Thursday, September 21, 2006

Good career move of the day: Lockyer sues auto companies

Now that global warming is so far advanced that it is even affecting Mars, someone has decided to take on the real villains: the auto manufacturers.
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.
The Press Release from the Attorney General's office explains:
The complaint alleges 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,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a “public nuisance” is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.
(h/t: California Insider).

It is interesting that the auto makers' offense is being framed as simply making the cars that emit the greenhouse gasses. According to the Press Release:
Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint.
How do these statistics fit into the argument? Here is 20 or 30 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that would not have existed if only they had not made any cars? Doesn't this have to involve some sense of what they should have done differently, and on what scale, and what difference it would have made?

As ridiculous as the anti-tobacco lawsuits were, the argument was not simply that cigarettes cause cancer and tobacco companies make them. The tobacco companies were accused of deceiving the public about the dangers of tobacco, marketing to children, etc. As these lawsuits become more commonplace, the lawyers seemingly don’t need to bother anymore to spell out any precise wrongdoing.

No comments: