RSS
February 26, 2008
Solo SUV & Hummer Drivers Could Get Car Pool Lane Access
Photo by billaday via Flickr
If you thought Sacramento politics was like watching paint dry on a wall, then it's time to revaluate that thought... at least for the moment. On Friday, the Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert blog picked their Press Release of the Week and if the proposed bill is passed, it could effect the roadways here in Los Angeles by letting solo drivers, including Hummers and other SUVs, gain access to car pool lanes if they purchase carbon off-sets annually. According to Senator Jim Battin (R- La Quinta), who submitted the bill, a "flashy, fuel-sucking car" (like his Lincon Aviator) only costs $45 a year while a Prius' carbon footprint can be neutralized for $15 (otherwise, the green bean car becomes "a worse foe to the environment than an SUV").
"SB 1374 would allow auto owners who purchase carbon credits that offset the carbon dioxide emissions of their vehicles to participate in the Clean Air - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) decal program, allowing the driver to use an HOV lane," a press release from Battin's office stated (full press release below). And while Capitol Alert notes that the statement is dripping of sarcasm, a call to Battin's Sacramento office proved that the bill is the real deal, having been submitted and is not a spot-bill (a placeholder bill that may or may not be about what it says).
Battin voted against California's leading recent environmental law, AB 32. The entire press release from Battin's office, chock full of sass and snark, is below.
02/22/2008 (via Jim Battin's website)
Battin proposes to open HOV Lanes to 'Carbon Neutral' drivers
SACRAMENTO – Senator Jim Battin (R- La Quinta) announced today legislation that would encourage every owner of a polluting, flashy, fuel sucking car to buy their way into an environmentally conscious “carbon neutral” lifestyle. SB 1374 would allow auto owners who purchase carbon credits that offset the carbon dioxide emissions of their vehicles to participate in the Clean Air - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) decal program, allowing the driver to use an HOV lane.
This program currently only applies to the first 88,000 vehicles meeting enhanced California and Federal emission standards. Under Battin’s proposed law, carbon neutral vehicles can also participate in the decal program. Battin sees SB 1374 as a perfect opportunity to jump start the state’s efforts to single-handedly stop the fractionally small rise in global temperature.
On February 28, the California State Air Resources Board (CARB) is scheduled to consider under its AB 32 implementation plan how voluntary early actions can start saving the planet. “I can’t think of a better way to become a true champion of the environment and reduce your carbon foot print than by going “carbon neutral” with your car,” stated Battin.
Battin himself decided to go “carbon neutral” immediately after he was scolded by the Contra Costa Times’ article that read, "Lawmakers' flashy, fuel-sucking cars on road at the expense of taxpayers".
“I was embarrassingly caught using excess energy. The only thing I could do was take action,” Battin declared.
Battin immediately purchased for $45 a DriveNeutral Certificate which simply states that his CO2 emissions have been offset for one year. The obvious next question is if he has gone “green” and is “carbon neutral” why shouldn’t he and other environmentally conscious drivers have the same rights as low-emission drivers and live the HOV lane good life?
This proposal should complement CARB’s efforts. Through the DriveNeutral “CO2” Calculator or any of the dozens of other “carbon calculators” one can calculate that a 2007 Toyota Prius emits 4,229 pounds of dirty carbon per year making the Prius a worse foe to the environment than Senator Battin’s carbon-free Lincoln Aviator. Through LiveNeutral, or any of the dozens of other carbon credit vendors, it would cost only $15 to eliminate this Prius polluter’s carbon footprint.
Battin added, “The guilt of my excess energy using days are a thing of the past - I feel great about my carbon credit indulgence and think many other Californians will too… when they are driving guilt free in the empty diamond lane.”
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I bet this Battin guy is insufferable. How about instead of giving large SUV owners a 'get out of jail free' card, we tax them an extra $45/year to offset the damage they do to the environment?
[ report this ]
Yea riiiiight!
Here's an idea that's as good as buying carbon offsets. Yes, now you can buy cheating offsets.
It's called "cheatneutral". Here's a youtube you can cut and paste in your browser explaining the entire process, total time 12:42 enjoy...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_CYdYDDpk
[ report this ]
The point of carbon off-sets is that they be used as a last resort.
