[Blue Lion]

You're right, California should pay them incentives to not screw up their air.

Automakers have had enough honey over the past x number of years and now that they're spiraling downward it's time to kick them in the butt and get what they should be giving us, not what we're getting.

I look at the news and I think these companies shouldn't really be getting honey from us.

[Flipside]

The thing is, until someone puts pressure on them, you can be almost certain that car manufacturers are going to be more concerned with adding gizmos to justify the price-tag than what is under the hood. After all, Petrol is the consumers' problem.

[NGTM-1R]

You get more flies with honey instead of vinegar.

Unless of course they laughed in your face first. They don't want to change. They won't unless forced.

[redmenace]

Except they are not screwing up the air. The MORONS that buy these bahemoths are the real culprits.

[NGTM-1R]

I believe that's called weak induction. Since, after all, they are making these things available for no real reason save that they can.

[redmenace]

Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.

[Ford Prefect]

So deny them the choice. That's why we have laws. There's a demand for crystal meth-- that doesn't mean we have to make it a legitimate market.

[Mars]

Hey... I like my crystal meth. 


In todays society, it's very hard to get by without a car, there's no reason not to make cars that run on somthing cleaner than gasoline and phase out the cars that do.

[Blue Lion]

It's not our fault! We didn't want to sell them these types of cars, they made us! We kept asking them if they wanted alternative fuel cars for decades!

You can't blame us.

[WMCoolmon]

Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.

Oh please. Every time I hear this argument, I wonder about the common sense behind it.

Do you honestly think of the global consequences of every single one of your actions? Do you buy biodegradable or recyclable versions of everything? Do you consider the effects that your purchase will have on the global automotive economy? The effects that that will have on the jobs of workers? How that will affect the numbers of illegal immigrants? (insert other major topical point here)?

Do you think that everyone who has and will buy a car has the time, ability, willingness, and good information to consider all of those every single time they make a purchase?

Probably not.

More likely, they're thinking that "this purchase is going to last me years. If I'm able to sell it, it'll be at a loss. Therefore, I should favor buying something that I really want, even if it means spending a few extra, because changing my mind later on will be far far more expensive (and may not be financially possible)"

Furthermore, not everyone can plonk down $15k+ for an 'environmentally friendly' car. The best way to make them cheaper is to increase the amount of demand. Demand is unlikely to increase while the prices are high (In fact, production may come at a loss). Therefore, the only way for things to get sped along to prevent serious issues if and when there is a gas shortage, is to artificially inflate the demand by either penalizing manufacturers for not producing more fuel efficient cars, or by rewarding them for producing more fuel efficient cars. Both has its merits and downsides.


From what I understand, the reason that other countries have cheap, fuel efficient cars, but the US doesn't, is because of the momentum of the infrastructure. There are few alternative fuel stations, so alternative fuel cars have extremely limited use. Alternative fuel stations can only function as long as they get used. etc etc. It's a nasty little self-sustaining cycle that somebody has to step in and take a risk to make the first move to get anything going.

[redmenace]

So deny them the choice. That's why we have laws. There's a demand for crystal meth-- that doesn't mean we have to make it a legitimate market.

Actually we should. People should be allowed to **** up their own lives and bodies if they want.

[Colonol Dekker]

Actually we should. People should be allowed to **** up their own lives and bodies if they want.

Quite right, booze and smokes FTW !!!!!!

[redmenace]

Except people are willing and wanting buy them. There is demand for them, and they are filling that demand. That is a reason to make them availiable. No one says that people have to buy an SUV. Individuals make that choice. And proceed to consume far too much fuel.

Oh please. Every time I hear this argument, I wonder about the common sense behind it.

Do you honestly think of the global consequences of every single one of your actions? Do you buy biodegradable or recyclable versions of everything? Do you consider the effects that your purchase will have on the global automotive economy? The effects that that will have on the jobs of workers? How that will affect the numbers of illegal immigrants? (insert other major topical point here)?

