SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California sued six of the world's largest automakers over global warming on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of dollars in damages.


The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said.It also comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation's first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

An automaker trade group called the global warming move a "nuisance suit." Car manufacturers have also held up California state rules to force cuts in tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks with legal action of their own.The lawsuit names General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., the Chrysler Motors Corp. U.S. arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler AG and the North American units of Japan's Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd..

"(California) just passed a new law to cut global warming emissions by 25 percent and that's a good start and this lawsuit is a good next step," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program.Lockyer told Reuters he would seek "tens or hundreds of millions of dollars" from the automakers in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for past and ongoing contributions to global warming and asks that the companies be held liable for future monetary damages to California.It noted that California is spending millions to deal with reduced snow pack, beach erosion, ozone pollution and the impact on endangered animals and fish."The injuries have caused the people to suffer billions of dollars in damages, including millions of dollars of funds expended to determine the extent, location and nature of future harm and to prepare for and mitigate those harms, and billions of dollars of current harm to the value of flood control infrastructure and natural resources," it said.

Ford deferred comment to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which called the complaint a "nuisance suit" similar to one a New York court dismissed."Automakers will need time to review this legal complaint, however, a similar nuisance suit that was brought by attorneys- general against utilities was dismissed by a federal court in New York," the industry group said in a statement.

Toyota declined to comment as the company evaluates the lawsuit. The other automakers had no immediate comment.David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit organization that provides public research and forecasts into the industry, said it would be tough for the industry to immediately meet demands from some critics.

Adoption of diesel engine emissions technology or gasoline- electric hybrids comes at great cost and improving gas mileage also likely means smaller lighter vehicles, trade-offs that are not attractive to consumers, he added."These are not free technologies, they are very expensive," Cole said. "Most people are price sensitive."

In the complaint, Lockyer charges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming and have harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of the most populous state in the United States.

Lockyer -- a Democratic candidate for state treasurer in the November election -- said the lawsuit states 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."

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2006 3:41:04 PM

Are they suing everyone else who burns fossil fuels, like power plants, industry, etc.?

It's not just car exhaust putting CO2 in the environment.

9/20/2006 3:43:26 PM

hahahaha - whose idea was this

9/20/2006 3:43:55 PM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-09-20T184120Z_01_N20205902_RTRIDST_0_ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS-UPDATE-3.XML

9/20/2006 3:44:34 PM

Also boats and airplanes - they should sue those guys too.

9/20/2006 3:44:46 PM

How about the people who drive the cars? Or the fuel that goes into the vehicles that actually CAUSES the emissions.

This is an attention-whore suit and that's all it is.

Even though I would like to cut CO2 emissions too, I wish these car companies refused to abide by new California standards and they all had to drive their old POS cars until they submitted.

9/20/2006 3:51:47 PM

"Your honor, our product does not emit CO2 by itself. The CO2 was emitted because our customers, beyond our control and without our knowledge, insisted on filling the vehicle with gasoline, a product not even our own, and driving it hundreds of thousands of miles. Surely we cannot be held responsible for what other people have done with our products."

"Are we next to be held responsibile whenever an individual drives one of our vehicles through the property of 3rd parties? Surely, if someone is to be blamed it would be those actually inflicting the harm."

9/20/2006 4:01:13 PM

Quote :

"Lockyer -- a Democratic candidate for state treasurer in the November election -- said the lawsuit states 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." "

But did they do it in accordance with state laws and regulations? IOW if it was wrong, why wasn't it legislated, especialy out in california where they just legislated that wireless devices come with warning stickers telling people they're wireless devices.

9/20/2006 4:01:46 PM

The land of fruits and nuts.

Might as well sue God as well since humans and other animals exhale a lot of CO2.

9/20/2006 4:07:45 PM

After government successfully sued tobacco, bullshit lawsuits like this were only a matter of time. Apparently, the way to solve government's money "problem" is to sue groups of companies.

If California was really serious about reducing pollution in their state, they would take action to reduce the state's population.

If California was really serious about reducing greenhouse gases, they would take action to reduce the number of coal-fired power plants and the amount of industry in their state.

Unfortunately, California hates nuclear power and likes the tax revenue that population and industry create. Therefore, the only clear alternative is a lawsuit.

9/20/2006 4:13:17 PM

Coal-Fired power plants? In California? WTF are you talking about? California has nuclear power plants btw.

Arnold just signed into law a bill which would mandate that business greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. It includes a provision for pollution credits which could be bought and sold in a market system. CO2 sequestration is about to become big business out on the left coast.

But yeah, Lockyer is a fucking joke. He reminds me a lot of Spitzer up in NY.



[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : 2]

9/20/2006 4:35:46 PM

not to mention:

american car manufacturers sued california first for passing legislation limiting CO2 emissions for future vehicles.

9/20/2006 4:42:31 PM

^^ I stand corrected on coal fired plants in California. However, California does purchase a significant amount of electricity from coal-fired plants in adjacent states.

