02GF74
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
are they really that crazy in the US?
unbelievable!
|
|
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 01:51 PM |
|
|
Yes. All Americans are clinically insane.
However, in this case I think they're right - the world needs to change the way it works or it'll die. Everyone could have a fast
sportscar for the weekend if they used public transport or cycled to work midweek.
For instance, I only drive my 2.4 litre car half way to the office and walk the rest
|
|
|
graememk
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 01:51 PM |
|
|
only in the usa
|
|
|
boxfile
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 02:01 PM |
|
|
Tree hugging hippie muppets.
If they're that worried why not ban the use of all oil fueled vehicles in the state.
See how many votes that gets them next election.
I am not a number!
|
|
|
spaximus
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
This is a load of crap, how on earth would any law suit be able to prove that the car is responsible for the global warming.
Face facts, the earths temperature has fluctuated since it was born, just ask the dinosaurs, the ice age came and went, and yet surprisingly there
were no cars. Every thing we do has some effect on the world, the car is an easy target. Even this report says it is responsible for less than 40% of
the pollution, so why not sue the other 60% causes. The other thing is that this is more likly the reaction to the car manufacturers claim against
California. Basically the federal goverment is supposedly the law maker as to what is acceptable for cars, however California has made its own rules
up which will mean certain cars will not make the emmissions they have dictated. So the big manufactureres have filed a suit suing California for
restriting their ability to trade as they do elsewhere in the US. California respond by holding them responsiblr for everything to do with the
weather.
The sad part is that even if the state won, the car manufacturers would invoke a chapter 11 process which would ring fence themselves as they GM and
Ford are basically broke profit wise. The winners will be the lawyers, the enviroment will not change, and china along with India, will still produce
more pollution than the rest of us put together.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 02:09 PM |
|
|
There was a statistic a couple of years ago that the cars in LA put out less pollution than all the petrol driven garden equipment.
They should also ban air travel IMO 
Who would have though Arnie was up for re-election in November...
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 02:12 PM |
|
|
They have had a bit of a reputation in the past for making engines a little to inefficient though.
When they last had a fuel crisis, GM's response was to produce a 'small hatch' that had an economical engine with 'only 3.8 V8
power'. Which actually only produced about 100bhp or so. US car manufacturers really do have a lot to learn from their european counterparts
(even the likes of Ford who produce for both markets - the quality of cars for the US market is shocking)
|
|
|
clockwork
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 02:13 PM |
|
|
Whatever your opinions of climate change, I have to take the side of California.
California put in legislation to try and improve emissions, the car manufacturers decided to sue rather than take an active role in improvements.
California are fighting back with (effictively) a countersue.
We are forever going on about America V Kyoto etc. .... shouldn't we be commending this action?
2p
[Edited on 21/9/06 by clockwork]
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
naahhh
The problem in amerika is the client.
the client needs to be mentally prepared that the size of his engine doesn´t say nothing over his brains or his d**k then
they will accept smaller engines and then they will be produced.
What happening now that if you try to sell a 2.0 (wich isn´t even bad) that they lough and say that for the same money they get a 3.4 V8.
problems?? the 3.4 V8 generates torque and then you need chasis wich means more weight result weight means more brake power to!!
a even fast car as a 2.0 but it needs to work allot harder and there are the emmisions.....
Think again! what every factory produces is what the markets wants/needs!!
2P (the big p of POUNDS - not pence - )
Tks
Amerika knows that they need cheap fuel to survive (every car there drinks fuel) do i need to say anymore??? about oil etc..?
Look at amerika everythings needs to be big! Coca cola bottles, popcorn everything! its even normal that in a restaurant you take food to home (they
even have special cages for it)
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
spaximus
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork
Whatever your opinions of climate change, I have to take the side of California.
California put in legislation to try and improve emissions, the car manufacturers decided to sue rather than take an active role in improvements.
California are fighting back with (effictively) a countersue.
We are forever going on about America V Kyoto etc. .... shouldn't we be commending this action?
