the word shyster.

 

your wasting yr breath... its natural to sue whoever would be selling / pushing a consumer product directly causing the allegedly harmful effects in the normal course of use of the product...

not that anybody was asking for your assent here but... its similarly perfectly sensible to sue companies who sell addictive substances to consumers... including restaurant chains whose most aggressively marketed menus are perfect receipes for hyperinsulinism...

as i said in an earlier post, just think SS Medicare bills and perhaps you'll see it makes some kinda sense to yr wallet as well...

of course, (dis)proving the causal relationship is always the difficult part... but no doubt that the prospect of multi-billion $ settlements is going to help get some clarity

 

Yeah, I know, but I figure if I can't get the govt to stop spending at least I can exercise my 1st amendment rights!

 

well, guess all this could have been avoided if this administration had been willing to show some real leadership on clean energy stuff etc... never too late...