I remember reading about an environmental group that argued for zero population. Not zero population growth, zero people. They figured there was only one way to return nature to its, um, natural state: take humans out of the equation. I don’t recall their plan to achieve this goal, but I don’t think it involved automobiles. After all: no people, no cars, no pollution. Done. California’s tree huggers may not adhere to the same logical extreme, but c’mon, can someone please knock some sense into the state’s eco-warriors before they do something really stupid?
Yesterday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan. The suit alleges that these companies’ vehicles damaged the ozone layer hovering over California. The People seek unspecified financial damages for the diminution of the state’s snow packs, beaches, ozone layer and endangered animals. Clearly, The Golden State has kicked their anti-car agenda back into high gear.
Now we could ignore the political grandstanding that triggered this eminently dismissible lawsuit (they followed all your environmental regulations and you’re suing them?) and get into a debate about whether or not carbon dioxide is an environmental hazard. But let’s just assume it is. Is treating law-abiding automakers like criminals really the best way to sort out their products’ environmental impact? It’s like a bunch of social workers suing the Attorney General’s office for not forcing the legislature to pass more stringent laws against pedophiles, so they could enforce them.
Of course, there are plenty of people who assume that automobile manufacturers are criminals. The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” reflects the generally held belief that automakers are deeply, fundamentally corrupt organizations who will gladly sacrifice “the public good” for their shareholder’s gain. They’ll rip up mass transit lines, pretend they can’t build cars that get 100 miles to a gallon, subvert safety and environmental regulations, send jobs abroad, lie, cheat and steal— anything to avoid doing the “right thing.” The logical corollary: the carmakers’ [alleged] foot-dragging must be stopped at any and all costs.
Never mind that these same critics drive cars. Never mind that the society in which they live depends on the automobile for its social, economic and genetic well-being. Never mind that automakers have eliminated virtually all of their products’ harmful pollutants AND increased their fuel efficiency AND increased passenger safety AND maintained the finished products’ affordability AND generated billions in annual tax revenue AND created tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled jobs. Automakers– and automobiles– are the enemy within.
If you want to know where this is heading, look at England. In the name of public health, London hits-up motorists entering the city center with a “congestion charge." In the name of public health, large public areas have been pedestrianized and the number of public parking spaces reduced. In the name of public health, the government levies astronomical taxes on petrol, cars and car licenses. In the name of public health, the government dictates the number of houses that can be built, the number of parking spaces those houses can provide and the location of those houses (to minimize car use and maximize the use of public transportation).
Maybe you’re OK with all that. But the results aren’t exactly as intended. Car use (i.e. “pollution”) has continued to increase. Meanwhile, the country’s public transportation system has become extremely over-crowded (in addition to dirty, unreliable and expensive). Urban congestion (and jobs) has been exported to outlying areas. Decent, affordable housing for middle class buyers is practically non-existent. And speaking of class, motoring’s prohibitive expense puts automotive ownership completely out of reach for lower income workers and lowers the standard of living for the middle class. This situation does nothing to alleviate class resentment, and much to increase it.
And that’s the single biggest issue facing those who would seek to limit America’s automotive “addiction”— whether they know it or not. The automobile is, literally, social mobility. Cars are the platelets in the body politic. By keeping cars and car ownership relatively cheap, our populace can feed outlying areas with employment and business, spreading economic well-being both socially and geographically. Of course, detractors would argue that our cars are also spreading pollution and environmental destruction further and faster, but they’re missing the point.
Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. If you view the car as a planet-killing demon and move to restrict its use, or try to tax it to death, or regulate it into a corner, success will evoke the law of unintended consequences. Greenhouse gasses may be a threat to our children’s future, but there are other threats we should also consider before we take drastic steps to “solve” the problem. Perhaps California should work with automakers, rather than against them.
Someone is going to lose face big time; and its not the automakers.
While you’re at it, have a look at this:
http://www.newspress.co.uk/DAILY_LINKS/arc_sep_2006/51274nis.htm
I am curious as to what percentage of total polution the auto produces compared to other polluting industries. Does anybody know where to find such statistics?
Also as the human population increases our own output of CO2 increases – more people breathing. Maybe we need to start eliminating some humans as well.
I’ve said it before: it’s a ploy to boost Der Gropinator’s enviro cred in an election year. He’s not safe, no matter what the poll say. Nobody likes him that much. If the Dem gov candidates hadn’t self destructed in the Dem primary, he’d be really sweating right now.
California is more ‘publican than you would think, but everyone cares about enviromental issues there.
In the name of public health, London hits-up motorists entering the city center with a “congestion charge.”
My understanding was that this was an attempt to reduce traffic in the city center. And that it was successful at doing that.
The state of London public transport is a different story, namely a complicated, failed privatization scheme. It was that way long before the congestion charge, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Also, there is this comment from http://thedredge.org/2005/01/the-state-of-london-transport/:
When London transport goes wrong, it’s an almighty drag. But I’m always stunned at the scale of what it manages to achieve. London is a huge city, and I can get pretty much anywhere in it for £4.30. I think that’s pretty cool.
Mr. Farago,
Thank you. What Mr. Lockyer is pursuing should not even be given the dignity of the title of “lawsuit”, but should instead be called what it really is, extortion.
Oh, and:
Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise.
Gee, based on the behavior of the current occupiers of our current executive branch, I thought it was the art of ‘my way or the highway.’
I’m sure the lawsuit will be thrown out since it is political pandering… but you know what they say:
California is the land of fruits and nuts.
I guess their next move will be to sue the National Park Service for allowing Mount St. Helens to erupt and spew all the ash and greenhouse gasses it produced into the environment. Oh, and the National Weather Service because of the wind currents that blew it over California.
Hey, two can play the brinksmanship game, wonder what would happen if one of those automakers announced that all of their dealers in CA would be closed in 6 months and all warranty service would need to be performed in a bordering state because that automaker could no longer make a profit there and was unwilling to assume the potential liability caused by of selling cars there? The AG would probably be stoned to death be irate Nissan dealers or Honda owners.
Unfortunately, CA is the biggest car market in the country, which is the only thing that makes this BS possible. If RI or MS tried this crap….
I find the lawsuit as dumb as the people who say we should all take public transportation. The real solution is some kind of alternative fuel combined with more fuel efficient vehicles.
I live in a large urban area (hint: one of the top 4 most populated cities in the US) and still, when I go 60 miles out to the suburbs on Sunday to see a friend, it’s either 75 minutes by car or 6-8 hours by bus & train. I’m not joking….
I also tried once to go to a city a few hours north of me for a wedding, by train. EVERYONE I knew said “don’t go by train, take your car” and I ignored them and when I got there late (train delay) and wanted to get something to eat, public transport had long since stopped and it was 7 miles to the nearest resturant.
I am all for having better public transporation and would be willing to pay $6-$7/gallon (as long as that cost is passed on to me ONLY via direct gasoline purchase) to build 24 hour rapid transit, however it will never happen because the majority of americans will NOT pay this and it would be political suicide for any politican to agree to gasoline taxes like that.
Unless you already live next to public transport already (I do) and it goes exactly where you want (it does) and during rush hour (I don’t go during rush hour) it doesn’t provide a viabale alternative to a personal vehicle.
Yet another example of why I left the “Golden” state after 30 years and moved to the ultra conservative stronghold of Vermont.
Whitenose:
London’s congestion charge was brought in by Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone who publicly declared he’d ban all cars if he could.
The primary aguement for the CG: congestion causes pollution. Save our kids!
Those treehuggers are not environmentalists, but misanthropes.
I’ve read somewhere, that the cows on mother earth produce more greenhouse gases than the cars. So maybe we should sue them as well and tax their farts.
It just shows how out of touch Sacramento is with the rest of the state — how on earth are they not be suing BMW, too?
I see more 3 and 5-series than I do Altimas and Sentras. I would bet my dirty lungs that there are ten times as many 7-series in LA than their are Fusions and Five-Hundreds combined.
In fact, that building there in front of me is being obscured by the tailpipe of an X5 — I can tell.
Water vapor & clouds make up 70% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. CO2 is only 2.5%. Who are we going to sue about that!?!? People that sweat? People that boil water when they cook? How about those people that irresponsibly allow water to evaporate out of the pool in their back yards? So much negligence – its everywhere!
There’s a whole gamut of issues here… I agree that going after the automakers is like preaching to the converted. Legal action [might] have made sense 50 years ago when we were driving around on leaded fuel while GM and Standard Oil were buying up America’s tram lines and ripping them out, but these days, lawnmowers produce more gaseous toxins than cars.