There's a reason why the waste hierarchy in this order:
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
The 3 Rs are meant to be a hierarchy, in order of importance.
If you drive an SUV/truck or any low mileage car with only yourself in the vehicle you should be ashamed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6548098
George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and writer, has compared carbon offsets to the practice of purchasing indulgences during the Middle Ages, whereby people believed they could purchase forgiveness for their sins (instead of actually repenting and not sinning anymore).
http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?know_id=56&menu=
Other critics accuse some offset schemes of using questionable or fraudulent methods in their calculation of emissions reductions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659716/
The current carbon trading market has also been criticized as an unregulated activity that has questionable results to actually offset or reduce carbon emissions due to the lack of standards. This situation also causes concerns regarding the authenticity of some companies dealing in carbon offsets.
http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/2007/02/the_oscar_win_for_al.cfm
It has also been argued that using carbon offsets actually increases demand for polluting sources of power since overall power consumption is not being reduced.
[ report this ]
Great link jrb!
[ report this ]
And I thought the Perez Hilton running a record label post was the most absurd news of the day.
Battin seems like an even bigger douche than Perez. Who knew that was possible?
[ report this ]
This article obviously is missing its Onion attribution, right?
[ report this ]
Oh no, this is real life:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1374_bill_20080221_introduced.html
[ report this ]
Very interesting . . . $45/year, though?
[ report this ]
Jim Battin is the the state senator for my hometown. Make no mistake about it, he's a giant douche, but La Quinta (and Palm Desert, Palm Springs, etc.) always elects whatever douche has an R next his his/her name on the ballot. Democrats out there never stand a chance even though theres more registered Democrats than Republicans!
[ report this ]
"$45/year, though?"
Chump change. This is supposed to be a financial deterrent to someone who can afford a Hummer, or a more expensive vehicle?
The HOV lanes will simply become lanes for the privileged.
[ report this ]
Pretty good summary of my press release and bill (and yes, it's a real bill) - and you even got the intent. Though some of you "commentors" seemed to have missed it.
All I want is consistency and fairness. Here's my thinking....if Al Gore can live in his Tennessee mansion (with it's HUGE carbon footprint) and fly around the world in private jets - and - Governor Schwarzenneger can live in his mansions (TWO in LA) and fly around in his private jets - without even a peep of criticism by the media because they buy carbon offsets - then - I (and everyone) should be able to drive in the HOV lane if WE buy carbon credits too.
If Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger are "carbon neutral" and live the extravagant lifestyles they do - without one peep from the media or the left about how they just might be a little hypocritical - then my Lincoln Aviator is more carbon neutral than a Prius and I should be able to drive in the carpool lane.
After all - fair is fair.
Maybe the difference is that I know I'm being a hypocrite....maybe someone should tell Al.
See you in the carpool lane! Bring your Hummer!
[ report this ]
No offense, Senator, but you're an intolerable douchebag. As a licensed civil engineer, it is my opinion that you're going to be clogging up the HOV lanes with this token access charge, defeating it's purpose altogether, just to make your petty, petty point.
[ report this ]
So is the only answer to unreasonable legislation more foolish legislation? Seems to me that's what gives California the liberal reputation it has. Too many laws.
And if you're a civil servant or representative you shouldn't feel entitled to either a Gore-like mansion or a private lane for your Navigator. Unless you want to start covering everyone's health care and offering free UC tuition to the middle class.
OK, I know... don't dream and drive.
[ report this ]
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, I'm not Al, and I'm Arnie, and carbon offsets don't do a GD thing except justify polluting.
HEY! Let's try tobbacco offsets, that way non-smokers can sell cancer or emphysema offsets to smokers, and they won't get cancer or emphysema.
I'm sure it'll sell, but do you think it will work?
[ report this ]
sign me up so I can drive my Prius and not feel guilty about it. Guess the Nicole Ritchies & the Paris Hiltons of the world want to help contribute to the Green Movement.
[ report this ]
jrb -- hmmm...interesting idea about the tobacco offsets. But my Democrat colleagues already beat you to it.
The Speaker's government takeover of our health care system bill was to be financed by tobacco taxes. So in effect, more people would have to smoke (and get cancer) to pay for the health care of others (and ironicly their own).