Do you think that everyone who has and will buy a car has the time, ability, willingness, and good information to consider all of those every single time they make a purchase?

Probably not.

More likely, they're thinking that "this purchase is going to last me years. If I'm able to sell it, it'll be at a loss. Therefore, I should favor buying something that I really want, even if it means spending a few extra, because changing my mind later on will be far far more expensive (and may not be financially possible)"

Furthermore, not everyone can plonk down $15k+ for an 'environmentally friendly' car. The best way to make them cheaper is to increase the amount of demand. Demand is unlikely to increase while the prices are high (In fact, production may come at a loss). Therefore, the only way for things to get sped along to prevent serious issues if and when there is a gas shortage, is to artificially inflate the demand by either penalizing manufacturers for not producing more fuel efficient cars, or by rewarding them for producing more fuel efficient cars. Both has its merits and downsides.


From what I understand, the reason that other countries have cheap, fuel efficient cars, but the US doesn't, is because of the momentum of the infrastructure. There are few alternative fuel stations, so alternative fuel cars have extremely limited use. Alternative fuel stations can only function as long as they get used. etc etc. It's a nasty little self-sustaining cycle that somebody has to step in and take a risk to make the first move to get anything going.

So not thinking about the enviromental consequences of your actions is ok? You want to give people who buy HUGE automobiles and waste gas a pardon for their stupidity by suing the car manufacturers? People buying an SUV are not concerned about an enviromentally sound automobile, anyway. They seem to have plenty of money to waste on an huge SUVs that are in excess of 25,000 or more.

[Roanoke]

Should see the RAV4 a woman near me drives. It is F*****g huge. Gotta be 6/6&half foot tall. Probably crush my manta and she wouldn't even feel it.

[perihelion]

@Red,

That's kind of the point.  You live in Texas too, so you know full well that these rednecks are not going to willingly give up their gargantuan superduty pickup trucks.  Same for the SUV-driving yuppies in the cities.  They see it as a matter of buying safety for themselves and have no moral qualms about the safety and environmental cleanliness it takes away from everyone else.  Yes, they ARE in the wrong, but they are not going to change willingly, and you cannot sue them all.

Forcing the car companies to stop feeding these idiots addiction seems a much more effective way of fixing the problem.

That said, this lawsuit is probably going to work out to be more of a publicity stunt than anything else.  I just cannot see them winning in our current court system.  But, it WILL get more national and international attention focused on the issue.  That will put even more pressure on the car companies to come clean.  I mean, seriously, the technology is there.  Has been for years, it just isn't cheap unless it is seriously mass-produced.  Any type of car is horrendously expensive if you only make a few of them.  Ford proved that almost a hundred years ago.

I hope California wins in court, but even if they don't good can still come of this.

[redmenace]

But at the same time is it really just to go after the car companies instead? They are not the ones truly perpetrating the act. And there are times when a massive truck is a reasonable need. On the same tokan, who are we to say to the inbread redneck what is best for them. Although, in this case, there acts cross the line and harm others.

I have no problem with SOUND and REASONABLE regulations. The problem is that you cannot just spring a set of ambitious regulations on the private industry while technology might be there, the means to mass produce it will be an issue. I do look forward to fuel cell cars in about 15-20 years.

[perihelion]

Yeah, I think it is fair to go after them.  If the effort (and stupid amounts of money) they'd spent lobbying against environmental reform and publishing psuedo-scientific "research" claiming things like global warming were fictious... if that effort had been spent instead on actually addressing the problem rather than trying to dodge responsibility, they wouldn't be looking down the barrel of an angry California now.  They had plenty of time to act responsibly, but they elected to exploit and even encourage the prejudices and ignorance of the public.

Again, I doubt California will win, though.

[redmenace]

They do have free speech rights, don't they?

And not all of California is angry, just the AG and whoever supports him.

[perihelion]

I fail to see what free speach has to do with it.  Please elaborate.

[redmenace]

You are saying they should be punished for resisting emmission changes and I am saying they can create what ever BS reports they want.