GFN wrote on Feb 18, 2007 9:22 PM:IT'S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING TO BATTLE THE OIL "ADDICTION"!!!!

Reardon wrote on Feb 18, 2007 10:20 PM:How about a law requirng ALL emplolyees of ALL mass transit systems to actually ALWAYS ride their own transit system? Follow that with a law that requires ALL government employees (including teachers and professors) to ALWAYS ride mass transit? Follow that with a law requiring ALL newspaper and TV employees to ALWAYS take mass transit? Once we see the "opinion makers" provide leadership, perhaps we can follow.

Only In America wrote on Feb 19, 2007 3:17 AM:You mean there really is some group that calls itself SUV Owners Of America? That wants to get special treatment from the state government to waste gas and continue to contribute disproportionately to global warming? Only in America do we find such selfish, thoughtless, greedy, wingnut hogs. It's no wonder the rest of the world looks at us with disgust.

To Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2007 3:18 AM:Why don't you sell your SUV, buy a hybrid, and get a catalytic converter for all that irrelevant hot air you're always spouting?

ibJoe wrote on Feb 19, 2007 6:28 AM:SUVs suck - gas.

Coolingoff wrote on Feb 19, 2007 7:19 AM:Among primitive civilizations floods, tornados, drought, thunderstorms, earthquakes, etc., were seen as acts of angry gods. The leaders of these primitive peoples devised means for appeasing the angry gods. Global Warming is caused by angry politicians who must be appeased by passing meaningless laws.

El Guero wrote on Feb 19, 2007 7:20 AM:The 'readers rep' for the other paper today says that 'It's standard operating procedure for journalists covering a controversial issue to offer contrasting opinions in the interest of balance. But for years there's been consensus on this topic (global warming) among scientists, with just a few skeptics on the fringe. Sometimes the facts are so overwhelming on one side that it's unfair and inaccurate to give equal weight to both sides. This is one of those times.' Although there seem to be a lot of 'skeptics' reading the North County Times, I hope they would agree to separate the political from the scientific and acknowledge that global warming isn't a political conspiracy based on junk science by 'greedy' scientists. I don't care if they grew wine grapes in Greenland 1,000 years ago. The scientists know it and it doesn't disprove what they're saying today about the causes of today's climate change. As for what we do about it, that's certainly open to discussion, and I would tend to agree that restrictions placed only on Western nations, particularly the U.S., and exempting gross polluters like China and India are unacceptable. But this is the political dimension. I would hope that the skeptics and denialists could close ranks and acknowledge the validity of the science behind the latest report.

Randy wrote on Feb 19, 2007 7:20 AM:Does this law mean that Arnold loses his fleet of Hummers? Now that would be totally un-Californian!

SUV Group??? wrote on Feb 19, 2007 8:03 AM:You've got to be kidding me? I know plenty of SUV owners and none of them are members or have heard of this group. Just another front for the auto industry. What's next a Van Group? A Truck Group? Sedan Owners of America?

Not Convinced wrote on Feb 19, 2007 8:26 AM:Its funny how quickly we forget. In the 80s, the whole "global warming" idea reared its ugly head. It was said then that it was caused by a hole in the ozone layer and that the hole was caused by CFCs and that the whole would only get bigger and we were pretty much stuck with it, it wouldn't heal itsself. What did they do? Ban CFCs, and guess what? They discovered that the hole was acutally getting smaller. And the whole 'global warming' retoric dissolved into a few minor, quiet grumblings. Now the 'issue' is back again and this time they are blaming vehicle emissions. It seems to me that the 'scientists', and I use the term loosely, have no clue if there is a man-made cause, or if there is really even is a 'global warming' issue. El Guero, I AM a skeptic, what consensus has there been? Its a handful of scientists ranting and raving. It is junk science, as you pointed out yourself, they grew grapes in Greenland 1000 years ago, which means that the planet was much warmer then. If it has happened before, without CFCs of gasoline/deisel engines then it seems to me that its part of the cycle that this planet goes through. Have you forgotten the ice age? Is that what any of us would like to see? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I agree that we need to take care of this planet, but what we need is more data, not more theories. There are no 'overwhelming' facts on one side, we have a limited and incomplete dataset. They haven't been collecting data anywhere near long enough to be able to reach a factual determination. Lets be real. And trade in my SUV for a tiny little hybrid? I think the country group Montgomery Gentry said it best, "I'm not gonna trade in my family's safety, just to save on a little gas."

Alf wrote on Feb 19, 2007 9:31 AM:Let's try to look at global warming like you would if you start seeing those little thin termite wings on your front porch or termite droppings on top of your attic insulation. What do you do first? Most people call a termite inspection and treatment company. You are told that with some changes (better screening in attic vents, protecting the wood and tenting to kill the live termites inside your structure) you can prevent more damage. Do you say 'since I don't see them, they don't exist' and therefore I will do nothing? Are you then totally surprised when part of your house collapses or you reach for a rafter to steady yourself in your attic and find that your hand goes right through the shell of a 2x8? I did have my hand go through a 2x8 in a relative's home, the re-roof and structural repair was over 75,000 dollars because they either did not believe or waited too long after first seeing the wings that shed when swarming termites land and munch their way in. Pay me a little now or much, much more down the road, your choice.

Pluto wrote on Feb 19, 2007 9:36 AM:Not convinced claims people drive monster vehicles for the safety of their families. Maybe that is part of it, but I think the bigger reason is because they make some people (mostly young men) feel big, powerful, manly. And it's not just about saving a little gas, it's about saving the planet, our home, and the future of our children and grandchildren. Our selfish, gas-guzzling way of life sucks.

Harry wrote on Feb 19, 2007 10:06 AM:Recently, when driving into Phoenix and Las Vegas, all you could see was a dark, hanging blanket of pollution left behind from vehicle emissions. Global warming true or not, lets at least take a look at what we are doing to our cities and begin to stop this madness of polluting the very air we all have to breath. We are all so concerned about cigarettes and being over weight as being a no-no for bad health. When it comes to a true issue that is destroying the entire world we live in, folks don't want to take a look at "what they can do for their country". Folks like to dictate but not sacrifice. We all created this problem, we all have to solve it - even if it means giving up on those tanks you folks drive around in.

Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2007 11:28 AM:The IPCC will not present their data until May...what we have is a political document that presumes the scientific results. Even at that, the politicos have admitted that the predicted sea rise from the 2001 document will be revised from 36 inches to 17 inches...a HUGE revision in just five years! The satellite-based temperatures have "wobbled" but not increased, worldwide, since 1999. Meanwhile, China is averaging a new coal-fired power plant a WEEK, and someone thinks my driving a very fuel efficient SUV is damaging the earth? The mind boggles!

Webs wrote on Feb 19, 2007 11:31 AM:Not Convinced: you sir have no idea what you are talking about. Go to Wikipedia, or better yet, grab a 5th grade science book and learn about the difference between Global Warming and Ozone Depletion. In the 80's the fuss was about Ozone Depletion which is a separate issue from Global Warming. And the banning of CFCs has helped heal the hole in the Ozone layer. It is actually considered a victory in science. As far as data goes, there is plenty already. No more data is needed. There was a study conducted where a group went through about 980 scientific peer reviewed journal articles, and hundreds of media reports. All on the issue of Global Warming. What they found was that 50% of all media reports where one way on the issue and the other took the opposite stance. They also found 0% disagreement of the scientific articles. The data is conclusive, it is the media that is not. Not Convinced said: "And trade in my SUV for a tiny little hybrid? I think the country group Montgomery Gentry said it best, "I'm not gonna trade in my family's safety, just to save on a little gas.""" This also shows how little you know. Look at the NHTSA data. SUVs are not only less safe than smaller lighter vehicles, but they also cause more accidents and deaths, not just to the driver, but to peds and other vehicle drivers. SUV are actually one of the least safe vehicles you can drive, and by a wide margin. My suggestions is not only to think before you type, but to go look up the data and do some research...