The ill-concieved restrictions happening in Britian should not be copied here, but it’s fun to play “what could have been.” Cities with pedestrian zones can boast pleasant, virbrant street life -just park your car close by and enjoy it. Look at the island of Manhattan, which urbanized and developed rapid public transit before Ford’s Model T. For most of its inhabitants, it makes far more sense to rely on cabs and subways than own your own car, but if you like driving, there’s big wide streets and highways (most of them free).
We can’t change the fact that not every American city is Manhattan. Although this country’s vast suburbia was built for cars, there’s no reason why we can’t have it all. If our governments want to reduce our auto-dependence, instead of going after automakers, they should be encouraging transit-focused, compact urban development in our city cores, for people who want to live that way (rich and poor). But the bureaucrats don’t want to spend tax dollars on subways, or twist developer’s arms into building dense, so it’s much easier to concoct a lawsuit against some scapegoat.
Without viable alternatives, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.
I find the fact that this lawsuit is taking place in California the ultimate in hypocrisy – the single-most car dependent city in the US is LA. You simply cannot survive there without a car. So, what does the Cal government do? Sue the automakers, because of course it isn’t their fault that people drive so much.
As for the efficacy of public transportation, I agree 100% with Robstar. If public transportation where halfway decent, cars would not be driven nearly as much. I live in Chicago, and instead of taking the El (45-55 minutes) or a bus (30-40 minutes) to work, I ride a moped in every day. It takes me 10-15 minutes, and I don’t have to worry about parking. That might not seem like a lot, but it means at least 1 hour more in the office a day, which is huge for my line of work (damn billable hour).
Robert, it’s another of your entertaining articles and with a number of points well worth considering, especially the workings of the law of unintended consequences. And I realize that polemics perhaps requires a certain amount of hyperbole for entertainment’s sake and to put across your point, but this entire subject (and others) might be better served without the need to materially distort positions held by others so that they end as mere caricatures. Yes it’s true that the California lawsuits are a form of political pandering, but it’s not necessay to conflate this silliness with the various efforts to develop more enlightened environmental policies. Can we not elevate these conversations with a greater respect for others’ points of view?
Hey you guys have a state with tree huggers.We got a country full of them.
Just try riding a bicycle in south ONTARIO,about mid january.
The car haters think its a great idea.
The anti-car agenda goes way beyond the car, or even social mobility. It is based on ideas which are irrational and against our most fundamental values of freedom. Most people who go along with the anti-car legislation and similar kooky laws probably do not comprehend the implications of the underlying ideas. These underlying ideas are the most serious threat we face in Western civilization. I hate to go philisophical, but the car is the embodiement of freedom and the threat to it is real and only the beginning of the march against the individual. The problem is not crazy grandstanding politicians – wewill always have them to contend with. The problem is the philosophy behind their craziness.
Read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand if you want to see where many people want to lead us. I will get off my soap box now, and jump in my car.
There are so many things wrong with this situation I do not know where to begin! A Governer that drives Hummers, a State built on gluttonous practices, a pathetic public transit system provided by the state. I would love for someone to post some info regarding what those involved in this lawsuit drive. I imagine some LX460’s, S600’s, Escalades, 750iL’s…
And even if this suit did have merit, why are they including Honda in the battle?? They don’t even sell a V8!! I do not have the CAFE figures handy, but I imagine Honda would have amoung the best ratings in the NA industry! Absolutely ridiculous.
A big “Wag of the Finger” (Thank you Mr. Colbert.) to all those involved in this, especially Mr. Lockyer.
nutbags:
According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2003 human activity generated 25,664.14 million metric tons of GHGs. Of that the EPA says that American passenger cars produced 654.6 MMT or 2.55%. Light trucks, which include all SUVs and trucks weighing less than 8,500 lbs, produced another 496.3 MMT for 1.93% of the worldwide total. Combined, American cars and light trucks account for 4.48% of the worldwide total. This source, however, does not distinguish Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks used by private citizens vs. those used by government and commercial industries.
EPA report of transportation-generated emissions of GHGs (see Appendix A for figures).
Why not endorse the automakers and car buyers that are doing something positive? Tax-free hybrids? Government rebates on fuel-efficient models?
With these sort of incentives, GM and Ford might actually refresh their engine lineup.
Mr. Waingrow:
As long as the epithet “tree-hugger” can be tossed around, a reasoned debate is impossible. It’s a well-poisiner.
Them “Oil-Whores” is smart.
I read this morning that the lawsuit against California by the Federal Government IS proceeding, in order to stop California’s back-door attempts at regulating MPG, which the Federal Government (right or wrong) has usurped for itself, and claims legal jurisdiction over.
Here is another take on the same subject from theautochannel.com –
Quote:
Attorney General’s Suit Against Automakers Should Also Name ALL Californians
Humans Emit 2.5 Pounds of CO2, a Greenhouse Gas, Every Day
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 20 — All comments may be attributed to John Merchant, chairman, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse:
“In his latest crusade, Attorney General Bill Lockyer has decided to sue automakers, arguing they have created a public nuisance by building cars – cars which emit greenhouse gases. He’s requesting that a jury award monetary damages as well as attorney fees and costs, but he’s missing out on the really big money with this one.
“The AG’s complaint overlooks 36 million other sources of greenhouse gas emissions — the human beings occupying California who ought to be sued for ‘negligent breathing.’
“Californians each emit about 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2 – a greenhouse gas) every day just by breathing. If you multiply 2.5 pounds of CO2 per day by 36 million Californians by 365 days, that’s more than 16 million tons of CO2 just from breathing. Talk about a public nuisance … and don’t even get me started on the methane people produce.
“This lawsuit is a public nuisance. Activist attorneys general who abuse our legal system and impose a system of ‘government by lawsuit’ to gain publicity and further their own political agenda do so at the expense of the people they are paid to represent. Inevitably the costs of litigation in cases like this will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Just what we all need.”
Unquote.
As for my opinion? Well, if I were King – I mean President of Toyota – I’d simply say:
“California? So sorry. Your attorney general only wants low CO2 vehicles? Fine. From tomorrow, we’re emptying all Toyota, Scion and Lexus dealer lots of new and used cars and shipping them off to the other 49 states, except for new and used hybrids – but we’re only going to ship the same number of new hybrids to California that we would have prior to this change. So, there is now a severe shortage of new Toyotas available for sale in California. So sorry, blame the California Attorney General, please.”
“And oh, by the way, we’re suing the State of California in Federal Court for extortion with menaces, and also filing a second lawsuit in Federal Court asking for damages of billions in lost revenues in the state of California. We’re also going to increase our advertising funds in the state by 500% in order to discredit the AG and his actions in the eyes of the public, who may well want to form a lynching party, especially if honorable Honda, Nissan and other companies join us and refuse to sell anything except hybrids in California.”
“We can also employ lawyers, Mr. California Attorney General. We’ll see you in Federal Court.”
“Oh yes. We’ve just laid-off all workers at the NUMMI plant in California and closed the plant, since the cars and trucks manufactured there are not hybrids; we’ll be importing vehicles to replace the output of this plant. So sorry, blame the California AG.”
But of course, it would never happen, would it? Or, could it?
The London congestion charge isn’t fundamentally about the environment. London’s public transportation system, particularly the rail system is old, slow, dirty and unsafe (just look back at the number of accidents). Its due to a lack of investment. As a result an increasing number of people who work in London (England is very capital centric for many industries like banking/finance) started bring their cars into central London. Ken Livingstone’s “congestion charge” is all about taxing those people. Most of them aren’t Londoners (i.e. they live in “posh” dormitory towns on the periphery) so it didn’t damage his political standing – probably even enhanced it for the inverted snobs of London.
The CA AT’s move is motivated by something else IMO – by Lockyer’s political ambitions as he’s up against term limits as Atty Genl so is running for Treasurer next. I hope we can dump him at the election!
Look at this way,its one issue that the import lovers and the domestic lovers agree on.
I’m for not selling cars in CA anymore. And once that’s done, we can start eliminating some evil, greenhouse-gas producing humans. Starting with California’s Attorney General.
The whole thing is just Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
If you dig deep into the politics of this, you can’t help but come to the conclusion that Environmentalism is the new Socialism.
Not to hijack the thread, but I second the “Atlas Shrugged” suggestion by johnnycam. It was especially appropriate earlier this week with the comments discussion of Penn Central Rail and how nobody expected it to go bankrupt because it was too big to do so, and what might happen if the government did jump into the domestic auto industry fray and try to keep GM and/or Ford afloat. Hijack off.