^ The lawsuit is to determine whether California has the legal standing to impose some of restrictions in their recent legislation.

9/20/2006 4:56:43 PM

That they mandated other industries operating in California to reduce emissions != suing them for the one's they legally produced.

9/20/2006 5:14:23 PM

i don't know which is more ridiculous

the law suit itself or the idiotic replies found in this thread

9/20/2006 9:17:31 PM

They could file a counterclaim for the breathing all these people are doing.

9/21/2006 7:50:37 AM

What. the. fuck.

Suing over something that is still largely a theory?

9/21/2006 8:27:24 AM

We're talking about California here, not a rational state

9/21/2006 8:30:32 AM

Quote :

"Coal-Fired power plants? In California? WTF are you talking about? California has nuclear power plants btw."

Just FYI:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/database/POWER_PLANTS.XLS

All power plants in California (as of Jan 2004) that generate > .1 MW.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 8:32 AM. Reason : ..]

9/21/2006 8:32:18 AM

This is why I hate California.

Quote :

"Even though I would like to cut CO2 emissions too, I wish these car companies refused to abide by new California standards and they all had to drive their old POS cars until they submitted."

I agree, see how long those politicians last when the Beverly Hills crowd can't buy their new cars.

9/21/2006 1:33:08 PM

Na, all the regulations and lawsuits will do is drive up the price of cars.

The yuppies will blame the car companies for the pollution AND the higher prices!

9/21/2006 2:17:36 PM

Quote :

"Na, all the regulations and lawsuits will do is drive up the price of cars. The yuppies will blame the car companies for the pollution AND the higher prices!"

Yep, I can see all the yuppies around here who really care about the high price of cars. That's why they all drive European automobiles. I'm sure when the price of a BMW goes from $30,000 to $35,000, all the people currently spending $800,000 on their 2000 sq ft homes will just stop buying in droves.



Oh right, yes, speaking of which -- I truly expect all the European car manufacturers to disagree whole-heartedly with California's emissions standards. That seems to be the European trend -- not caring about the environment or over-regulating automobiles.

California is mostly Democrat-on-Democrat politics, especially in the bay area. When you see commercials for candidates, it's usually about who has the most aggressive record on <insert pet issue here, usually the environment>. This guy is doing everything in his power to position himself.

Schwarzenegger was smart enough to realize this, so he signed the ridiculous global warming law. Unfortunately it set the bar that much higher, for the time being, to be more aggressive.

Ultimately I tend to think that California does all it can to milk revenue from people without raising taxes, like any state. The DMV may as well be a branch of the IRS. I'm sure in the long run the legislature will find another way to make us pay.

9/26/2006 3:55:42 AM

I haven't really read through this but here is a great idea

All these auto makers stop selling cars in CA.


Car Makers: "OK it looks like you people in California don't really want cars so we are gonig to stop selling them there."

Public: "pwnt >.<"

9/26/2006 7:56:57 AM

^ Cute fantasy, but when California alone is the tenth largest economy on the planet, it would hurt the carmakers more to lose such a massive market. Besides, when California makes a change in emissions laws, most states tend to follow suit.

9/26/2006 8:39:07 AM

most states have not followed suit, california has more stringent emission restrictions than most states

9/26/2006 8:58:16 AM

^This is correct.

Most states have lower emission standards than California. Who follows suit is auto-makers. They make all their cars abide by California standards and then we get California standards via proxy.

We free-ride on their standards.

9/26/2006 9:39:02 AM

^^^ Not necessarily.

I could imagine a world where all new-car lots are moved across the border into Nevada. Then, agents go buy new cars in Nevada then sell them in "like-new" car lots inside California for the lazy. I am, of course, assuming used cars are exempt from the regulations.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 9:45 AM. Reason : ^]

9/26/2006 9:44:36 AM

Hmm...interesting

9/26/2006 9:45:26 AM

Quote :

"I could imagine a world where all new-car lots are moved across the border into Nevada. Then, agents go buy new cars in Nevada then sell them in "like-new" car lots inside California for the lazy. I am, of course, assuming used cars are exempt from the regulations. "

Cars will still have to pass california's emissions testing.

9/26/2006 12:23:39 PM

It depends how the law is written.
If it must pass the standards to drive them then yes, the car companies will make cars that meet the standards and get filthy rich while everyone in the state of California is forced to purchase a new car.

On the other hand, if it only needs to pass the standards if the car was manufactured after 2008 then this may not happen at all. If cars that meet inspection are overly expensive then the people of California will learn to live with pre-2008 automobiles.

As people in the rest of the country buy new 2009 models the people of California will buy their old trade-ins since older models are exempt and new models are prohibitively expensive. It is conceivable that this turn of events might even increase pollution levels in California as older cars are invariably less efficient and possibly need tuneups.

We have a similar situation here in NC. Cars made 1995 and before are exempt from rigid emissions testing while getting their inspection. They intentionally set the standards low so this is not that big a deal, but if they went to extremes the cost associated with getting a newer model could become prohibitive for most people.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/26/2006 1:07:14 PM