American Mike wrote on Feb 19, 2007 12:35 PM:The California Air Resource Board is managed by political inclined green winnies whom only objective is to increase the tax base for the State of California. Talk about separate State and Religion, what about separate State and Sierra Club? The current Governor stated during his initial campaign that he was going to dissolve, or at least severally limit the Air Resource Boards undying policy to punish every wage earning taxpayer, and it’s general policy of strong-arming any organization that opposes its policies. As we can all see, he failed miserably in his attempt. So where do the votes really go?

So now 2 cars instead of one? wrote on Feb 19, 2007 12:37 PM:So instead of one family full size SUV carting around the kids and their friends, we would need two smaller cars to do the job. Plus, my wife would have to hire a driver for that second car as the kids aren't old enough to drive. As for me, who now would have to work harder to cover the extra expense of another car, insurance and a driver, all I get to do with my fuel efficient car is sit in traffic all day trying to get to work. Oh, I could take mass transit? I'd love too, if except for the MTS commuter bus, it existed from inland north county. Just think of all the money being wasted on the Sprinter that could have gone to a long term solution like a commuter train/trolley for the I-15 corridor. Maybe there wouldn't be a need for legislation and all you cry babies about big SUV would get a life. These vehicles are not any larger than that old family station wagon that your parents used to drive. It only seems that way because the builders are cramming more parking spaces in to that new strip mall in you over built community.

What's the difference between.... wrote on Feb 19, 2007 12:42 PM:...Driving one big vehicle with a family of six in it or putting them in 2 small vehicles. Same amount of gas and exhaust. Any idea how much gas is used at motor cross and NASCAR races? Not to mention how much exhaust is emitted. How about we make boat owners stop using their boats, or how about we ban ATV's and wave runners. I am sure there are plenty of retired folks driving around in gas guzzling RV's. Where are your complaints about them??? People need to stop acting as though SUV owners are the only reason we have gas and smog problems. Maybe those expecting us to trade in our SUV's for hybrid vehicles should start making their own clothing and stop going to the market for food because after all, a huge, gas sucking, smog emitting trailer has to deliver your goods. Everyone plays a part in the gas/exhaust problem we have in America. From the SUV owner to the family that goes to the river for the summer to the person who shops in the grocery store.

The ugly American- wrote on Feb 19, 2007 1:37 PM:ITALY / AMERICA! AMERICA most vehicles have only one person in the vehicle. AMERICA - they are driving- monster 4x4 trucks with giant tires. Monster Sport Utility Vehicles- gas guzzling monsters, conspicious waste- guttony. ITALY-small beautiful vehicles-on the roads -NOT SOLD HERE in USA! Also the ITALIANS dressed like ADULTS and conducted themelves as adults. Look at what AMERICANS drive and how we dress-we look like and act like a country of spoiled CHILDREN without manners ,culture, or sense.

SUV's may be safe for your family wrote on Feb 19, 2007 1:58 PM:but the scare the heck out of me and mine in our Honda Civic (which we looove). Can't see around the damn behemoths. You are safe while you hog the road (driving carefully, paying attention, etc helps keep you safe--just a thought). I especially love to see one person sitting chatting on his/her cell, oblivious to other drivers while they change lanes w/o signaling. Too busy talking on the cell. Could careless if the crush me and my girls in our car. Oh yeah, another thing I love is when in a parking lot, the clueless wonders turn on their headlights right in my eyes, and sit there, all the while blinding me and my 4 year old as we are parked facing them. A little common courtesy please. I do understand about having a large family, it's your choice, but choices do have consequences, which your kids and mine will have to pay for. "People live for today, and not for tomorrow", that's what my mom says.

El Guero wrote on Feb 19, 2007 2:09 PM:I hate to break ranks with my fellow conservatives, but I've always believed that at the heart of conservatism is conservation; of our natural as well as our national and cultural heritage. To Not Convinced and Reardon: Do you truly believe that the 90+ of the world's leading climate scientists are trying to pull the wool over our eyes? If so, in whose interests? I'm a cynic first-class, but are you saying that ALL the world's climate scientists are falsifying data and selling our their own reputations for political reasons? The mind boggles!