The london congestion charge is just another tax disguised by the london mayor to bring money in, which is collected by an inefficient system that uses the bulk of that money to run itself and so london never sees the figures of income that its supposed to, traffic levels are still high after a brief blip at the beginning and the only real change has been lost business, look at the uproar caused when the plans to expand it were announced. The car tax is just another way for the government to rip off british society, another tax on top of the others like petrol that us Brits seem to constantly and increasingly pay for services we know we cannot do without, you americans dont realise how lucky you are. Would you pay $8 a gallon? As ever the public transport is antiquated and no real alternative to owning your own vehicle for convenience which will never change, there or anywhere else in the world.
Though it means well, this cali thing, like the London Mayor sounds like a publicity attempt aiming for political points with an alterior motive, and this coming from a governors office who drives an H1?!
This isn’t about science at all. The key here is that science acknowledges that it doesn’t know what actually happens, readily accepts alternate theories, and when the leading theory is debunked it is celebrated and nobody gets burned at the stake.
That’s the difference between blind belief and educated belief. Educated believers are willing to be challenged, and accept anything that has sufficient evidence.
The processes involved in change that happens over millennia, be they issues of climate, changes in biological stucture, or even the geological makeup of the planet, cannot be observed accurately and totally by a single human observer, and cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. It is pointless therefore to use scientific theory about these long-term phenomena to advance political adgendas.
By all means these things should be studied, theories and postulations thought, taught, discussed and argued – in the scientific realm. NOT in the political realm however.
I saw a 350 lb guy cross the street yesterday. The labor of carrying his own weight made him hyperventilate a little, panting like a dog and emitting all the CO2. I could feel the globe warming and wanted to sue him and those not in good shape on the spot.
On another note, runners and those who exercise a lot not only breath too much and emit CO2, but all the protein they require causes the deaths of the animals eat. People in good physical should also be sued at the same time.
Ahhh those damned ‘tree-huggers’. Me personally, I hate trees. But seriously California should sue itself first. The main reason you have to drive so much there is urban sprawl. Poor urban planning that makes it impossible to set up a practical public transportation system. In nyc you don’t even have to own a car… I didn’t for about 10 years. Would just rent one if I wanted to get out of the city. But ironically, while I’m all for public transportation, I can’t stand using it. I will always drive rather than subject myself to the disease breeding ground that is the ny subway system. But yeah that lawsuit is rediculous for all kinds of reasons. I didn’t realize der governator was behind it. Thats irony upon ironies…
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I must concur with Whitenose – the London Congestion Charge is primarily designed to reduce congestion. As a long-time resident of inner-city London, I think it’s worked quite well. If you want to drive across the city during the day, you now can. But it costs. That’s supply and demand. The Romans only designed for one car per household.
Also the lack of affordable housing in London owes more to the economic success of this place, than any restrictions on building. Despite the massive amount of housing built in London is the last 20 years (easily hundreds of thousands in the Docklands), there are just so many high-earners here (banking, insurance, media, wealthy foreigners etc), that average people can’t compete. Again, that’s supply and demand.
I’m disappointed that nobody else has mentioned zoning as a prime cause of urban sprawl. Older cities in the East that were built before zoning laws have dense urban centers with single family homes, apartments, commercial and retail space all mixed together, which makes public transit economically viable. Newer cities in the West built after zoning keep these areas widely separated from one another, which does two things: It makes an automobile a neccessity, and it makes it almost impossible to have any kind of public transportation system that can run withough massive subsidies.
It seems what the CA AG is overlooking is the State’s own complicity in the dominance of the automobile.
If CA wanted to reduce the amounts of car-related pollution in their state then long ago they should have greatly expanded some form of electric-powered mass transit and created vast car-free zones in their urban centers. When the suburbs were expanding, they should have expanded the system out to reach it, actively promoted sidewalks and bike lanes in all housing developments and roads, maybe even installed bicyle only lanes alongside the freeways, or whatever. Instead they, like many other states and municpalities, either promoted the growth of auto sales or at worst did nothing and let the problem create itself.
The NY postal systems once-great pneumatic tube system stands as yet another grand testimoney to the collution between the government and the auto industry to promote the dominance of internal combustion drive vehicles:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.05/tubes.html
As a Californian, I’m embarrassed. Doubly, since I’m a Democrat. I feel a personal repsonsibility to apologize to the collective sensibilities of TTAC bretheren on behalf of the nutcases in this state.
dolo – you hit the nail on the head: California designed and structured this state, from the ground up, to be 100% dependent upon the automobile. Now, Lockyer wants to sue car makers???
I’d say, we need to straighten up our act first. Why is it that when I lived in Seattle, I could easily walk to two neighborhood supermarkets? In San Jose, I *must* drive my car. I’ve tried to walk to the store here, but I have to cross a very busy four-lane road where people (admittedly, me too) drive well past the speed limit. It’s not something I want to do very often. Try running with four grocery bags.
Public transit isn’t easily accessible in almost all of this state (except San Francisco). San Jose’s light rail system doesn’t fully serve the city’s needs and doesn’t connect to BART even after 20 years of existence. Don’t EVEN get me started on GM’s purchase of San Jose’s initial light-rail system after WW2. The incredible irony here is that it was politically expedient to replace trolleys with buses then, just as it is politically expedient today to point fingers at cars, the proliferation of which was GM’s ultimate goal back then. They were even found guilty of collusion and fined $5,000.
Bill Lockyer: you are trying to make a name for yourself in upcoming elections, and you should be ashamed. Instead, you are looking like the ultimate Loony Californian, and hopefully, you’ll be shown the door. We should also take away your car keys and driver’s license, and make it a capital crime if you are ever seen in any wheeled transport of any kind, except for public transit (enjoy sitting next to the mental patients California kicked out of its mental hospitals, buddy). Grab a clue, buy a vowel, you dimwit.
I enjoy the personal freedom and driving pleasure I get from my car just as much as anybody else in the world. I know the price I pay every time I turn the ignition key, both in actual and environmental costs. I continue to drive because I *must* and because it’s a damn good way to get around. Until politicians can provide the public with a better idea (yeah, right), shut the hell up.
This is so far out it’s really beyond debate. So I’ll just go ahead and say what’s on everyone’s mind; that the CA AG is a f*cking retard.
The automakers sued CA over the proposal to cut 30% of Co2 – i.e. decrease fuel consumption by that amount – where was the outrage about evil litigious bastards then?
Obviously this suit is response to automaker’s earlier one – something never mentioned in an editorial. In fact if automakers wouldn’t fight CA over its efforts to do something about greenhouse gases, not to mention oil consumption/demand, then CA wouldn’t need to take it to the courts.
The problems caused by cars aren’t on an individual basis, therefore the notion that “I’m personally OK with the environmental costs so politicians should do nothing,” is laughably stupid. If it was just one car there would be no problems with sprawl, congestion, pollution, greenhouse Co2.
“I’m okay with leaching PCBs into the water table, because I don’t give a damn about my own health and welfare.”
C’mon that’s libertarian idiocy taken to a towering new level of bizarre masochism and solopsistic selfishness.
I agree strongly with this statement someone else made (scroll down). I can also assure you that the situation, with congestion charges, and a slew of other regulations and taxes governing the use of cars in the US is going to get worse as the population increases. It’s booming, by the equivalent of four or five New Jerseys a decade. The Senate so-called immigration reform bill (McCain-Kennedy) would probably add another 100 million in the next 20 years, a 33% increase, which would really put a crimp in driving. Not only would it legalize illegals already here, and allow their close relatives to move here, but by allowing huge numbers of “guest workers” who would have their own paths to citizenship and bring their own relatives, it would foster a new industry that would be devoted to bringing cheap foreign labor to the US for big companies.
Schwarzenegger’s CO2 reduction plan? Doomed because California’s population is expected to increase 50% by mid-century, due to mass immigration (there is a net emigration of native US citizens from the state).
>>Robert, it’s another of your entertaining articles and with a number of points well worth considering, especially the workings of the law of unintended consequences. And I realize that polemics perhaps requires a certain amount of hyperbole for entertainment’s sake and to put across your point, but this entire subject (and others) might be better served without the need to materially distort positions held by others so that they end as mere caricatures. Yes it’s true that the California lawsuits are a form of political pandering, but it’s not necessay to conflate this silliness with the various efforts to develop more enlightened environmental policies. Can we not elevate these conversations with a greater respect for others’ points of view?
