2 Solutions: wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:50 PM:1: Telecommute. Many jobs in San Diego involve sitting in a cubicle with a computer and a phone. Explain to me why driving 1 hour each way is necessary to do this work?

2: Permit at least as many living spaces as room for labor, as opposed to the current situation, where SD county has more permits for job space than housing for the next ten years.

Of course, both of these would require ignoring the interests of the commercial developers who actually run our county. Silly me.

George wrote on Feb 2, 2008 1:33 AM:One of the primary sources of auto emissions is planned congestion on our freeways. An immediate effort to add capacity in the form of regular lanes will accomplish this goal! Cars operating at freeway speed emit far fewer pollutants compared to stop-and-go driving, and the reduction in travel time will also reduce net emissions. It's time to take down the "carpool only" signs to reclaim wasted capacity, time to widen the "choke points", and time to add new lanes to the freeways!

Right! wrote on Feb 2, 2008 6:04 AM:Urban planning will not work. People would rather live in single family residences as far away from everyone else as possible. They will continue to commute and commute further. SANDAG will have to force downzoning in the backcountry and in urban areas away from train stations. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Controlling population growth is the only way forward. This is easy to do because it turns out that most of california's population growth is a result of international immigration. On the other hand, we will see an end of these global warming laws as california is flooded with another culture; a culture that doesn't care to pa for environmental causes.

Mary wrote on Feb 2, 2008 6:51 AM:What happens if you change jobs? And your new job is farther than your old job, maybe outside the "allowed" range and you don't want to sell your house. Will you be forced to sell your home in order to live close to the job per some rule/law? Some jobs a person can telecommute. But if you are a receptionist at a company, or a salesperson at a store, etc., it would be hard to telecommute. What about the heat island effect achieved by making all the homes and businesses close to each other. Heat island effects also have an effect on global warming. I was reading an article in some science related magazine where even if all Americans stopped driving immediately, the effect on CO2 emissions would be negliable as far as influencing global warming. It would take many years, to see an impact. Also, wouldn't it be more efficient and effective to direct efforts and money towards technology concentrating on alternative energy sources. Trying to dictate to people how much they can drive, where they can live, how much they can breathe per day, seems a tad on the socialist side. It is a feel good thing for the politicians but will have no impact on the climate.

local wrote on Feb 2, 2008 7:28 AM:Great goal. First, use common sense. When you conference, teleconference, or hold it in a location where the most attendees have the shortest commute to get there, share rides, share rooms when attendees get there because waste creates waste--four to a room if they have to stay overnight sounds reasonable. Build lots of freeway lanes to cut down on idling and stop and go traffic instead of purposely squeezing drivers into a few lanes to punish them for driving and to pretend you are doing something. Distribute nice shopping areas throughout cities so we don't have to drive across town or go to another town entirely to shop. Require large parking lots or garages so shoppers don't spend much time idling and driving looking for spaces. Look at Esco as how not to do it. If you live on the east side, you have to drive across town or go to another town to shop. Very frustrating but also very wasteful of resources and damaging to air quality. Hire traffic planners with common sense and know how--there's no excuse for getting every red light when you are trying to drive across a town or out of a town to get to normal, non-99 cent store shopping. There's no excuse for setting up a red turn arrow in a major intersection so only a few cars get through at a time. There's no excuse for allowing a situation--well, like on Ash in Esco where it narrows at Washington. No excuse at all.

Simon says: wrote on Feb 2, 2008 7:55 AM: There is controversy as to what is causing the warming of the earth. But, it doesn't really matter what is causing it. The green house gases are all around us and something has to be done very quick. The only facts available to the voting public are 1) It is happening. 2) We see, feel, taste, and breathe the poisons that are ruining our health and our quality of life. 3) There are many things that can be done NOW to stop the trashing of our environment, 4)Develop better sources of energy. Putting jobs and homes side by side is not the answer. It would not solve anything. The first things to be done is control the greenhouse gases presently being spewed into our breathing air; e.g., everybody knows that automobiles traveling at high speeds spew out poisons from many places - such as from under the hood, from the oil pan, vapors from the gas tank, and out the tail pipe, etc. I can assure you that the people racing down I-15 in the morning and back in the evening, at 80 to 90 mph, are not headed for, or leaving, a low paying job. Controlling the speed limits is something that can be done now. It would be just a matter of getting law enforcement on the job with zeal, and applying stiff fines. Where are they in this by the way? Forget, at least for the time being, the global aspect of the subject. We need to clean up our country, and others can clean up theirs. It sounds to me as if developers are pushing our politicians to open up more work for them. They could take down houses in neighborhoods and put up buildings for fast food and quick-marts and such - even malls. If so, take a hike! Well planed cities with industrial, commercial, and residential zones were supposed to take care of that and still can.

John wrote on Feb 2, 2008 8:49 AM:The underlying cause of most of our environmental problems is human population growth. ... It's all well and good that steps be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it would be more meaningful to limit our numbers. SANDAG should do a study to determine the optimal population size of the area.

