The State of California filed
suit yesterday against General Motors, Ford, the Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler, Toyota Motor, Honda Motor, and Nissan Motor. The contention of the complaint is that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer pegged current damages at ``tens of millions of dollars.'' He said the amount could grow as the lawsuit fight continues over time.
This is now the second legal battle between California and automakers. There is currently a suit filed by automakers in the U.S. District Court in Fresno to block implementation of California's new law regulating greenhouse gas emissions, on the grounds that California lacks the jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce. There is also a case pending for the Supreme Court, between Massachusets and the EPA over whether the Federal government should be required to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That case will be heard this coming session.
``Money is being spent in our regulatory system preparing for small disruptions in the water supply due to the smaller snow pack, saltwater intrusion of the water supply, beach erosion,'' Lockyer said in an interview Wednesday. ``There is a lot of spending that is already ongoing that we are claiming. The point is, taxpayers shouldn't pay for those damages, the industry should.''
So, the questions are, is it the cars which cause global warming, or the people who drive them, and can the automakers even be reasonably blamed for the effects of the proper, legal use of their product to begin with?
According to Lockyer, automobiles account for 30% of carbon dioxide emissions in the air in California, while nationwide, they account for 20%. But that other 70% becomes very tricky. An average cow produces half of the carbon dioxide emissions of the average car. Are meat and dairy consumers or farmers contributing to the "public nuisance" of global warming? What about population? In one year, the average person produces 5% of the carbon dioxide emissions of an automobile. Since surely people themselves are not a public nuisance, does this justify the state placing legal limits on reproduction?
And of course, this ought to go without saying, but what about the consumers of these automobiles? Aren't they responsible for using a product that contributes to the detriment of the entire community? Is it fair to blame GM and not consumers when GM marketed an electric car in California, only to see it not sell? Is it fair to blame Ford when millions of residents of Los Angeles have access to mass transit yet choose to sit on the 405?
I'm on record here as being opposed to an increase in the gasoline tax. But I'd support that long before I supported this. Can anyone explain to me how this isn't the most frivolous lawsuit imaginable?