I wonder if the carmakers have grounds to pursue a libel charge…
It looks to me like Buffalo Bill in the pic above emits far too many greenhouse gases. Sue him!
Mr. Lieberman:
That’s it exactly. And for what great purpose? The country is poisoned with these certitudes. Isn’t there anyone still left with an open mind and a spirit of good will?
Sounds like the automobile is suffering from second hand emissions like the cigarette. Of course California will be the first state to have designated driving areas.
I have always thought that the urban planners/extreme environmentalists have always viewed Moscow circa 1972 as the ideal urban situation, the elites (them) in the back seats of the limos on the wide traffic free streets while the d***d proletariat are on the buses and trains where they belong. Of course, if this lawsuit is remotely close to being successful it will make the situation worse because it will substantially increase the prices of the newer and cleaner cars, thus keeping many more older and dirtier cars on the highways. It has long been known that reducing the number of older cars (especially over 20 years) is the easiest way to decrease car based emissions. So short of prohibiting car ownership amongst the poor, the situation would get worse. Of course the Cal. AG is not particularly concerned about whether he can afford a new car, so who cares about the stupid poor and lower middle classes. Get on the bus, loser!
I’ll have to go with what Joe C. said:
As a Californian, I’m embarrassed. Doubly, since I’m a Democrat. I feel a personal repsonsibility to apologize to the collective sensibilities of TTAC bretheren on behalf of the nutcases in this state.
If they’re going to sue people for breathing, there should be a counter-suit claiming that the C02 emitted by people is generally beneficial to the plant life of the state and that by banning human respiration, it would cause damage to the environment.
look – i know this is a car site and i realize that the audience is full of auto enthusiasts. i love cars too. lots. i was born and raised in flint michigan; my father and brother have over 60 years w/GM, i drive a boxster and my wife an slk. but lets get real. the world has changed over the last 100 years.
people have changed too and along with them – their expectations for many things and for many reasons. cars have also changed – and changed for the better in most cases – but unfortunately, just not enough for the conditions now confronting us.
like it or not, congestion in major cities – like san diego where i reside – is often intolerable and getting worse. like it or not, our environment is severely compromised and getting worse. and at the heart of both these unquestionably serious issues is the rampant proliferation and usage of the automobile. and so, like it or not, it only seems sensible to expect more changes in the future concerning our cars and our usage of them.
that auto manufacturers have resisted change in the past, regarding safety measures or fuel economy for example, is well documented, even though those changes, once finally enacted, have proven to be extremely beneficial for drivers and passengers alike. yes, elections are only six weeks away and there may be some pandering for political purposes going on, but it is also essential to remember that california is a leader/trend setter in many areas of contemporary life and, in this instance – in my opinion – california is simply pushing auto-makers to do what they are really not interested in doing, but something that desperately needs to be done nevertheless. if the threat of legal action and huge fines is what it takes to motivate reluctant manufacturers to produce cleaner, safer, more fuel-efficient cars then so be it.
sometimes, it is necessary for some to go ‘too far,’ in order to ensure that everyone else goes ‘far enough.’ fair enough?
Hmmm – maybe there’s a pattern appearing. As I drive every workday along US 101 toward San Jose I see bigger and bigger potholes. This must be part of CA’s cunning plan to keep those pesky cars off the roads and in the garages where they can’t emit anything (except the carcinogenic fumes from their plastic interiors).
CliffG:
Actually, the elites had a private subway system that would take them from the Kremlin to their nice Dachas (villas) 20 miles outside the city.
And you are 100% right about reducing the number of older cars.
Anyhow, any legislator who does anything car-related in California besides fixing the 405/101 interchange, the 110 through downtown, double-decking the 10 and the 101, widening the 405 by 54 lanes to the airport, getting semis off the 710 and constructing a duplicate of the Bay Bridge in SF/Oakland, should be convicted of treason and shot.
some one tail the AG..if he gets in a car sue him. see how he likes it. what a douche bag…
Excellent article! Most is also applicable to Swedish conditions. A “congestion charge” have been tried in Stockholm for some months (to astronomical costs). It is not so large a city and the commuter roads are too few and narrow. With the charge (called “taxâ€), the commuting by car decreased 25 %. Now, the Stockholmers have voted if they want the charge back. The minority actually living in the city want it back, but the vast commuting majority say no. Who could have guessed?
The old tale of GM buying up the street car companies to put them out of business (or replace the street cars with GM-manufacturered buses) is just that…a tale and nothing more.
Despite what everyone wants to believe, street car ridership had been declining since the 1920s, or before GM got involved. Ridership increased during World War II for obvious reasons – gas and tire rationining restricted driving.
National City Lines, a subsidiary of GM, DID buy the Los Angeles Railway (LARY) in 1944, and did replace some streetcar lines with buses. But guess what – GM was only continuing a LARY policy that had begun in 1930, or long before GM was on the scene. The replacement of street cars with buses was in response to ridership declines that had started in the 1920s. Buses were seen as more flexible than street cars, and the street car tracks made road maintenance more difficult. Urban governments were glad for the switch.
As for the court case that supposedly “proved” GM’s conspiracy to replace street cars – GM faced charges on two counts. The first was to acquire control of a number of transit companies, forming a transportation monopoly. The second was to c onspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and supplies to companies owned by National City Lines (its subsidiary). (emphasis added).
GM was acquitted on the first count. It was convicted on the second count, but what this means is that GM was conspiring to make sure that National City Lines only used GM-built buses. In other words, GM was convicted of trying to shut other bus manufacturers out of a market, NOT trying to replace street cars with bus lines.
Mass transit is one of the things that everyone favors – for everybody else. The attitude I see is – “I’m really in favor of mass transit. That way there would be so much less congestion when I drive, because all of those other drivers who really don’t need to be driving will be taking the bus. I, of course, NEED to drive.”
Our towns and cities are laid out for automobile convenience because that is what people have demanded. People prefer a single-family home on a spacious lot outside of the city. Surveys continually show this, and buying patterns back up the surveys. Europeans, incidentally, would also prefer this type of living, but their governments are much stricter about where people can build houses than most U.S. local governments are. Here in the East (I live in Pennsylvania), we’ve got lots of “old” (i.e., pre-automobile) cities. The downtowns are nice, and so are a few select neighborhoods. The outlying areas, however, are declining, as anyone with money leaves, while those who stay are stuck, and let their neighborhoods go to the dogs.
Most people – especially those with children – still prefer the suburbs or smaller towns, and still won’t give up their personal vehicles. And a fair number of city residents are 20-somethings who live in the city until they get married. Then they move to the suburbs as soon as the kids arrive.
Incidentally, I just spent time in Germany and Great Britain (London, Leeds). Despite excellent mass transit and compact cities, there were still lots of cars on the road, and congestion in the major cities, especially London.
King Elvis – the suit launched by the automobile manufacturers against California was over whether this was a back-door attempt to regulate fuel economy, and whether California does, in fact, have the regulatory authority to control carbon dioxide emissions.
It’s a legitimate suit over very real questions of state and federal regulatory authority, and, for the record, California did NOT file this lawsuit in response to the earlier one.
As for the “problems caused by the automobile ” – you might want to do some research. Prior to the automobile, there was traffic congestion – only it was horse-drawn vehicles, not cars and trucks, causing the congestion. Which meant that those horses were emitting pollutants of a different kind, which caused its own serious health problems (tetanus in humans, for one). Imagine all the flies that horse manure attracted.
During hot summer months, it wasn’t uncommon for overworked horses to drop dead on the spot, which is one reason why the Humane Societies of the day welcomed the arrival of the automobile and trucks.
(One can’t also help but note that we’re all living longer than ever, despite all of the supposedly bad things the automobile-based lifestyle is doing to us. Reminds me of a caption of a cartoon I saw with two cavemen – “We exercise a lot, eat only fresh foods and don’t have any chemicals around. Then why is everyone dead by 30?”)
Pollution has been declining for decades, and the air has been cleaner than it has been at any time in the last 130 or so years, thanks to technology and the Clean Air Act. New cars are incredibly clean, so if you really want to eradicate pollution, you’ll advocate giving everyone a new car, which would not only further clean the air but also boost the economy.
As for sprawl – cities have been growing outward since Roman times. Last time I checked, there weren’t any cars during the Roman era. People with money have always sought to get away from the city…it’s just that since World War II, more Americans than ever before have had enough money to do what only the rich could do in the 19th century, thanks to the wealth generated, in part, by the automobile.