2p
[Edited on 21/9/06 by clockwork]
On one hand yes, however this is like Yorkshire saying it does not accept the law made in london so all cars made outside what they want cannot be
sold there, is this right? I guess not. Yes there are some cultural issues, for years biggest is best, bigger house bigger boat etc et its the
American way! there are changes taking place there. I just had two weeks there and we have friend who is in Tampa, they are downsizing cars and have
bought a Honda Civic, a BMW 325i and a Honda Accord, as even at $2.95 a gallon they can see a need to cut down when the gas has nearly doubled in
18months. Diesel cars are also catching on with the truck and car market. The thing is now Chrysler has a partner in Mercedes they are getting more
into things, the merc sprinter is a dodge out there and sells very well. However the rednecks still want V8 engines pulling a truck the size of
somerset just to go for the milk, they aren't all like that or equally all like the Californians are portrayed.
|
|
|
dl_peabody
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
As a Yank and Californian I would lik to say "the state is out of their minds". They already mandatate the highest smog standards in all
50 tates. It is the state that sets the emission levels. Now durring a moment of fiscal shortcomming they want to sue companies for following the
standards they set, how much sense does that make? Each manufacturer has to specailly design and equip a cars for emissions if they want to sell in
California.
Kalifornia has long be a state of tre hugging enviromental wackos.... Just to get this off my chest and because it has to be said.
Global warming is a "Belief System" that hasn't been concetely been proven.....in the late 70's scientists were arguing about
the commng ice age and there was talk about spaying the ice caps with carbon or black dusts to reverse the pending catastophy. (Good thing they
didn't) It you get 100 people repeteing and beleiving the same lie it does not make it any more true regaurdless of how many more people they
get to beleive it. I am asking for PROOF!
If law makers were serious about reducing "harmfull emissions" they would do something about cow flatulence...which is much more harmfull
than your average car. Why don't they? Because voters would laugh in their faces...(rightly so)...and car companies have deep pockets and they
score points with the Wacky green hippy fringe.
Their are alot of good ideas that Kalifornia could impliment to improve air quality...but if you are setting the rules you don't su people for
following them...that is insane.
spaximus I agree...
StevieB
quote:
M's response was to produce a 'small hatch' that had an economical engine with 'only 3.8 V8 power'. Which actually only
produced about 100bhp or so.
Sounds like the Chevy Citation mid 80s
I would love to see the 6 automaters voluntarly withdrawl sales form Kalifornia for a year to "spank" the lawyers and the state....but the
economic hard ship on the dealers repairmen and all the little guys would be devestating. Cheaper to fight it out in court.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 05:58 PM |
|
|
From the article...
About one-third of California's CO2 emissions come from traffic.. Who are they going to sue for the other two-thirds?
State lawyers want any judgement for damages to be ongoing, so that manufacturers will be liable every year. All the manufacturers have to do is put
a warning label on future production, "Not for use in California" and shift the liability to the driver where it belongs. As it says,
it's just a nuisance suit and will most likely be dismissed but it will cost millions in court time and will have the publicity effect they
want.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
As a Brit living in the US (for the last 12 years) I can answer NO.
The vast majority of people here are as normal as anybody you'd meet in the UK.....There will be just as much head shaking and eye rolling
this side of the pond I can assure you.
As DL says how can you set a standard and then sue someone even though they meet it?
I would just love the car makers to either pull out of CA or hike their prices accordingly.....
As Pete says it probably more of a publicity stunt than anything else...
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
Arnie has been talking to Dave Cameron by the looks of it!!
I agree that if I were boss of a car maker, I'd call a meeting of all bosses (inc oil producers), and pull straight out of CA. No spares, no
sales. Nothing. Economy would quickly sink to oblivion!
Then see how quick things change.
Also, Dave Cameron used to drive an MG ZT260 b4 the Tory leadership battle. now he rides a bike (lost my vote instantly).
Arnie drives a Hummer (4MPG)!!!!!!!!!!!
Kyoto is a load of bollocks. If all nations inc US signed up, the total reduction in CO2, would be less than 1%.
If people are gullible ebough to believe in GW, I suggest they read Michael Crichtons "State of Fear"
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
dmottaway
|
| posted on 21/9/06 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
California is known as the "Granola State". Full of fruit, nuts, and flakes.
dave
Somewhere, in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
|
|
|
Canada EH!
|
| posted on 22/9/06 at 12:30 AM |
|
|
are they really that crazy in the US
Now you know why those of us in the FROZEN NORTH portion of North America call it the EXCITED STATES, or SUE CITY USA
|
|
|
dl_peabody
|
| posted on 22/9/06 at 02:19 AM |
|
|
As Alan B said...