Senior Rider II wrote on Feb 2, 2008 9:34 AM:Sounds like the Sandag Smart Growth Developer Dream......and if you are reviewing the betterment of transit.Just say Sprinter 100 times.

Stuck in Crazy Times wrote on Feb 2, 2008 9:59 AM:"And she said that will mean finding ways to curb the amount of driving people do."

The facists will not be happy until they have forced everyone to wear Mao style environmentaly friendly clothing and we come and go as the government allows us.

Reardon wrote on Feb 2, 2008 10:16 AM:The Planners are coming! The Planners are coming! They want your car, they want your yard, they want your money. I have seen their plan -- everyone lives in grey multi-story buildings, and takes mass-transit to work in a centralized location. No one owns a car. You could have seen it too, but somehow that mold was broken, and now people want and actually drive cars. Freedom! (Well, relatively.) But the central planners did hold sway when I was in Moscow in 1987. That is the template -- but remember, the members of People For a Perfect World are just "Planners" and they have your best interest at heart! They hate to take away your freedom, but they have a planet to save! Watch for the new signs, “CO2 is bad for YOU! Abandon your car for Mass Transit!”

Molly wrote on Feb 2, 2008 11:35 AM:Does "unfunded mandate" ring any bells? And state legislators can tell us what to do and how to live, without funding their ideas: given the state budget crisis, it is unlikely that they can succeed right now. Gas prices at $4 or $5 a gallon will probably succeed where they cannot.

hot air.... wrote on Feb 2, 2008 11:56 AM:Sandag is a major contributor of hot air to the local environment.

Global Cooling wrote on Feb 2, 2008 12:55 PM:They claim this is a "Global" event, and yet the measurment of sea ice in the Antarctic shows we are currently at 1,500,000 Square Miles above average for this time of year. In mid to late December 2007 the measurements showed the sea ice to be at 2,900,000 square miles above average. How could this be if the warming is "Global"? Seems that old Multan was right about his cycles!

CO2 and O2 wrote on Feb 2, 2008 1:01 PM:Dr. C. Keeling gave of the Keeling Curve showing CO2 on the rise. But his son, Dr. R. Keeling, has shown us that O2 is not falling nearly as fast as CO2 is rising. Now, if CO2 is produced from the burning of Carbon, and requires 2 Oxygens molecules for each Carbon, then logic would dictate that for every CO2 molecule produced by the burning of fossile fuels you would need to decrease atmospheric O2 by a count of 2. But, Dr. R. Keeling shows us that such a decline is NOT happening. So, where are we getting all this extra Oxygen to produce the CO2 if the rise in CO2 is man made?

Mike wrote on Feb 2, 2008 2:02 PM:To staff writer Dave Downey why did you use the word "many" in the following quote "many believe the elevated levels are principally responsible for the rising temperatures around the globe."?

“Many” is an inaccurate and incorrect assessment of the situation. I doubt you can find one meteorologist or geologist who would say that human caused greenhouse gasses are NOT the major cause of current global warming. Why did you not say "most" or more accurately "virtually all."

Please be more accurate in further stories on this topic. You no longer have to be afraid of the "global warming" deniers. They have been reduced to a few hired gun radio cons and their increasingly small audience of non-thinking sheeple.

Human caused global warming is likely to be the greatest challenge to modern civilization since the Mongol invasion. It should be treated as such by non-partisan reporters. The science is straight forward. The possible consequences are disastrous.

Anyone with an open mind and an eight grade education can understand the relationship between the increase in greenhouse gasses and increases in yearly average temperatures in the world's mountains, the Arctic and the Antarctic. Let's get it right next time. Thanks.

Reardon wrote on Feb 2, 2008 4:06 PM:Thank God for Global Warming! A mere (geologically) 18,000 years ago on this very Continent, what is now New York City was under hundreds of feet of glacial ice, and I'll bet the 10 million or so souls who live there are very happy that something got us out of the last Ice Age. It will come again, but we know not when -- and our short term predictions are as faulty as our long term predictions -- for they are just that "predictions." We need a period to check some of these predictions against actuals before plunging headlong into the abyss -- think of how wrongheaded it would have been had we changed our way of living to conform to the predictions of Global Cooling in 1974!

To Mike wrote on Feb 2, 2008 4:58 PM:See "Global Cooling" and "CO2 and O2" above your Blog. Also, please explain why the Ice Cap on Mars has been getting smaller over the same period as our own Earth's norther ice cap melted. (Please note that the southern ice cap on Earth actually got larger during this period). You will find that Planetoligists don't agree with the Global Warming nuts who are pushing false science for political reasons. We are not just a few global warming deniers.

Tony wrote on Feb 2, 2008 5:30 PM:What a range in blog comments today! One poster says "We don't know what's causing climate change, so we've got to do something immediately!" while the other describes the similarities between the current planning efforts and communism. I'm nominating Reardon for the "Posting Of The Day" award and the "He Who Forgets The Past Is Doomed To Repeat It" trophy.

