Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Climate change bill takes aim at cars
By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | ∞
Local officials are resisting Sacramento's latest initiative in its expanding battle against climate change.
Last year, the Legislature passed a landmark law that requires power plants, oil refineries and factories to slash one-quarter of carbon emissions by 2020.
This year, Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, is taking the campaign further and targeting the cars and trucks responsible for 40 percent of California's emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists believe are warming the planet at an alarming, unnatural rate.
Steinberg, through Senate Bill 375, would ask agencies that periodically prepare regional transportation plans to build those around local strategies that place housing near jobs, shopping and public transit. The idea is to get people to drive less or ride the bus, and curb carbon emissions in the process.
The kicker is, if agencies didn't design roads in concert with such strategies, they could lose hundreds of millions in state transportation funds annually.
Local agencies have made it clear they don't like the bill. The San Diego Association of Governments voted 11-4 on July 27 to take a position against the bill. On Monday, the Western Riverside Council of Governments voted 14-0 to follow suit.
"We're not against fighting global warming," said Danielle Coats, the council's director of governmental affairs, on Thursday. "We just want to make sure that this doesn't limit local authority."
Thomas Buckley, a Lake Elsinore councilman and a board member on the regional council, said the bill would set a bad precedent.
"Land use planning is always done best at the local level," Buckley said. "Considering how good Sacramento is at running the state, I'm not sure we want them running every city and county."
Gary Gallegos, executive director for the San Diego Association of Governments, said the bill would force counties to adopt "preferred growth scenarios" that provide blueprints for placing housing and employment side by side. And he said agencies would have to design regional transportation plans around the assumption that those blueprints would be carried out -- even if individual cities refused to follow them.
Such plans outline where roads and rail lines will be built.
Gallegos said his agency is trying to nudge San Diego County cities toward growing more compactly by offering financial rewards. Through the Steinberg bill, he said, "we would be shifting from the carrot to the stick."
Steinberg offered no apologies in a hearing earlier this summer.
"I'm just thrilled to have stoked a real debate on what I think is a really important issue," Steinberg said. He said it is time to view the idea of reducing vehicle travel "not as an ideology but in fact as a necessary step to address traffic and air quality."
The legislation passed the Senate in June and the Assembly Local Government and Transportation Committee in July.
Dan Jacobson, legislative director for Sacramento-based Environment California, said he hopes it becomes law. He said it is needed in sprawl-king Southern California, with its marathon commute.
"Instead of having everything so spread out, let's create communities where things are closer in," Jacobson said.
And addressing auto travel is critical if California is serious about making a dent in global warming, he said.
As for the concern about infringing on local control, he said something has to be done to spur commuters to do their part.
"Everyone would like global warming to be really easy to solve, but we're going to have to change the way that we do things," he said. "We are going to have to change the way we produce power. We are going to have to change the way that we transport ourselves."
It all sounds so good, said Dan Carrigg, legislative director for the League of California Cities which opposes the measure. But there is a devil in the details.
"Saying that we are going to hold up your transportation money until you have a perfect society is not going to work," Carrigg said.
-- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@californian.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
John wrote on Aug 10, 2007 7:45 AM:We the people have lost all local control on just about every thing. Not all scientists agree on the cause of global warming. The elite rulers of the world are going to use gobal warming as an excuse to tax everyone in the world for the one world government. The North American Union is just the beginning.
Reardon wrote on Aug 10, 2007 7:51 AM:Have you seen the cars the Legislators charge to the California taxpayers? SUVs a bunch, and BIG passenger cars. The hypocrisy is so obvious.
Jim wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:04 AM:I don't see a problem with this. San Diego over the past couple of decades has been a poster child for sprawl, which is a big part of why transit is hard here. San Diego has the authority to plan for more McMansions in far off eastern parts of the county, but the state doesn't need to help them do that.
George wrote on Aug 10, 2007 10:18 AM:If there's any question about the plan to 'force people out of their cars', this development should remove all doubt.
Herb wrote on Aug 10, 2007 10:40 AM:Does this "Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento" take the bus? Does he live in a nice home? Is he a lawyer? I think the answers to this pop quiz are probably: no, yes, and yes.
JK wrote on Aug 10, 2007 10:53 AM:Gimme a break, we are going to have climate change shoved down our thraots form here to eternity so some low life politicians can gather all the sheep into their flock for fleecing. We can not help, stop or save mother nature from doing what she wants, we can only try to survive her.