Walt wrote on Feb 19, 2007 3:12 PM:Reardon: Good idea to get all mass transit advocates to ride it and experience the real world. Wonder how long they would last on a volunteer basis for ALL their trips? Have you wondered why that multi level garage exists alongside the Metro Transit District main office downtown? Currently fuel and emissions comparisons are a toss up even with Diesel buses and Sprinter. There's lot's of extra capacity so add-ons would be a free ride for the same trips. But considering the 2 to 1 time lost performing the same functions, extra trips needed etc etc brings a different picture. And there is a better way. An easily achievable 2 mpg average improvement in autos saves more fuel that the entire transit system uses. A few percent transit improvment is comparitively meaningless. Then we have the fuel waste and pollution on managed lane equipped freeways. Fast cars in the priviledged lanes, and those caught in congestion they cause are both responsible. On balance; why not drive fuel-efficient cars? There are plenty of adequate size ones for most.

RV Owner- wrote on Feb 19, 2007 3:40 PM:I drive my 32 ft RV on vacation one month a year. My RV engine is the same size as in a big pickup truck, same milege, but the big pick-up trucks are driven every day for fun and to show off-macho-. I usually see driving the big pick-up some person who is mid 20-30 with a baseball cap on backwards, or with the bill sideways-so mature! When they get out after driving the parking lot because they can not walk-lazy-the pants they wear are so low they look like a todddler wearing a diaper that needs changing.

Temecula Hummer Owner wrote on Feb 19, 2007 3:45 PM:As a member of SUVOA and a happy owner of a Hummer H2, I think that it is high time that the government butts out of my personal business and stops trying to control my free choice of vehicle types. For Pete sakes this is America! What ever happened to concepts like individual liberty and freedom of choice? If I choose to drive a SUV that only gets 10 mpg then that is my business and nobody elses. You will never get me into one of those microscopic hybrids...they are little more than coffins on wheels. I'm a big man who needs the leg room and headroom plus I have a large family as well. The SUV works out perfectly for me and my family. Besides, whenever the Nanny State tries to tell me what to do, I instinctively do the opposite. I think that the Founding Fathers would approve of this. America needs to get back to its libertarian roots and chuck this national socialism that is the environmental movement over the side. If the Nanny State is so determined to seize and destroy my private property I'll just go out and buy a bulldozer and drive that to work. It's okay...I can afford it. Those pip squeak hybrids had better move aside then! The New Hampshire state motto says it best: 'Live Free or Die'

Alf wrote on Feb 19, 2007 4:15 PM:"What's the difference between" a Hummer and a minivan? About 10 miles per gallon. How about a scale that measures person-mpg? What's the difference between a Hummer with 1 occupant and a Honda Civic with 3 occupants? About 75 person-mpg more for the Honda. Between the Hummer with 3 people and a minivan with 3 people? About 40 person-mpg.

Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2007 4:41 PM:SUVs? The plane Speaker Pelosi requested costs $300,000 taxpayers' dollars to make a round trip Washington/San Fra -- and generates 10,000 pounds of CO2 per hour, or 100,000 pounds plus per round trip! How many SUVs would have to drive how far to produce 10,000 pounds of CO2 per hour?

Kyle wrote on Feb 19, 2007 6:01 PM:A simple solution would be to apply carbon credits to fossil fuels like gasoline. Want to drive an SUV? Fine, if you go above your allotted carbon credtis then you pay some taxes to buy more. Don't like wasting carbon credits on an SUV? Buy a more fuel efficent vehicle or get a SUV that runs on ethanol.

Intervention wrote on Feb 19, 2007 6:44 PM:There are some very selfish, ignorant and preumpuous people here who are determined to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution. They have been so brainwashed by the lying Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity wannabees that they deserve complete deprogramming. I would propose locking them all in isolation in San Quentin for a year and forcing them to watch "An Incovenient Truth" 24 hours a day until they get it. Meanwhile, impound their Hummers and SUVs and reprocess them for scrap metal.