-----
Andy Sternberg --- I don't feel entitled to anything. But if Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger get no criticism for their "offsets" to cover their extravagence by the media or any enviromentalist, then I think my "modest proposal" deserves a fair hearing.
And, btw, you too can buy your way onto the HOV lane (and filling that lane up would take cars out of the other clogged lanes - what a deal).
And, also, btw - I drive an Aviator, not a Navigator. The Aviator is smaller, more enviromental friendly.
-----
Jeremy --- for a civil engineer, your language isn't. I didn't read past the insult.
[ report this ]
This is a great opportunity to have a dialogue with the Senator.
What if your bill actually passes and HOV lanes are now found to be obsolete? Good, bad, you don't care? Is this more about evening the playing field/keeping it fair in your perspective or for the good of environment?
[ report this ]
Senator, then you must be a mind reader, since the civil engineer part came after the insult.
[ report this ]
"And, also, btw - I drive an Aviator, not a Navigator. The Aviator is smaller, more enviromental friendly."
You can't be serious.
[ report this ]
I have six questions for Senator Battin:
1) Are you aware of the difference between "carbon emissions" and smog-forming toxic pollutants like NOx, CO, and Ozone?
Most vehicular carbon emissions are in the form of CO2, carbon dioxide, a non-toxic gas that does not contribute to the smog problem, but only to the broader concern about greenhouse gases and their role in global warming.
2) Did you know that Clean Air-HOV lanes were instituted to reduce localized emissions of toxic smog-forming chemicals, NOT to reduce non-toxic carbon dioxide emissions that do not contribute to smog?
Likewise, the exemptions given to hybrids and other alternate-fuel vehicles were based on those vehicles' extremely low emissions of toxic smog-forming pollutants, and NOT on "carbon footprint".
3) Do you understand that your proposal would do nothing whatsoever to reduce the problem that the Clean Air HOV lanes and their alternative-fuel vehicle exemptions were designed to address?
Buying carbon offsets reduces neither your own vehicles' smog-forming pollutants, nor anyone else's.
You're not buying NOx offsets or CO offsets or Ozone offsets. You're still polluting the air we breathe, adding to the smog problem, no matter how many "carbon offsets" you buy.
4) You do realize, don't you, that, in addition its failure to address the problem that HOV lanes were designed for, the bill you propose would also destroy the benefits currently produced by carpool lanes; and wouldn't, in the long run, actually benefit anyone, since the carpool lanes would quickly fill to capacity, given such a low cost-of-entry?
I'd like to think that that you know what a bone-headed idea this bill would be, and that you aren't actually trying to getting it passed; but are just posturing for the cameras, seeking some sound-bite publicity, in the hopes that clips of you calling Al Gore a hypocrite will redound to your advantage in some future election.
I'm hoping that you're not so clueless that you actually think this bill would be a good idea. But I'd like to hear you say so.
5) Could you list some of the publications and/or programs you regularly read or view, to give us some idea of what "media" you're referring to, which you claim have uttered not so much as a "single peep" of criticism of Al Gore or Arnold Schwarzenneger and their energy consumption?
I'm just wondering, because I myself have seen quite a bit of criticism of Gore and Schwarzenegger's energy consumption in various blogs, newspapers, magazines and television shows - so I'm curious what media you, as a State Senator, use to stay informed.
6) And finally: If I'm not mistaken, this is your last term in your current State Senate seat.
Since this little exercise seems to be a pretty transparent bit of election-year publicity-whoring, could you tell us what office you're planning to run for next?
[ report this ]
Oh wait. I forgot one.
You say this bill is about "consistency and fairness".
You seem to feel that the media's purported failure to citicize Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger somehow entitles you to use the carpool lane if you buy carbon offsets.
That, presumably, not allowing you to use the carpool lane is somehow "unfair" or "inconsistent".
I'm not sure I quite follow the logic there.
Any chance you could unpack that a bit for the benefit of the less perceptive among us?
[ report this ]
I should have clarified that I do not advocate the hypocrisy of Gore or Schwarzenegger. Furthermore, Senator, this two wrongs make a right philosophy of yours is childish.
It's legislation like this that makes me ashamed to be a California resident.
[ report this ]
Childish is a pretty good term to describe that.
I hope the Senator replies again.