"I would just love the car makers to either pull out of CA or hike their prices accordingly..... "
I would go one further by listing the name address and work telephone number of every lawmaker, lawyer, and politician involved (in a sperate
publication)...and by including the actual COST of the legislation/extra costs on every showroom, contract, and window INVOICE.
Either way the Kalifornian economy would suffer... (not good)
Vote those bums out!!!! ..."How is this a representative government with out best interests in mind?"
[Edited on 22/9/06 by dl_peabody]
|
|
|
clockwork
|
| posted on 22/9/06 at 08:08 AM |
|
|
Regarding setting different Laws in Yorkshire to the rest of England, I think you'll find a less extreme examle of this exists already.
In London you have to pay a congestion charge, in most cities you don't.
What's the difference?
I don't wish to get into a discussion about congestion charging, I'm just saying that we live under a chequered blanket of various
rules/laws/bylaws. I'm sure America is no different.
As I recall it is perfectly legal to marry at 14 in South Carolina, but almost everywhere else reguires you to be 16+.
Be in no mistake, the reason behind this is Green ;-) (did you see what I did there).
[Edited on 22/9/06 by clockwork]
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 22/9/06 at 07:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork
Regarding setting different Laws in Yorkshire to the rest of England, I think you'll find a less extreme examle of this exists already.
In London you have to pay a congestion charge, in most cities you don't.
What's the difference?
I don't wish to get into a discussion about congestion charging, .....
[Edited on 22/9/06 by clockwork]
clockwork,
While on the subject of CC's, I live in Kent and think we Kentish folk should introduce a congestion charge for everyone and everything (Euro
choo choo) going through the county to the continent.
Who knows, our Ctax may get reduced
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
kreb
|
| posted on 25/9/06 at 11:30 PM |
|
|
It's interesting how one individual (Bill Lockyear) can bring a suit and somehow that means all Californians agree. The fact is, suits like
this are the result of a conscious decision we've made to keep Brits and Republicans from going after our perfect weather, fantastic scenery and
millions of gorgeous women.
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 29/3/07 at 01:06 AM |
|
|
Just found this. I'm a bit late, but anybody who doubts global warming has his head so far up his butt he can't see or think straight.
Cars are not good for the environment. Accept it and get on with things. Is it going to stop me from building a cool car? No. I would argue that it
will be a lot more fuel efficient, due to weight, than my Audi.
|
|
|
chockymonster
|
| posted on 29/3/07 at 07:17 AM |
|
|
I don't doubt global warming, I doubt the scientific claptrap spouted by green environmentalist hippie types.
I was at a barbecue on Saturday, one of the guys there was a veggie and works for some government think tank that's mandated to come up with
ways to reduce climate change.
His argument was based totally around punishing car drivers, there was no consideration about hitting other co2 producers, it was only cars.
Manufacturers must drop their output levels to 100g/km, that is the highest they should be allowed was the argument. I asked how companies like
porsche and ferrari would be expected to do that. His response of "people shouldn't be allowed to own cars like that, they ruin the
environment, they should go out and buy piouses and 2cvs"
PLEASE NOTE - Responses on Forum Threads may contain Sarcasm and may not be suitable for the hard of Thinking.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 29/3/07 at 07:48 AM |
|
|
yep I watched that 'Global warming Swindle', making money that's what its all really about.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 29/3/07 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
Michael Crichton is just one man arguing his corner. Whilst its nice to agree with him so we dont have to take any responsibility for our actions, it
highly unlikely that he is 100% correct, just as its unlikely the greenies are entirely correct. The educated truth lies in the middle somewhere.
Blaming CO2 emissions from cars is narrow minded, but equally so the same could be said of assuming a plague of man has no effect on his planet.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 29/3/07 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
I agree totally, in a way…
Regardless whether we are actually altering the climate from the normal variations to any real degree. Pollution is bad for your health especially in
cities so it is still very worthwhile trying to reduce it.
I also agree with a lot of the documentary about the political and ideological biases that many very vocal protesters have (I have listened to their
side just as much) and their work is more fiction than science. Like I said money or making it is the main driving force behind the movement just now
and it will probably end in disrepute thanks to the inevitable sleaze of politicians.
It seems man is pre-programmed with a desperate need to believe in something be it the great promised truth of science, aliens, religion or the new
faith – Global warming. As usual those who question any of them are ridiculed – no? Just listen to someone dare question an environmentalist and make
your own mind up.
The original good intensions in any faith ends up spoiled by the vocal crank who’s only in it for themselves.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