Ban Cows! wrote on Feb 19, 2007 7:41 PM:There's more cows than SUVs! Cow flatuence is just as bad if not worse than an SUV.

Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2007 8:15 PM:Who pays the carbon credts for Speaker Pelosi's plane...oh, the taxpayers....again.

Yo, Reardon - wrote on Feb 19, 2007 10:08 PM:Why are you so doggedly determined to continue propagating all those stupid, vapid, right-wing lies and smears? Like the phony Pelosi/plane crap? Shame on you. I imagine you were one of the Bushbots "Intervention" had you in mind when thinking about what it might take to deprogram the hate-spewing Limbaugh addicts.

Michael Hippenhammer wrote on Feb 20, 2007 1:17 AM:Reading this blog is saddening. So much mis-understanding of what is happening to our world. So many lies for political or economic gains. When we have all scientists( OK maybe 1% disagree, who we end up finding that they were paid off by some oil company ) in the world telling us we need to change and change fast and all we do is argue about who is to blame. Just look in the mirror and you will find out we are all guilty. No, one person eating organic food or driving on bio-diesel and living on solar power is going to make a difference it takes all of us. Now we need to set some things straight! Ozone. It is the protective layer in our atmosphere so we don't burn our skin and get cancer. It is separate from Gobal Warming. Starting in the late 1800's nations around the world started the industrial revolution. Looking at records, including ice core records, we see a very steady low level of carbon in the atmosphere and in the 1800,s that level started to rise. We used wood, coal, and oil. The coal and oil were under ground (stored) sources of carbon. It would have stayed there for millions of years had we not dug and pumped it out of the ground. Now that we are pumping billions of gallons of oil out of its storage place every year, we burn that carbon and it goes into the atomosphere and has no where to go because the natural system can not keep up. So to deny that people and our activities have no part in global warming just proves that you are brain washed and truely do not think for your self. You are the most easy to fool. Rush makes millions off you! Oh, and some of you bash on the Chinese without knowing what they are planning. There CAFE standard is 35mpg. Ours is 26 changing to 27! Yes, they have a booming economy and they want what we have. It requires energy we have 300 million people they have billions! Yet they are catching up to us? They are projected to use a LOT of wind power, their solar production will meet world market level soon but, they need power to do it. So they use what they have. Coal. They are also looking at our mistakes and taking them seriously. Belive me they are farther ahead in thinking than America, sad to say. We just have brain washed buffoons who are too lazy to learn what is happening around the world to realize that the world is passing us up while we live on the laurels of the past and do nothing for our future! Biggest problem with those people is they VOTE!!!

Russ wrote on Feb 20, 2007 3:19 AM:For those fans of "An incovenient Lie" who are brainwashed that it's all your fault, take heart! These are the same scientists that started screaming in the 80's that we were running out of food, the ocean's ecosystems were collapsing, crude oil would be gone in 10 years. They can't even get the weather right for a six month period (El Nino, anyone?) how do you expect them to get it right for the next 50-100 years? Climate change occurs over looooooong periods of time, not in the time it takes to cook up your favorite rice cake. Keep up the resistance to the nanny state!!!

Another Republican wrote on Feb 20, 2007 7:36 AM:lie, bandied about as if it were fact: Speaker Pelosi *never* "requested" ANY plane, private or public, to fly from D.C. to San Francisco. The federal government *requires* Pelosi, whether she likes it or not, just as it did Hastert before her, to fly on a government plane, because the Speaker Of The House is next in line to become the U.S. President if the President and Vice President die or become incapacitated. It's a national security policy. It's simply incredible how such stupid lies told by Rove and the RNC in the first place, disseminated by Fox bobbleheads and Limbaugh and his wannabee imitators, and then regurgitated and repeated endlessly by their dumbed-down wilfully ignorant Bushbots on the internet. Utterly appalling.

