Carmakers not accountable, in USA Court Case

Discussion in 'Renewable Energy & Energy Saving' started by scarty16, Sep 18, 2007.

  1. scarty16

    scarty16
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +399
    A US federal judge has dismissed a case brought by California against six leading carmakers over alleged damage caused by cars' CO2 emissions.
    The legal action, the first of its kind, demanded millions of dollars in compensation from General Motors, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Chrysler and Nissan.

    But the judge ruled that the issue of whether carmarkers were accountable was a political, not legal, matter.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7000457.stm

    Is this good or bad news??
     
  2. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    Although it might seem like a typical case of US legislative zeal, California was trying to force the issue in the absence of emission targets from the federal government. So to that extent, I think it's probably bad news - although I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the judge.
     
  3. Nimby

    Nimby
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    9,243
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    The Danish Bacon Factory
    Ratings:
    +700
    The thread title is completely misleading.
     
  4. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    Agreed.

    Have tried first attempt at amending anything. Hope it works.
     
  5. njp

    njp
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +177
    Not entirely. All the post titles have changed, but the thread title seems to have remained intact...
     
  6. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    Yes. I'll look into that but I'm rather busy at work today.
     
  7. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    Sounds sensible bearing in mind the average UK footprint which shows where the biggest gains can be made.

    http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyoffootprintvz0.jpg
     
  8. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    Thread title now amended.
     
  9. Nimby

    Nimby
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    9,243
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    The Danish Bacon Factory
    Ratings:
    +700
    Still don't like it! :D

    The case was thrown out by the judge as being outside his jurisdiction.

    What about:

    Damage caused by major carmakers left hanging by gutless US judge! :devil:
     
  10. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96

    Or:

    Judge puts blame for destruction of planet where it belongs.
     
  11. Nimby

    Nimby
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    9,243
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    The Danish Bacon Factory
    Ratings:
    +700
    Excellent! :D
     
  12. scarty16

    scarty16
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +399
    How about leaving it the way it was.
     
  13. scarty16

    scarty16
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +399
    by implication if the car makers are not responsible then their products are not either, hence why "Cars are not responsible" is a reasonable title
     
  14. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    The fact is that cars and their manufacturers are responsible in a causative sense for a large proportion of CO2 emissions. The judge did not dispute that.

    The judge was considering the accountability of the car manufacturers for those emissions and found that even though they were responsible for creating them they were not accountable in legal terms.

    The original title confused the causative sense of 'responsible' with the blameworthy sense hence the finding by me that it was misleading.

    Hope that helps. An interesting initial post in any event since it shows how political manoeuvering is trying to apportion blame via the legal system in the USA.
     
  15. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    Check out the footprint graphic. Commuting (all types not just cars) is not a major part of a persons carbon footprint - or even a large part. heck clothing and foot wear is larger !
    Surely the biggest and easiest wins are to be had by going for the bigger hitters first.

    recreation and leisure
    space heating
    food and catering
    household
    hygiene and health
    and then commuting - and within that cars. and within cars look to the dust to dust footprint within total life to get the real impact.
     
  16. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    Nothing there about commercial traffic for the movement of goods or for marketing and other business purposes. There's a lot more to it than cars and commuting.
    Some vehicle component exists one way or another directly or indirectly behind all the categories shown.
    In fact we are pretty much stuffed without it hence the alarm at thoughtless proposals for taxation and penalties. No aspect of our lives would be undamaged by the levels of reduction required to have any noticeable effect.
     
  17. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    This is an individuals footprint. Those figures are subsumed within.
    If someone here owns a haulage firm then I am sure they will be interested in what is under their direct control.
    For the rest of us the graphic gives us all a way to address changes in our lifestyles that will have the most benefit.
    So it works out, in impact order:-

    recreation and leisure
    space heating
    food and catering
    household
    hygiene and health
    and then commuting - and within that cars. and within cars look to the dust to dust footprint within total life to get the real impact.