To right: wrote on Feb 2, 2008 6:19 PM: Back in medieval days England's population seemed to be getting out of hand, so the king took it under control. He made it a crime to do the act that begot children. And that, the acronym for the kings program, was the source of today's ultimate of all four letter words. To regulate the act would make it more attractive and desirable to individuals and would tend to increase the problem rather than control it. If you can come up with a good way to prevent births that would be adhered to, put it out to the public. In addition, at present our current baby boomer problem is believed to be caused by over active couples during the period 1945 to 1964. During the my generation we averaged 3.4 children per family. The problem is that during the Roe vs Wade period, 1973 to present, the baby boomers averaged 1.9 per family. They have been killing off tax payers at an alarming rates, and they have nobody to pay enough taxes to take care of them. Starting in a few years from now, when the baby boomers retire in droves, there will not be enough money to care for them in their old age. So much for controlling the population. We are being controlled right back into a third world country by the baby boomers.

WhoWhat wrote on Feb 2, 2008 6:32 PM:So are business's expected to park their service/delivery etc.. vehicle's and let the the economy grind to a halt? All because "we don't really know whats causing global warming but have to do something about it", this is socialist nonsense and another power grab by big government. Let let calmer heads debate (yes there has been none) and look at the true science not this political chicken little propaganda.

michael a. wrote on Feb 2, 2008 7:09 PM:A GRADUALLY INCREASING TAX ON ALL FOSSIL FUELS.

That is all the market needs to correct this problem. If we had done this 20 years ago, global warming wouldn't be half the threat it is today.

Unfortunately, there are too many anti-environmental 'conservatives' in our government. Their idiotic idiotology is why our nation has REFUSED to act on this important issue. But it's easy for us to fire them.

Don't vote for Republicans or Conservative Democrats, not for president, not for the Senate, not for Congress, not for Govenor, not for State Legislature, Not for Mayor, Not for City Council, not for School Board. If we all do this, we can fire these fools and get serious about global warming.

Floyd wrote on Feb 2, 2008 9:15 PM:What we really need is a gradually increasing tax on environmental organizations that oppose an adequate infrastructure.

From a different viewpoint.. wrote on Feb 2, 2008 9:34 PM:SANDAG can't even get a freeway project right, and they're interested in trying to change the climate? Come on now..

Walt wrote on Feb 3, 2008 12:15 PM:To find an analogy to this nonsense flash back nearly 100 years when telephone calls were (wo)manually connected at long rows of switchboards. As the population grew, and telephones became more useful, suppose government in its wisdom decided who could make how many calls in order to limit space, power, and manual effort needed. Fortunately forward looking communications leadership took positive steps using automation technology instead of regulation to fix the problem. First electrical relays, and tube type amplifiers. Then conversion to solid state. (the transistor was invented as part of general research for better telephones). Along with satellites, and fiber optics cable capacity has outrun rapidly growing demand and we make hundreds of millions of calls daily for pennies per minute essential to our prosperity and transport of information. By contrast transportation is stuck in the manual switchboard dark ages. Still trying to make dressed up vehicles from the same era with some creature comfort added, but little real performance improvement. Where is the forward looking leadership? Why heads in the sand give up game plans to regulate lifestyles of individuals? How will the impact on productivity and lifestyles be corrected? Like communications, transportation is not the end product, but an important support element. Even when rationing was needed in the depths of WW II, fuel, not automobile travel was regulated so individuals could decide their most productive use. There are positive steps to save energy. Short term; A 50% reduction in national auto fuel use could be accomplished in a very few years by incentives to shift to already available designs. Considering only a one mpg improvement in average fuel use saves more than the entire transit system uses, why are we tinkering with controversial tiny gains and increased traffic congestion that Transit Oriented Developments might bring? Wouldn’t the $ millions subsidy dollars be better spent for efficient car use? Intelligent ramp metering for smooth freeway flow reduces congestion caused fuel waste, compared to toll managed lanes which increases it. Stop taking land out of productive use in order to build roads and affordable housing nearer to work. Finally, as the private communications industry did, encourage new system level technology to bring about the potential energy and land use savings automation can bring. Better use of current roads, and with very light weight personal use vehicles on dedicated guideways. California is starting to take the lead in auto efficiency. Extend it to wake up the federal support needed for the long run!

Reardon wrote on Feb 3, 2008 3:48 PM:The Central Planners are Coming! They know what is best for you, and with government force they will enforce it! Stop eating fatty foods! Stop smoking anything! (Anywhere!) Give up your FILTHY FOSSIL FUEL car and take Mass Transit! (I hope that is not copyrighted.)The late Art Hoppe once wrote “Who knows? Maybe my life belongs to God. Maybe it belongs to me. But I do know one thing: I'm damned if it belongs to the government.”

to michael a. wrote on Feb 3, 2008 7:04 PM:Read CO2 and O2 above. Then explain how raising taxes on American consumption of oil would have cut Global Warming in half? Also, considering that it is a KNOWN fact that China is now producing more CO2 and other Green House gasses than the USA (not to mention they are still using and releasing Freon into the air that is destroying the Ozone layer), please esplain how placing significant economic burdens on Americans in the USA would help stop Global Warming? China would love to buy all that oil we don't buy and use it to fuel their economic engine! Do you speak Chineese? If not, you better start learning real soon.