Cows, not just cars. wrote on Aug 10, 2007 11:24 AM:One cow is worse than one Land Cruiser. Cow belches and flatulence should not be ignored. End the quest for burgers and the greenhouse effect will subside. Don't believe? In Google We Trust.
JK wrote on Aug 10, 2007 11:49 AM:Right on Cows, when I turned vegetarian I started doing more to save our environment than any of the holier than thou, pompous Prius driving burger eaters out there. I require a truck for my lifestyle and can drive for 3 weeks on the same amount carbon emissions it requires to produce a single pound of hamburger. By not eating meat I also save the Amazon jungle deforrestation that is ongoing to create more land to grow beef cattle. Get off the carbon footprint bandwagon and look around, we can all do good things without being trendy and following the political pied pipers to economic ruin.
Green wrote on Aug 10, 2007 11:51 AM:No, we cannot stop global warming or climate change, but we can collectively slow it's effects. Skeptics by choice will not participate in this effort. After all, it's an invention of Al Gore.
Floyd wrote on Aug 10, 2007 12:05 PM:Global warming has also been noticed on Mars and Venus. Are we responsible for that, too?
Jim wrote on Aug 10, 2007 12:37 PM:"Science" is nothing but more liberal ideology. The fact that Scientists admit that they might be wrong just shows that their global warming line is JUST a theory. What has "Science" ever done for honest, hard working Americans? And as to those people who are tinkering with ways to make our world a better place by asking me to live near where I work -- if that means giving up my car, then that's UN-AMERICAN! Jesus will keep our world cool!!-- Gotta go turn on the A.C. in my Hummer. Man I love all you like-minded people here in Temecula!
Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 10, 2007 12:55 PM:As good as the "village" lifestyle sounds--walk to work, walk to shop,etc.--you can't make a law and force it upon people. It seems that just about everyone is on the global warming bandwagon now days, for one reason or another. Personlly, I think it's a lot of hyperbole to get votes and sell products. And yes, there are too many cows, and there's too many cars, hell there's just too many people! Bring on the global warming!
How does that work wrote on Aug 10, 2007 1:13 PM:This clown wants to keep money we have paid in taxes because we don't conform to his way of thinking. We really need to get these clowns out of office or better yet, go to a part time legislature. It is obvious they have to much time on their hands. BTW Darrell, don't you have a budget that needs passing? ...
Reardon wrote on Aug 10, 2007 2:16 PM:Ya' gotta love how the new term is "climate change" to cover global warming and global cooling. Quick question: When, in the 4+ billion year age of this planet was the day the climate was "normal?" One more quick question for the "climate scientists" among the Bloggers: Now that NOAA has "revised" their 1990's data that previously showed the highest temperature readings, and the new data shows the 1930's as the highest, can you square that circle? IF Hunan’s are contributors to "warming" or "cooling" -- what % of climate change is directly to human activity? If climate change is a science (and not a religion), you should be able to answer those easy questions.
Hummer Driver in Temecula wrote on Aug 10, 2007 3:04 PM:I just recently read a speeech by scientist/author Michael Crichton titled "The Case For Skepticism On Global Warming" at [Web site] that debunks much of the mythology behind today's whacked out environmental movement. The environmental religious movement has lots of faith, but no proof to back up their claims that "global warming" is caused by human activity. Socialist environmental fear mongers like Al Gore, Darrell Steinberg and yes, even the RINO Arnold Schwarzennegger, are using junk science to usurp more and more American freedoms and individual liberties. These demagogues are nothing more than closet totalitarians who seek to control every aspect of our lives. Darrell Steinberg, you can take your "climate change bill" and shove it into your ozone hole. By taking "aim" at personal vehicles, Steinberg risks becoming somebody's hood ornament. Come to think of it, he might look good as an "ornie" on my 365 HP SUV. Vroooom, vroooom!
Abigail wrote on Aug 10, 2007 3:09 PM:Wake up people, Utopia is just a fantesy. Changes in the climate is a natural process that's been going on since the Earth was created. We even had a mini ice age during the middle ages. It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars to create this fantesy world and that's not even considering the logistics. Consider this, if new housing/businesses were created they need to be "earth friendly" as in installing solar panels, wind machines, etc. Nobody but the very well off would be able to afford them at the current costs. Besides just changing California will do nothing to help the environment. This would have to be implemented worldwide which isn't going to happen. I'm a tree hugger myself but even I can see the stupidity of this bill.
Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 10, 2007 3:41 PM:Right on Abigail, and Hummer Driver. Crichton is on the money. Just Google his name. Also, his book State of Fear tells it like it really is with the enviro-power mongers. Good book and its full of foot notes for reference points. Glad to see not everyone has been drinking from the cool aid.
Mike wrote on Aug 10, 2007 3:59 PM:No need to worry. We Americans benefit from global warming in the form of cheap energy (so we don't have to worry about wasting it), and we get to drive gargantuan race cars to the grocery store. The negative consequences are going to be harshest on the millions of poor people who will die in Bangladesh, so we should just enjoy our freedom(freedumb?)
Floyd wrote on Aug 10, 2007 5:09 PM:Since I'm not responsible global warming on other planets, that means I'm not causing global warming on this planet, either.
Agent wrote on Aug 10, 2007 5:51 PM:I bought land in Greenland just in case. It's cheap now, but wait in 10 years
More "Gorebal" Warming wrote on Aug 10, 2007 6:09 PM:"Gorebal" Warming is nothing but a Theory. It's NEVER been proven. Real Americans work Hard for THEIR Money. If they want to Buy Big American Trucks and Muscle Cars, SO BE IT! Michael Crichton has debunked the "Gorebal" Warmers. Quit attacking Our Freedoms!
Yes, yes, and yes!! wrote on Aug 10, 2007 6:17 PM:They are targeting SUV's - Finally. Get those... suckers off the street. Hooray!
Green wrote on Aug 10, 2007 7:03 PM:Our bovine friends are responsible for global warming! They work hard and can spew as much methane as they wish. But we wouldn't want to take away their freedom.
Pathetic SUV drivers wrote on Aug 10, 2007 7:55 PM:they are getting desperate. They are like nicotine or heroin addicts. Now they are using a science fiction writer as their great expert. Do you think it is because he says things they want to hear? bottom line is that greedy Americans want to rape the enviroment in the name of making money. Our 5% of the worlds population uses 25% of the worlds resources. We are responsible for the largest share of carbon emissions. yeah, lets just blame the cows.
Singer wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:10 PM:Are we STILL talking about global warming?? Climate change? (So, which is it, now?) Hellllloooo! This has been going on since the earth formed. It gets hotter; it gets colder -it's nature, people. There is a political/economical motivation behind all of this, bruhaha(BTW: Mars is getting hotter, also) and we will NOT be the winners. Wake up, fergodssake!
Reardon wrote on Aug 10, 2007 9:36 PM:To Pathetic: Please answer some or all of my questions, above. BTW, check Michael Crichton's on-line credentials. FAR more scientific than just a Sci-fi writer...an actual scientist, which I doubt you are. His research for his books is excellent, and he went into State of Fear -- he admits -- personally believing in global climate change. The data -- which he uses in the fictionalized book, is actual data, and that data has dissuaded him from supporting global anything. He is a skeptic to both sides of the argument and remains to be convinced -- but he hates the overblown hype of the global warming crowd, which has a financial incentive...much like the computer scientists in the Y2K debacle.
Matthew wrote on Aug 10, 2007 9:54 PM:The ignorance of so many of the people on this website is astounding.
Walt wrote on Aug 10, 2007 10:02 PM:Why are we messing around expecting citizens to change lifestyles in mass transit dependent hedonic enclaves?Less than 2 mpg improvement in automobiles energu use saves more fuel than the entire trasit fleet burns in the first place. How then can a few more transit riders help? Such cars are readily available, and adequate for most users. Adding riders to current overbuilt underused transit indeed sounds energy efficient. Where is the math, if transit oriented developments become the norm that mass transit can perform the require service levels, frequencies etc? How is the two to one disadvantage in trip time by transit overcome? Twice as many trips per job done? Transit oriented development promotors haven't done the simple math that shows they INCREASE auto congestion and consume more fuel and cause pollution. Example a 50% increase in community density INCREASES auto congestion about 17% even if the number of transit riders in the new population triples. A six-fold increse in transit riders is needed not to increase auto congestion. Likely??
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (19)
- FALLBROOK: Peruvian chocolatier living sweet American dream (12)
- TEMECULA: Parade, fireworks draw thousands on nation's birthday (11)
- CARLSBAD: Golf benefit raises $20,000 for Conner's Cause (9)
- SAN PASQUAL VALLEY: Animal park offering extended hours, extra shows and activities (7)
Advertisement