I have about six months until my inspection. In honor of the great state of California I’m taking the catalytic converters off of my 300c. I will also buy a fur coat, kill a small animal and dynamite a tree. Also I do not want a reasoned debate with tree hugging foul smelling hippie vermin. If Californians want to drive gay little cars that is their prerogative, it’s the great thing about western society that liberals hate. However I suggest that this ONE state keep its tofu encrusted, bottle tanned hands off of my V8, unless they want what Sherman did to Atlanta to be done to San Francisco.
Oh my gosh, you mean to say you Swedes actually have politicians which actually do things as asked for by real constituents? Things that benefit the constituents? And politicians who actually respect the constituents, and don’t just consider voters a “means” of gaining power?
Wow, what a revelation.
And here, we Americans think we live in a democracy. Never did. It (was once) a Republic, wherein people elect people who are supposed to represent their viewpoints (a true democracy would technically mean each of us voting on every single issue – we’d have time for nothing else).
The sad thing is, we Americans obviously don’t even live in a Republic any more, though. And I’m not “blame everything on Bush” person, but instead blame all Democrats AND Republicans, thanks.
Kudos to the Swedes. May your majority rule the day on this question of taxing people just for traveling into Stockholm.
Perhaps if the minority win, the majority could say “ok, fine, I simply won’t come into Stockholm and spend any money, but will go on-line and order items from anyplace EXCEPT Stockholm, and eat at local restaurants and go to local theatres and cinemas.” Bet that would get their attention.
2006300c:
We’re coming for your V8 — and your guns, too!
Skidmarks and skunks come to mind…
Sure, pick on the earth-bound folks you can influence…forget about the spew from the crates crisscrossing the stratos, people wanna get where they’re going in a hurry.
Lockyer’s in his own little world with this one
geeber – Sure, GM wasn’t creating a transportation monopoly, so they wouldn’t be held accountable, and they ultimately didn’t want the transportation companies, just to supply buses. But, GM always knew that those same smoky, stinky buses would ultimately help convince people that their cars were a better means of transportation, even downtown.
philipwitak – Suburbs in California and elsewhere were never designed properly, especially after WW2. So, if California politicians want to reduce pollution, maybe their best move would be to legislate that in all new housing developments in the state beyond a minimal number, commercial-zoned land with a specific retail purpose should be centralized and no more than X blocks from the furthest home. This might create real, acceptable change that would foster a positive environmental impact.
To try to point blame today at a free-market industry which responded to demand over the past 100 years just feels ludicrous.
You guys are gonna love this. You might even get a chuckle out of my “slightly” sarcastic commentary within, as well. See for yourself.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/21/bajaj-auto-rickshaws-to-get-fuel-injectors-for-lgp-cng-models/
Yep. Motorized rickshaws – GM and Ford are decidedly missing the boat on this one for the California and N.E. US automotive (???) markets.
Martin Albright and others advocating a return to the urban lifestyle: I hope you aren’t proposing that it is preferable for people live in inner city tenement as they did in the days before P&Z commissions. Thank you very much, but I would rather live in my own home in the suburbs and endure the traffic.
2006300c:
Please, please do something to San Francisco…
Oh no the OC is coming for me, their so big and scary! My classmates and I are all pissed about this law suit and we’re moderates from a blue state (PA). The hard core conservatives in the reds are probably foaming at the mouth. Hoppin ass mad is the term I believe. Keep your hands off my V8 AND my .38.
OK to be serious, I voted with my pocket book and unlike many of you I went ahead and traded up (yes, traded up) to a 2005 Prius hybrid, and I’ve been averaging 45-50 mpg in the real world, about double the MPG that our comparable mid-sized V6 “second” car gets (now generally parked since my wife and I also now can carpool).
But let’s be realistic here. People should have the right to choose the vehicles they can afford and want, not be legislated via lawsuit for some group of nutcases who want utopia on earth (newsflash: ain’t gonnahappen dot com). California needs to have this Attorney General and probably most of the state house and senate, removed, impeached, fired, whatever.
If they are so fired-up about reducing CO2, it is within the rights of each state to legislate annual state license plate fees. If they want to “try it on”, see what happens if they do an expotentially sliding scale for annual tags in California, based upon weight, displacement and width and height (i.e. frontal area). That would be the logical way to go about the “retraining” of the population.
However, when the “average joe or jane” was faced with a $2000 annual license plate bill on a standard SUV in California, these politicos would probably all be seen dangling from a rope strung around a tree in about 20 minutes.
The politicians know it, too, so the cowards use these methods to try to force their agenda.
All: Let’s recall the full story here. Four years ago, when Calif required a minimum on emissions due to high congestion areas of polution, the auto-makers sued Calif. Here was their claim: 1) Automotive polution does not significantly impact the environment and 2) Automotive polution does not significantly impact the health of humans.
Both are complete lies.
What an IDIOT!!!!!
It’s obvious this is just a headline-grabbing move by an ambitious yet clueless politician. Cars don’t cause pollution. People do. This kind of ultra-left lunacy could only happen in California.
Why doesn’t this jackass sue the State of California for not mandating carpooling? Why isn’t he suing the Federal government for building the Interstate Highway System? Best of all, why not sue all of the consumers who insist on buying and actually driving fossil-fueled vehicles?
Joe C. Sure, GM wasn’t creating a transportation monopoly, so they wouldn’t be held accountable, and they ultimately didn’t want the transportation companies, just to supply buses. But, GM always knew that those same smoky, stinky buses would ultimately help convince people that their cars were a better means of transportation, even downtown.
So sneaky old GM didn’t monopolize the transportation network because its leadership knew, that in 30 or so years, people would try to blame it for replacing the street cars.
Apparently Alfred Sloan wasn’t just an organizational genius. He was also a psychic! Who knew?
Sorry, but what you posted doesn’t change these key facts:
The replacement of street cars with buses began BEFORE GM took over the lines.
A decline in the ridership of street car lines began in the 1920s, and was only interrupted by a growth spurt during World War II, before resuming its long-term decline.
GM was not fined for dismantling the street car lines, as you originally suggested.
Generally, logical reasoning and knowledge of history are better than reliance on conspiracy theories…
A state spending billions on pollution problems and seeing the effects of global warming are trying to grab headlines and are clueless? Sueing the very companies that hired “experts” to claim that automobile polution was minimal with no significant impact to health and the environment.
Tobaco companies claimed, for years, that tobaco had no significant impact on health. When they do that…they need to take responsibility for that claim. The auto-makers did the same thing four years ago when they sued calif. for emissions requirements.
If the auto-makers hadn’t made these claims…then Calif. has much less to stand on…but they’ve got sworn testamony from the auto-makers. Hmmm…a bit more interesting now. :)
Tit for tat – hmmm, perhaps the AG could use some of his own money instead of taxpayer $$$s.
Some people here seem to think that because humans and animals breathe CO2 out, that is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. But in fact, thre’s a balance. Plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, and turn it into plant material. When you look at a field of grain or corn, you’re looking at something that was mostly CO2 in the atmosphere not so long ago . We (humans, animals, microbes) eat it, metabolize it, and turn it back into CO2. The problem with dino fuel is that burning it in cars adds so much, it creates a huge imbalance in the system.
Considering that automobile pollution has DECLINED dramatically over the past 30 years, especially in California, I’m wondering just what health problems can be laid at the feet of automakers.
Reminds me of the claims a few years back that asthma cases were increasing, which was therefore tied to increased vehicle pollution.
One problem – during the time that asthma cases were increasing, vehicle pollution was DECREASING. Turns out what is most likely causing increaseed asthma cases is home interiors that are TOO CLEAN during the first years of life, meaning that young immune systems never learn how to properly handle invasive substances.
Geeber:
So sneaky old GM didn’t monopolize the transportation network because its leadership knew, that in 30 or so years, people would try to blame it for replacing the street cars.
No, they simply saw two profit centers: buses, then cars.
The replacement of street cars with buses began BEFORE GM took over the lines.
True, but the process was accelerated by GM’s push and their goal was to eliminate the trolleys, not to enhance or improve them.
Generally, logical reasoning and knowledge of history are better than reliance on conspiracy theories…
Sorry, I’m no conspiracy theorist and I don’t fly in a UFO. I studied the issue thoroughly when Rod Diridon was pushing to re-construct San Jose’s light rail plan 25 years ago. It still doesn’t run where it needs to.
Joe C: No, they simply saw two profit centers: buses, then cars.
Considering that GM is in the business to make money by providing goods and services people want, and the trolley cars were experiencing decreasing ridership long before it owned the line, one can hardly blame GM.
