U.S. District Court Judge Martin J. Jenkins ruled that the issue must be left to legislators. “Policy decisions concerning the authority and standards for carbon dioxide emissions lie with the political branches of government, and not with the courts,” he wrote. He also said it would be nearly impossible to calculate how much of the blame for climate change should be pinned on the carmakers.

Thanks bender. I actually understood that one.
BTW, white pine blister rust also effects other species. Parts of the Sierra have had their Sugar Pine populations severly impacted by it. The region near my property in Tulare county is kind of eerie. In a sea of green there are thousands of white spikes sticking up which are large Sugar Pine snags either killed directly by the rust or made susceptible to beetle attack.

On some of my property further north, beetles ravaged pine stands during the mid seventies drought. But thirty years later they’re coming back. The resilience of the forest to pests is pretty amazing, especially when viewed by time other than our lifespans. I have to occasionally laugh at some environmentalist type who will be throwing a fit over some ‘ancient’ forest they’re trying to save. Often if you look a little closer you see a good many giant stumps decomposing and the ancient forest is 90-100 years old. At least its that way in CA and the NW where the growth is much faster than inland.

Liberal Democrats have done as much they can to centralize regulation and law-making in the U.S. The problem with an all-powerful central gov’t is the other guy can get control of it and start using power the ‘wrong’ way. That’s why the founders gave us a federal system, not a parliamentary system – to allow a minority to escape to a state where people agreed with him, and avoid the tyranny of the majority. [This is the font of the mis-monikered 'states rights' argument - states have powers, individuals have rights] The Supreme Court Justice who has most consistently opposed emasculation of states is perhaps the one most reviled by Democrats – African-American Clarence Thomas. Note all the Liberal Justices voted California could not allow medical marijuana and Thomas had the most compelling dissent.

Once liberal Democrats used their decades-long control of Washington to assert the power of the central government, they can’t seriously argue that states should be able to trump federal law. Under the expanded vision of federal government developed by FDR, states can only regulate activity until the federal government begins to regulate. Then states are prohibited from regulating at all unless Congress grants them permission. That’s the LAW; thank the Democrats.

The only question in the regulation case is whether Congress, in developing CAFE and other emission standards, was implicitly taking a position on the regulation of CO2, also. If so, the states lose. End of story.

The tobacco companies spent many millions and funded entire institutes related to tobacco health studies, and actively stated there were no adverse health effects. The carmakers may have lobbied to reduce CAFE standards, but there is no evidence of the same sort of disinformation scheme involving countless alternative scientists to discredit AGW. It’s a pipe dream to imagine anything exciting coming out of discovery.

#37,
In a recent issue of Road and Track Dennis Simantis, the technical editor, noted that a single large freighter chugging into Long Beach Harbor produces as much air pollution as 300,000 new automobiles.

#38
If the state of CA is willing to proceed in this matter they must have a strategy well in mind and one that has some likelihood of success given the current precedents in tort law.

As a gun dealer and former board member of a non profit I am also thoroughly familiar with Bill Lockyer our endearing AG. He is an ambitious and quite unscrupulous pol who has no need of a legal strategy involving tort law. As Steve B alludes to in #43, albeit for the wrong reasons, the only precedent is the one of extorting money from deep pockets(tobacco companies) by the power of the essentially unlimited state threatening titanic legal costs. After tobacco, various states and localities attempted to do the same to gun manufacturers around the nation and have so far failed in court but have succeeded in bankrupting a few smaller manufacturers.

This is about neither the law nor the facts. Its about extorting money and making political hay by utilizing the power of the state essentially for people’s personal political beliefs and benefit. Any non profit engaged in such behavior would be hauled into court by the AG. But on the public’s dime its perfectly acceptable for him to do it to others.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Esper and Foxtail pines BTW.

#38 – Yes, damages must be quantifiable, you can’t pull them out of a hat. Here’s where some part of the ‘Team’s’ work might come into play. If the Atty Gen’l submits 10 different computer models showing what the future holds for Calif, then the defense could point out the ‘experts’ disagree with each other. Defendants could also have an expert witness testify that these predictions are mere guesses. Conflicting expert testimony tends to cancel out, I’m told.

Juries and trial attys may be crazy sometimes, but I believe the courts are more responsible than people often give them credit for. Especially the higher courts. They are generally very reluctant to extend liability to a whole class of behavior based upon the facts of one case. This especially the case when it looks like the Legislature has shown interest in crafting a solution.

I’m guessing that the chances Calif will win at trial are very good. It’s at the appellate stage I’m betting they lose. Some appeals may occur in the middle of the trial.

There are a lot of potential problems for the state here. I believe the case was filed in Fed Court. The court may choose not to hear the case because of justiciability problems. If the court doesn’t want to deal with the case at this time, it could be be defined as lacking ‘ripeness’ b/c damages haven’t occured, yet. This might be different if the state were seeking an injunction, rather than money damages.

The Atty Gen’ls office is filled with very talented, dedicated attys. I’m sure you’re right, and they believe they can make the case. They wouldn’t have filed, otherwise. It seems I’ve talked to a lot of businessmen who have been pursued by zealous gov’t attys even though they were acting legally, however. I imagine the Atty Gen’ls office is used to people rolling over and passing costs to customers.

As to litigation strategy, who knows ? I’m no litigator, and I haven’t read the actual lawsuit. I read an editorial that suggested the suit was filed for political gain. If the suit is expensive enough to defend, and the Atty Gen’l willing to settle for a small enough amount, a settlement could be forthcoming even if it ends up being repeated in 49 states.

#37 – If John, Jane, and Joan each throw a rock at me, I can choose to sue any one, two, or three. The plaintiff is the master of the complaint, and generally won’t be required to sue anybody he doesn’t want to. This makes sense when you consider litigation is very expensive and many defendants have too few assets to pay a judgment. The Atty Gen’l gets more bang for the taxpayers buck when he goes after the biggest manufacturers.