Part of the Bay Area News Group

ok, scratch that about SUVs

By enelson
Thursday, April 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm in driving, Environment, global warming.

carbon-atom.gifNo sooner than I said “make ‘em pay” about SUVs, some state legislator comes up with legislation to do just that.

Only this, reported by Riverside Press Enterprise Sacramento correspondent Jim Miller, isn’t what I had in mind:

Legislation by state Sen. Jim Battin, R-La Quinta, to open the state’s carpool lanes to motorists who buy carbon offset credits had about as much chance Tuesday as the owner of a gas-guzzling 1972 Lincoln Continental scoring a coveted “clean-air vehicle” sticker.

Battin, tongue firmly in cheek, said he was disappointed that the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee had blocked his attempt to reduce global warming.

In truth, Battin, a climate-change skeptic, wanted to highlight what he sees as the hypocrisy of Al Gore, Gov. Schwarzenegger and others who have led the charge to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. They have popularized the purchase of carbon offsets to compensate for air travel and other carbon-heavy activities.

As it happened, I was at that same hearing scraping together a story about the Bay Area’s efforts to add a dollar to vehicle registrations to pay for better traffic management. The bill came up before I arrived and a certain transportation official told me that the committee had a great laugh before drop-kicking the bill.

According to Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, the bill was “very well intentioned and has some very good ideas,” but would negate carpool lanes as we know them.

What surprised me were that several senators present seemed to be taking the thing quite seriously.

“I think it’s a very reasoned and cogent argument,” said Sen. Gilbert Cidillo, D-Los Angeles, while  Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Redondo Beach, did not hide her displeasure, noting that Lowenthal was right that the bill “would in essence eliminate HOV lanes (and) because of that, I absolutely won’t support the bill.”

Oropeza said the main purpose of high-occupancy vehicle lanes is to reduce congestion, and that has the side benefit of helping air quality as well.

Ahh. Some meat-and-potatoes logic in Sacramento. Yum.

But then Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, had to take the thing seriously:

My concern is about the trading of offsets … The idea of trading carbon credits is an as-yet untested policy in California and it is a very, very big issue …

She went on to talk about how environmental justice groups are debating whether trading offsets actually reduce emissions.

I mean, we’re talking about carbon offsets for Hummers in the free lane on the Bay Bridge. Yes, I suppose it could help support a wind farm somewhere, but let’s be real here.

It is great that Battin got people talking about trading pollution credits, which appears to be his main reason for authoring the bill, according to Miller’s story:

Battin bought $45 worth of carbon offsets last fall from a company called DriveNeutral to make up for using a Lincoln Aviator as his state vehicle.

“I was figuring, if they can live that lifestyle by buying carbon credits, then I can, too,” he said. “I can live guilt-free. I don’t know what happened with the money, though.”

Carbon atom diagram from www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

5 Responses to “ok, scratch that about SUVs”

  1. Michael Krueger Says:

    With sincere apologies to my Prius-driving friends, I’ll say that this demonstrates the folly of allowing “clean-air vehicles” in the carpool lanes in the first place. Carpool lanes are primarily about congestion, with emissions reduction an important but secondary benefit. Allowing “green” single-occupancy cars in the carpool lanes does NOTHING about congestion.

    People were actually able to take Sen. Battin’s proposal seriously because the carpool lane sticker program opened the door to thinking of the carpool lane as a prize to be given away to those who are doing something “green,” rather than a means to mitigate congestion. This is the real root of the ridiculousness, and until the carpool lanes are returned to their original purpose, you can only expect the chorus of “me too!” to grow louder and louder.

  2. miked Says:

    Carpool lanes are essentail to the efficiency of organized carpools, vanpools, and some bus routes. The express lane is the only way to make up for the time lost due to extra stops and the inconvenience of fixed start and end times. If the carpool lane were to become as congested as other lanes, many people who take these carpools, vanpools and busses would drive, and then we would all suffer from the increased congestion and increased emissions.

  3. Reedman Says:

    The reasoning behind having someone driving with a baby in a car seat being able to use a carpool lane escapes me.

  4. Capricious Commuter Says:

    But Reedman, we shouldn’t throw the carpool out with the baby. :p

  5. miked Says:

    The East Bay carpool lanes require 3 people in the car, which seems fine to me. If that would help resolve congestion other places, that might work well. That said, having been in a car with 2 in San Jose, I often see solo drivers in the carpool lane during carpool lane hours- maybe there just needs to be more enforcement in the South Bay.

Leave a Reply