The events that set in motion the elimination of the trolley cars in Los Angeles began in the early 1920s. The Major Street Traffic Plan was proposed in 1924, partly in response to the poor service provided by the street cars. This plan, which provided money to widen and improve the main thoroughfares of Los Angeles, was approved by the voters…long before GM came on to the scene.
Joe C: True, but the process was accelerated by GM’s push and their goal was to eliminate the trolleys, not to enhance or improve them.
Generally, enhancing or improving something that people, voting with their dollars, have shown that they don’t want, is not a good business plan.
Joe C: Sorry, I’m no conspiracy theorist and I don’t fly in a UFO. I studied the issue thoroughly when Rod Diridon was pushing to re-construct San Jose’s light rail plan 25 years ago. It still doesn’t run where it needs to.
Maybe not…but GM didn’t have anything to do with it.
re: “Joe C.: September 21st, 2006 at 3:38 pm
i agree with your response to my initial remarks. but your suggest alone would take many decades or more to generate the benefits being sought, in sufficient quantities to be truly meaningful. my fear is that neither this planet, nor the people whom inhabit it, can actually afford to wait that long.
Never forget that GM sued the Federal Government after WW2 because we bombed their factories in Germany.
Stop making excuses for them.
philipwitak – It’s true that my suggested solution would take decades to have an impact. The news report I watched last night regarding the CA-AG lawsuit concluded that, even if it were successful, we wouldn’t see results in this century.
The way I see it, we couldn’t lose by trying another solution, regardless.
What a waste of taxpayer’s money. From what I understand, that is the specialty of the State of California, and specifically CARB. There is a statistic out there, and I can’t confirm or back it up right now, but for each tonne of smog that they get rid of through various scams, I mean, schemes, it costs about $64000. It might have been actually cheaper for CARB to find each beater car that is ‘running’ around, replace it with some cheap 4 cyl car (Toyota Echo/Honda Fit) and have that emit 95% less emissions than the 20 year old beater. BUt, that would never happen, as THAT would be seen as a waste of money.
This seems like election year grandstanding. I am sure this will all blow over. The funds they are spending on this lawsuit could be sunk into maknig the public transit system better or if they want to change the CA car buyers’ behaviour, tax gas guzzlers through car tabs and incentivize cars that get above a certain MPG.
reposted, with corrections [sorry for errors in the previous draft]
re: “Joe C.: September 21st, 2006 at 3:38 pm
i agree with your response to my initial remarks. but your suggestion alone would take many decades or more to generate the benefits being sought, in quantities required to be truly meaningful. my fear is that neither this planet, nor the people whom inhabit it, can actually afford to wait that long.
Geeber…
Generally, enhancing or improving something that people, voting with their dollars, have shown that they don’t want, is not a good business plan.
This was my argument against re-constructing a light-rail system that failed once already, and wasn’t proposed to run in a way that would alleviate congestion, link to BART, or efficiently link the suburbs to downtown. The business impact during and following the construction period was severe downtown. The core business district is still recovering, decades later.
GM didn’t have anything to do with it
…we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because the ball got rolling before GM showed up doesn’t release them from complicity. I can’t prove their plan was to sell cars to replace transit systems any more than you can prove it wasn’t. Neither of us were in Sloan’s board room.
And let’s not forget the part Firestone and Standard Oil played…
It is sad, regardless…. there is a tiny Red Line Museum in a great restaurant called Phillepes on the outskirts of Chinatown.
Lots of pictures of cars and trains living happily side by side.
Saddest and most noteworthy of all, you could take public transportation from the ski-slopes of Arrowhead to the beaches of Malibu….
This is purely political. Why punish automakers who have so far (for the most part) been abiding by the laws of the land (and the state)? Small cars, which produce low amounts of greenhouse gasses are available, but their purchase has never really been encouraged.
Maybe instead of suing someone after the fact, a consumption tax on fuel or displacement tax based on engine size (and drivetrain) would work much better – OH WAIT, taxes wouldn’t be popular at the polls.
I consider myself an environmentalist and a staunch advocate of efficient and reasonable automobiles, this is beyond ridiculous. You can’t change the rules of the game halfway through. Furthermore, this doesn’t actually solve the problem of greenhouse gasses, it doesn’t undo what has been done nor does it improve the current outlook for emissions.
I’d love to see (even though it will never happen) all these automakers simply pull out of California, or at least stop selling any vehicles to the state for a few years. Who’d have thought the frivolous lawsuits would be coming from lawmakers? Actually…it’s not that suprising I suppose.
Geeber wrote, regarding GM’s replacement of trolleys with buses in LA:
“Generally, enhancing or improving something that people,
voting with their dollars, have shown that they don’t want,
is not a good business plan.”
In the SF Bay Area fixed rail (i.e.: BART) tends to do reasonably well and is significantly more popular than many bus systems. Light rail
in San Jose doesn’t do well…I’m guessing the fact that it traverses
downtown at 10 MPH due to the lack of grade separation has
something to do with this. Virtually all public transit in San Francisco
experiences high ridership – I’d guess the City’s density has something
to do with that – in fact I think SF-MUNI’s total ridership (bus, rail, etc.) exceeds BART’s.
The point: all things being equal, and they seldom are, there’s little
reason to think that replacing fixed transit (with fixed schedules and
routes) with buses (with flexible routes and schedules occasional
riders can’t keep up with) is a response to public demand.
As for the larger question:
Personally? I favor the suit. Currently available automobiles are
a significant contributor to global warming gases, California’s water is
largely dependent upon mountain snow, and a device which
credibly threatens to significantly decrease that snow seems to
reasonably be a public nuisance. If automakers were to lose such
a suit then the costs of CO2 pollution from cars would be placed
on cars – where it belongs. Those of us who buy cars would
receive price signals which incorporate those costs and, in a
free market, would respond accordingly.
Of course this suit could have been filed during any of the 4
years Lockyer has been in office. It’s certainly possible that the
fact that this is an election year is related to the timing of the
suit, though if that’s true then perhaps we need more election
years. Auto companies really should spend time thinking about
why such a suit could be considered an election year action – after
all, if the suit might draw votes then auto makers should wonder
why their customers might, as a whole, wish such suits upon them.
I liked Lockyer as my State Senator. Beyond the point of
voting record…I remember writing him criticizing California’s
former exemption of tobacco from the state’s product liability
laws, an exemption I noted he had voted for. The response I got
back neither agreed nor disagreed with my point, but it responded
to everything I said, offered alternative legal theories (with citation –
the response could only have come from a lawyer, which he is)
under which my issues could be addressed, and basically respected
what I wrote (he eventually voted to remove the exemption). I see
this suit as consistent with this approach that I’ve liked all along
even when I haven’t agreed with him. He represents his constituents.
Tom.
“The suit alleges that these companies’ vehicles damaged the ozone layer hovering over California.”
I’m sure the Complaint in this one is a hoot. What the heck could be the basis for liability? And how pray tell would you calculate the cost of dimunition of the state’s beaches without taking into account that residents and tourists need CARS to get to the beach?
Way back when, I was an environmental studies major in college. I switched majors when I learned enough to know that there are ultimately only two paths to a pristine environment: (1) kill off 99% of the population so the remainder can live in primitive eco-bliss; or (2) hope the engineering majors develop technology fast enough so that we can all live a modern lifestyle without damaging the environment too much. I also learned that most environmentalists are hypocrites. Twenty-five years later, the engineering majors have done great things, and the environmentalists are still mostly hypocrites (except for that one guy who sat down on a compost heap and killed himself with an icicle).
Yeah, light rail. To Idyllwild (3,500 ft. unincorporated Riverside Co. California). Sure! Y’know, there used to be a mule train up here from Hemet about eighty years ago. Mass transit in California? Rave on.
I’d like to see the ‘makers move out for a while. Talk about getting the attention of the attention hounds in Sacramento. Bold Moves, indeed.
Your pal,
bob
I beg, I beg, I plead, I throw my arms up and cry — PLEASE do not ever hold San Francisco’s public transportation system as an example of something that works.
It is utter hell. I lived there for two years. 1997-1999. Willie Brown was running for re-election. His press conferences went like this:
Reporter: Mayor Brown, you promised to fix the homeless problem four years ago, yet it is worse now — what are your plans?
Willie Brown: Next Question!
Reporter: Mayor Brown, you promised to fix MUNI four years ago, yet it is worse now — what are your plans?
Willie Brown: My Suit cost me $7,500!