    -----------------------------------
    Top down breakdown stats available here
    http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment...load/regionalrpt/localghgdefrasum20061127.pdf
    and here
    http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment...load/regionalrpt/laregionalco2rpt20061127.xls

    but as individuals we can not take action that will affect these numbers directly. What we can do is tackle it from the activities that as individuals we control - that is why I posted the graphic.
    Does it not follow that this forum should be prioritising in the order which gives the most benefit.
     
  18. Nimby

    Nimby
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    9,243
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    The Danish Bacon Factory
    Ratings:
    +700
    Exclude the panting, farting and belching Saturday footballers? Surely not? ;)

    I am of the belief that personal contributions to fighting MMGW/AGW offer the greatest personal benefits. Changing attitudes can save lots of money which can be better spent on other things. They give a feeling of well being and reduce unseen impacts which may not be represented in the climate models.

    Rwanda's genocide started with a single blow. No world powers were involved and none could have stopped the massacre once it started. It had global effects. A single shell just missed killing Hitler....

    One can never be certain of the long term impact of any single act. Or lack of it. Early adopters and those in the media spotlight carry far more weight with the general public and affect behaviour patterns more than most politicians. Certainly far more than the effects of most foreign politicians including the American President. Take the example of the idiots who started the craze for stealing VW emblems from cars. Be very careful out there. ;)
     
  19. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    I don't think you can look at the individual's footprint in isolation. It would lead to less effective policy making overall.
     
  20. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    Do any posters here actually make policy ?
    Individuals have individual responsibility as well as collective.
    To influence policy would take political action and formation of pressure group(s) etc. There is no thread dedicated to that.

    In the meantime all that individual can do is to tackle what is within their control to tackle. The more that do the bigger the impact and as people do then the market place will change - and policy will ultimately be affected.

    That list remains:-

    recreation and leisure
    space heating
    food and catering
    household
    hygiene and health
    and then commuting - and within that cars. and within cars look to the dust to dust footprint within total life to get the real impact.

    is it worth starting (potentially sticky) threads on each of these for idea swapping.
     
  21. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    Well, yes.

    It's always worth doing something to conserve resources at an individual level.

    However if the collective aspect is taken into account it might make a difference to the order of the items in your list.

    For example if you include all the commercial uses of vehicles that we all benefit from indirectly then it becomes misleading to put cars and commuting at the bottom of the list. They are part of a much bigger problem which is partly disguised by subsuming the use of commercial vehicles into the other headings.

    I just think that a better analysis of priorities could be done but that does not detract from your basic intent. I support resource economy and conservation for better reasons than the fear of AGW.
     
  22. Steve.J.Davies

    Steve.J.Davies
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +199
    These are the categories of individuals. The car/transport thing is factored into all of them already. becauise of that it is wrong to try to bullseye them again - that would just be double accounting and focusing on things that people cannot change.
    this is an easy list that shows the biggest hitters a person can engage with to make a difference. it is not an analysis of priorities it an an analysis of impact.

    is it worth starting (potentially sticky) threads on each of these for idea swapping.
    r
     
  23. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    Perhaps I misunderstood. It seemed that you were responding to my comment about cars by suggesting they had a minimal impact.

    As regards stickies they seem to be sparingly used so creating a block of 6 new ones might be overkill.

    No objection to you starting a new thread or threads but I'd prefer you to try and use just one and invite responses in whatever format you choose within that thread. You could allocate numbers 1 to 6 and ask responders to address each category individually by reference to your numbering.

    If it gets unwieldy review at that point. Good suggestions could be listed in another thread and updated as they accumulate.

    Thus, use one thread for a general chat on the issues and, if you need to, create another limited to the results.

    Alternatively if the results justify it perhaps PM Stuart in case your idea appeals to him. If he is happy with 6 stickies then so be it. Good luck.
     
  24. Corey USA

    Corey USA
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23
    The main reason for them not being responsible for the damage up till now was that the car makers is not the one driving the cars which are damaging the environment.

    California should go after the junk mail industry in that they are cutting the trees down to make something we don't clearly want thus does more damage to the environment than burning fuel does.
     

Share This Page

Loading...