Coolingoff wrote on Feb 20, 2007 7:45 AM:This issue has stirred quite a contraversy. I have to admit that I am one of the very selfish, ignorant and preumpuous people identified by Intervention. "Global Warming" is a cause made in heaven for the libs. There is no proof (or disproof) and plenty of antidotal evidence to support it. It provides the ideal issue to justify more government control. I have the ideal solution. We need to roundup all the tree huggers, save-the-earth and hate-America-first crowd and ship them off to New Guinea. They will be happy because they can live in a pristine natural environment. They won't have to worry about cars because there are no roads. They won't have to worry about industrial pollution because there is no industry. They can spit their hate America venom from the highest tree and no one will complain. At the same time, the rest of us will be happy because we get them off our back. Don't try to argue with these people. Their first line of argument is call you a bad name. Their second line is to regurgitate some drivel they read in the newspaper. Actually, if these people could think for themselves, they wouldn't be libs.

Bollocks wrote on Feb 22, 2007 10:05 AM:Cooling offs coments above are classic,he actually has the nerve to say environmentalists are the name callers when he is deridng them as tree huggers save the earth and hate America types!!after his rantings and name calling he suggests sending them all to New Guinea.I'm surprised he even knows how to spell it. Where doe's all this hate against people trying to look after the environment come from?Is driving your SUV so important you have to show such hatred toward these people advocating more efficient means of transport. Another thought if fighting for the right to keep SUVs fueled I also have a suggestion for these weenies how a bout getting your asses out to Irag and fight for that oil instead of expecting someone else to.

R W wrote on Feb 26, 2007 5:41 PM:I hate for a government to tell me what I wear, eat, drink or what to drive. I don't drive much so if I want to drive a motor scooter, airplane of a SUV, that should be my choice.

flabu2 wrote on Feb 26, 2007 6:30 PM:you should check your facts before you condemn something I drive an SUV A Ford Excursion Diesel and I get 26 MPG on the Highway and 18 around town

Freedom wrote on Feb 26, 2007 6:58 PM:I am not opposed to doing things to help the enviroment. I, however, am opposed to the government deciding what is best for me and my family, and forcing that on us. I am sure that when hybrid prices come down, more people will buy them. But I don't think the government should decide what is best for anyone. Most of the hybrids are too expensive for working class families. I am alarmed by the fact that the people who complain the most about the government taking away freedoms are the ones who agree with this. We don't need government interference to solve the problem of Global Warming.

Terry S. wrote on Feb 26, 2007 7:07 PM: So tired of hearing polls and statistics. Both are easily manipulated. I live in California and these people have screwed up their system and now expect a quick fix through liberal guilting the populace via the media. I love my SUV. Its one of the freedoms our forefathers gave us.

jpi wrote on Feb 26, 2007 7:55 PM:Given the United States is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse-gas emissions, is nothing more than a made up plot to control people. First of all, if a person would do their home work they will find that there is no global warming. Second, China puts more trash out than any other country in the world but the two-faced people we have running our government, [doesn't matter what party they are on] act like we, the American people are at fault. While they send all our jobs and factories to other countries where there are no laws concerning greenhouse-gas or anything else. If the American people don't wake-up and get off the pot, they can kiss their freedom good bye. Have you ever counted the issues that have come up just in the last decade that has taken your liberty out from under you?

J.P. Fleetwood wrote on Feb 26, 2007 8:53 PM:It's not what you drive, but that "you" are here--The real problem is population growth. "No demand--No comsumpion." It's really that simple.

Tami wrote on Feb 27, 2007 2:50 AM:Hello people the word is "Global" Warming. Why is it that the US gets blamed for everything that goes on in the world. We just vacationed in the Caribbean and they are driving cars from the 1970's talk about greenhouse gases. The American leaders need to start with these countries and then come back and talk to us about greenhouse gases.

D454Casull wrote on Feb 27, 2007 3:19 AM:Just a thought have you ever thought about the disabled,they have no options. Try putting a 300lb electric chair in a Honda.