The buses are a disaster — anyone who lives there or who has lived there dreads getting on those damn MUNO buses. From drunk bus drivers to drunk passengers to the buses themselves breaking down or coming off their wire every three blocks, they are utter hell.
The only reason anyone takes them is because
A) Hills and they are fat
B) There are 1,000,000 vehicles in San Francisco during a typical business day and 300,000 parking spaces.
And BART, the subway, goes does a single street in the financial district — that’s it. I’m not kidding — one street.
And the Trolleys help precisely 0.002% of the residents. This girl Mandy and whoever she’s dating.
Transportation Hell
Jonny wrote:
“The only reason anyone takes them is because
A) Hills and they are fat
B) There are 1,000,000 vehicles in San Francisco during a typical business day and 300,000 parking spaces.
And BART, the subway, goes does a single street in the financial district — that’s it. I’m not kidding — one street.”
A is a simple fact of geography.
B is the “density” thing I mentioned. More density = more vehicles per
parking space.
BART is meant to be a regional system, MUNI is a City system.
All that said, I prefer BART. I felt it necessary to mention SF transit
because I believe it’s ridership is higher than BART’s, and because
that might be contrary to my point, absent point B.
Tom.
doublechili wrote:
>> except for that one guy who sat down on a compost
>> heap and killed himself with an icicle)
You got a video link to that on YouTube? I need a laugh.
A few people have mentioned the (albeit remote) possibility of auto manufacturers ceasing sales within the state. I know that Californians generally favor imports over domestics, but…
If Ford or GM could just declare bankruptcy for all operations within California ( I doubt it’s possible, but what if…) , things would really get interesting. Assuming the lawsuit doesn’t get dismissed entirely, it seems like a ready-made scapegoat.
The business vs. politicians vs. working joe conflict would be quite entertaining to watch (from my viewpoint here in North Carolina).
“Perhaps if the minority win, the majority could say “ok, fine, I simply won’t come into Stockholm and spend any money, but will go on-line and order items from anyplace EXCEPT Stockholm, and eat at local restaurants and go to local theatres and cinemas.†Bet that would get their attention.”
Glenn, on the point.
Kooky California. Its a dumb lawsuit, yes, but lets not from that make pretend like the American Automakers didn’t have a hand in the winnowing of public transit, or that the electric car wasn’t strangled in its crib. That would be naive. Are the companies evil? No. Are they beholden first and foremost to their share holders? Yes.
Jonny Lieberman: Never forget that GM sued the Federal Government after WW2 because we bombed their factories in Germany.
Stop making excuses for them.
Talk about a red herring. There’s a difference between making excuses for GM and setting the record straight.
Just because GM allegedly did “A” is not proof that it also did “B,” especially when there is a court case that said it didn’t do “B,” despite what everyone thinks that they know.
Joe C: we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because the ball got rolling before GM showed up doesn’t release them from complicity. I can’t prove their plan was to sell cars to replace transit systems any more than you can prove it wasn’t. Neither of us were in Sloan’s board room.
You initially accused GM of conspiring to replace trolleys with buses, with the ultimate goal of making people choose cars, and that GM was fined “$5,000” for this. This is all incorrect.
Now, when challenged, you say you can’t prove any of this, even though you allegedly, “studied the issue thoroughly when Rod Diridon was pushing to re-construct San Jose’s light rail plan 25 years ago.” That study wasn’t apparently too thorough…
Neither one of us had to be in the board room with Alfred Sloan to know that ridership of the trolleys was declining during the 1920s, BEFORE GM was on the scene, that buses were replacing street cars prior to GM’s entry, and that GM was not convicted of conspiring to dismantle public transportation in that court case.
These are historical facts.
ttilley: The point: all things being equal, and they seldom are, there’s little
reason to think that replacing fixed transit (with fixed schedules and
routes) with buses (with flexible routes and schedules occasional
riders can’t keep up with) is a response to public demand.
Except for that nagging little problem with decreasing ridership during the 1920s, when trolleys were supposedly in demand….
From a report submitted in February [1974] to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary:
“Electric street railways and electric trolley buses were eliminated without regard to their relative merit as a mode of transport. Their displacement by oil-powered buses maximized the earnings of GM stockholders; but it deprived the riding public of a competing method of travel,†the report asserts, and quotes urban transit expert George M. Smerk as saying that ” ‘Street railways and trolley bus operations, even if better suited to traffic needs and the public interest, were doomed in favor of the vehicles and material produced by the conspirators.’ ”
Progressing from the conversion of rail systems to bus transportation, new market temptations appear on the transportation scene:
“General Motors’ gross revenues are 10 times greater if it sells cars rather than buses. In theory, therefore, GM has every economic incentive to discourage bus ridership. In fact, its bus dieselization program may have generated that effect. Engineering studies strongly suggest that conversion from electric transit to diesel buses results in higher operating costs, loss of patronage, and eventual bankruptcy. They demonstrate, for example, that diesel buses have 28 percent shorter economic lives, 40 percent higher operating costs, and 9 percent lower productivity than electric buses. They also conclude that the diesel’s foul smoke, ear-splitting noise, and slow acceleration may discourage ridership. In short, by increasing the costs, reducing the revenues, and contributing to the collapse of hundreds of transit systems, GM’s dieselization program may have had the long-term effect of selling GM cars.â€
http://thethirdrail.net/9905/agt4.htm
To ensure there would be no significant competition to rival automobile manufacturers, General Motors (GM) began buying trolley systems throughout the United States. They eventually convinced other benefited companies to assist in financing the takeover. In all, over 100 trolley systems were bought by GM, their tracks ripped up and overhead wire systems ripped out. Buses, manufactured by GM, were installed in their place. Collusion was not only evident within the companies involved. When GM and the other companies were indicted on federal anti-trust charges, the judge levied the laughable sumof $5,000 on each of the companies, and made even more of a mockery of the trial by fining each executive involved in plotting and carrying out the destruction of American light rail $1 apiece. The rapid take-over of the United States by the automobile was masterminded by a select few.
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/pdf/brettpeace.pdf#search=%22GM%20light%20rail%20collusion%22
Don’t even start talking about human CO2 emissions around Bill Lockyear; he’ll probably name the people of the United States of America in a suit. As far as the person who commented on greenhouse emissions by cows, I’ve heard from environmentalists who want to add a carbon tax to ranchers with the view of eliminating the horrible environmental damge created by cattle; so that idea has already come. California’s Air Quality Control Board is looking into regulating second hand smoke as a point source emission. And, it goes on and on.
A few of you have mentioned the thought of these car dealers dropping sales in CA, and wouldn’t it be nice?
I can say that something very similar has happened not that long ago with a firearms manufacturer. Ronnie Barrett who manufactures a .50BMG rifle has stopped selling and servicing any and all of their weapons, including those belonging to CA police departments.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-50.html
It can be done, and it would be highly amusing to see carmakers do the same thing (or, for that matter, any number of other firearms and ammuniton dealers faced with the next round of ridiculously conceived legislation from CA)
Joe, I figured that you would eventually reference Mr. Snell’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1974. That is the source of the myth.
His story is just that…a story.
Sy Sydler, an urban studies professor who has researched this story, puts it bluntly: “Everything Mr. Snell wrote…about transit in Los Angeles was wrong.”
Another thing – the Pacific Electric “Red Cars” were NEVER OWNED by National City Lines (the GM subsidiary). It was owned first by the Southern Pacific Railroad, then sold to Metropolitan Coach Lines, before finally being sold to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, which presided over the final dismantling of the line in 1961.
The Pacific Electric Red Cars were only built in the first place to help a southern California real estate mogul make money on new subdivisions. He wanted to get prospective buyers to new subdivisions on the outskirts of Los Angeles. Once the houses were built, the line was an economic albatross.
Your post still doesn’t disprove that:
1. Ridership of trolleys was decreasing during the 1920s;
2. The switch to buses began BEFORE GM was on the scene;
3. GM was not convicted of conspiring to replace trolleys with buses. Read what the article on the Third Rail says: “In April of that year, a Chicago Federal jury convicted GM of having criminally conspired with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and others to replace electric transportation with gas- or diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transportation companies throughout the country.”
GM was convicted of requiring its bus lines to BUY GM-MADE BUSES. That is why it was convicted of working “to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transportation companies throughout the country.” In other words, GM was requiring its transit companies to use GM-made products, much to the consternation of other bus manfuacturers.
There is a huge difference, and the Third Rail people either can’t understand it, or don’t want to understand it (probably because it undermines their entire thesis).
Sorry, but the article you cited proves ME correct.
The second article rehashes what the first said about mass transit, with a lot of tripe about structural violence, a screed against the car culture and a quote from a cheerleader who loves her car. That’s pretty much it.
Which leads me to believe that said author was stood up by a cheerleader for a guy with a Corvette, and he has never really recovered, so he now hides out in the academy, penning nonsense dressed up as academic papers. Therapy would have been more productive for him…
Gfen, what Ronnie Barrett should be doing according to Cal if it were a socially conscious, caring weapons manufacturer of the fuure is developing a gun that is never lethal and will in no way harm, impede, or otherwise disturb the target the police are trying to control. In fact taking a bullet from the gun should enhance a criminal awareness in the Californian Age Of Aquarius where the loons are in the Senate House and working guys are dressed like girls….
The gun should also be cosmetically acceptable on the streets of West Hollywood lest the paparazzi get offended, and should cure earthworms of all airborne viruses they may contact when an earthquake occurs in Malaysia.
Not just about emissions but how about this news to put you off biofuels for a while.
Geeber,
If the distinction you are making is that GM was convicted of colluding to ensure GM buses were to replace the 100+ transit systems they temporarily acquired, instead of a conviction that says their intent was to sell cars, I don’t disagree. That’s obvious from their April conviction you noted.
My point is that GM’s ultimate intent was to sell cars. This is something I can’t prove, the U.S. Senate Subcomittee and Chicago Federal Court couldn’t prove, and you cannot disprove.
By the way, there were very strong economic reasons that trolley ridership was down in the 1920’s and 1930’s – the Great Depression and its impact on U.S. employment. I believe Sloan saw an opportunity to remove a transportation competitor in the post-war era.
Note that I have no argument about GM’s prime directive: Sell Cars. If I were a GM shareholder, this is what I’d expect them to do. This is why it is utterly obvious to me, and at least a couple of other people, that this is probably what they were up to by acquiring and gutting transit systems post-war, replacing them with buses, then selling off their transit holdings, which ultimately led to more cars sold. It’s the ethics of the way they went about it that’s disturbing.
This was the conclusion Mr. Snell came to in his report, which went under the scrutiny of a U.S. Senate Subcommittee. I don’t know who Sy Sydler is, and I can’t find any reference to his research on the topic. Did his research come under the same scrutiny? Where is the report?
What you are telling us he said is:
“Everything Mr. Snell wrote…about transit in Los Angeles was wrong.â€
If he is limiting his conclusion to Los Angeles, I could see how he might believe Mr. Snell’s report to possibly be in error. It appears that GM had nothing to do with the elimination of the Pacific Electric Red Line. To conclude that Mr. Snell’s research on all other GM-acquired transit systems is in error is an exercise in ignorance.
Further, my initial point – relevant to the CA-AG lawsuit – was the irony in the fact that it was at the time politically expedient to favor cars over trolleys, just as it is politically expedient today to blame cars for why things are the way they are, when politicians of the day at a time when transit systems could have been improved, not gutted, had an opportunity to steer things in a different direction.
Fuck California (song)
JoeC: If the distinction you are making is that GM was convicted of colluding to ensure GM buses were to replace the 100+ transit systems they temporarily acquired, instead of a conviction that says their intent was to sell cars, I don’t disagree. That’s obvious from their April conviction you noted.
My point is that GM’s ultimate intent was to sell cars. This is something I can’t prove, the U.S. Senate Subcomittee and Chicago Federal Court couldn’t prove, and you cannot disprove.
There is no proof that just because GM wanted to sell cars, it wanted to dismantle the public transit systems in order to do so. If that were the case, then Henry Ford I would have done so in the 1920s, when his company was bigger and far more powerful than GM was at the time.
And the conviction does not prove that GM wanted to sell cars. It proves GM wanted to sell BUSES to its own transit lines.
If those GM-owned lines had been allowed to purchase buses built by other manufacturers, GM would have won on that count, too.
As for who can prove what: I’m not the one making accusations against GM. Mr. Snell initially did, when he testified before Congress, which meant that he did so in a national forum. His testimony has been used as a cudgel by the anti-car brigades ever since, and you repeated them on this site.
The simple fact is that he either unintentionally or purposely misread the final verdict in the case, left out key facts and then made very serious accusations against GM. To now say, “No one can prove anything” is not good enough. The charges are either true, or they are not. If the charges cannot be proven, they are not true at this point.
JoeC: By the way, there were very strong economic reasons that trolley ridership was down in the 1920’s and 1930’s – the Great Depression and its impact on U.S. employment. I believe Sloan saw an opportunity to remove a transportation competitor in the post-war era.
Except that ridership was decreasing during the Roaring 20s, when the economy was booming. The Great Depression started with the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and really didn’t become the GREAT Depression until about 1931.
A depressed economic climate cannot be used to explain ridership declines during the 1920s.
JoeC: Note that I have no argument about GM’s prime directive: Sell Cars. If I were a GM shareholder, this is what I’d expect them to do. This is why it is utterly obvious to me, and at least a couple of other people, that this is probably what they were up to by acquiring and gutting transit systems post-war, replacing them with buses, then selling off their transit holdings, which ultimately led to more cars sold. It’s the ethics of the way they went about it that’s disturbing.
Wait a minute…here you make accusations again, when a few paragraphs above, you wrote this: This is something I can’t prove, the U.S. Senate Subcomittee and Chicago Federal Court couldn’t prove, and you cannot disprove. (emphasis added)
Sounds as though you are saying that the charges against GM have been proven, when they have been anything but.
There is a difference between speculation and fact, and until I see much stronger facts, GM is not liable for the charges.
JoeC: This was the conclusion Mr. Snell came to in his report, which went under the scrutiny of a U.S. Senate Subcommittee.
I work in the Pennsylvania Senate. If you think that every bit of testimony given before a legislative committee has to be true, because every committee member is an expert on the subject matter at hand, and can therefore immediately ferret out mistakes, please come to my office and I’ll cure of that notion rather quickly.
Also, in the early 1970s, the political climate was more inclined to be anti-auto, and anti-GM in particular, than it is even now. (Ralph Nader’s book and the entire Corvair controversy was still fresh on everyone’s mind, and GM had just been forced to recall millions of 1965-69 V-8 Chevrolets because of faulty motor mounts.)
Mr. Snell’s testimony would have received even less scrutiny at that time than it would today. Plus, there was no internet, filled with others who could immediately investigate his claims for veracity.
JoeC: If he is limiting his conclusion to Los Angeles, I could see how he might believe Mr. Snell’s report to possibly be in error. It appears that GM had nothing to do with the elimination of the Pacific Electric Red Line. To conclude that Mr. Snell’s research on all other GM-acquired transit systems is in error is an exercise in ignorance.
Considering that the Red Cars have formed the basis of his case against GM, I’d say that makes his entire case against GM incredibly suspect.
JoeC: Further, my initial point – relevant to the CA-AG lawsuit – was the irony in the fact that it was at the time politically expedient to favor cars over trolleys, just as it is politically expedient today to blame cars for why things are the way they are, when politicians of the day at a time when transit systems could have been improved, not gutted, had an opportunity to steer things in a different direction.
The actions of politicians and the actions of GM are two entirely different beasts. The simple fact is that politicians were faced with a system that was experiencing ridership declines and made road maintenance more difficult. It made sense – at that time – to replace it with more flexible buses. The fact that politicians aren’t psychic is not an indictment.
Also, you’ll never hear the Mr. Snells of the world point a finger at two other big factors in the decline of mass transit in this country – the municipal unions that raise costs and increase inefficiency, and the politicians that try to cap fares while pandering to said unions.
Considering that most of the guilty parties here are Democrats, that’s not surprising. It’s easier to seek refuge in fantasy conspiracies involving what GM allegedly did decades ago, than to confront these problems which are strangling mass transit NOW.
How many of you live in California? Let California decide. you have no power to affect the governing process here anymore then i can affect what happens in Argentina. so stop bickering about nonsense and irrational garbage.
im sure your states have a history of ridiculous law suites and taxations
jonny-
“Anyhow, any legislator who does anything car-related in California besides fixing the 405/101 interchange, the 110 through downtown, double-decking the 10 and the 101, widening the 405 by 54 lanes to the airport, getting semis off the 710 and constructing a duplicate of the Bay Bridge in SF/Oakland, should be convicted of treason and shot.”
well said. but as i am sure you know. the govenator and mayor both dont want anymore freeway construction. except the 710-210 deal. what a great place…
The entire free world needs to sue California for not having fallen off into the Pacific yet. Is there anything we can do to expedite the process?