[ report this ]
OK - to be a little less subtle, here's a clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal
Some will get it - some won't. Don't say I didn't try. (I referenced this in an earlier comment)
---
In reverse order again ....
panasonicyouth -- eh? I don't get the post.
---
Andy Sternberg --- you're absolutely right - two (in this case three) wrongs don't make a right - but why no critism of Gore or Arnold? Shouldn't you be outraged that they don't even live up to their words by even a little bit. Hey, I admit I'm upper middle class, but I'm not even close to the carbon footprint league those two live in. I'm looking for honest outrage at everyone's hypocracy. I admit my proposal was intended to rile people up - but it amazes me that all of those that go after me can't seem to admit the high priests of global warming seem to also be the high priests of hypocracy.
I'm still waiting for that post, and until then - I'm headed for the carpool lane in my Aviator.
Finally, Andy - your's are the most consistent and thoughtful posts. Thanks for the dialogue.
---
LA Mapnerd (cool name) ---
1) Oh no, you're not distracting me with pollution. The new debate for government regulation and control is CO2 (you know, the stuff you exhale everytime you take a breath). All of the new regulations (AB32, for instance) is about controlling green house gases. Actual pollution is now irrelevant to the enviromental community. Get with it, you're outdated.
2) I'm still confused about how on earth having a HOV lane reduces smog. How long have we had carpool lanes? 20 years? They were designed to force a change in drivers' behavior. You get rewarded for carpooling (driving fast in the HOV lane) and punished if you're a poor shmuck that has to drive alone to work and get caught in the "other" lanes. Did this work? Nope. People are trapped in lanes 1-3 (emitting smog) and the HOV lane (lane 4) is pretty much empty. Another attempt of goverment social engineering that has failed.
How about we eliminate the HOV lane and let the congested traffic in the other three clogged lanes be spread out over FOUR lanes. You'll get to work faster and the sky will be cleaner.
3) Yep. Do you support "Cap and Trade"? Because that is exactly what we're talking about.
4) There's a lot in this question - but here's my response. I fully understand the impact it would have on HOV lanes (see answer 2).
I'm termed out of the legislature (to the delight of some and the despair of others) and currently do not have any plans to run for any other office. I've been in the legislature for 14 years and that's plenty enough for anyone.
I've been called many things (just look at all the creative adjectives above) - but being called bone-headed really hurts. :-(
5) Great question. I regularly review the LA Times, Sac Bee, SF Chronicle, Riverside Press Enterprise, Desert Sun, Wall Street Journal, New York Times - most newsmagazines and all the cable news networks. In all of those, I've yet to see, hear or read any comprehensive criticism of the apparent hypocracy of Al and Arnold's lifestyle versus their words --- because somehow they magically offset their footprint with offsets.
6) Although I answered that above already - yes this is my last term and I'm not planning on running for anything else at the moment.
This is not "election year whoring", it's just a bill that's time has come.
But, I am proud to say that in my entire political career I've never lost an election - and I been on the ballot 10 times. I know you might not like that - but my constituents (and I represent about a million Californians [the largest legislative district in the state]) seem to appreciate my views (except for the poster above from my hometown that doesn't seem to have that great of opinion of me [but that's OK, I think of him the same he thinks of me :-) ]
Finally - the question you forgot to ask (so this is #7 I guess) --
Please read the Wikipedia site I started this comment with - then read my press release - then ask yourself why no one on this entire site has yet to actually critically critique Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Add all of that together.
After you do that - please call, email and fax your legislator and beg them to co-author my bill.
** Your comments were thoughtful too - thanks for taking the time to challenge me **
---
qwerty --- I'm totally serious. The Aviator gets better mileage than the Navigator.
And my Aviator - being carbon neutral (because I bought offsets) is better on the enviroment than any polluting Prius out there.
Because I bought the credits you can't criticize me - I'm completely immune - so there.
---
Zach Behrens --- I answered your question above in my response to LA Mapnerd's #2 question.
---
Thanks all - and thanks to your blog's editor for calling my Sacramento office and checking that I am who I say I am before posting my initial response. He's looking out for his site and making sure you're not spoofed.
You may not like the bill - but I hope you can see the reasons I authored it.
JIM
[ report this ]
You're being disingenuous. Carbon emissions are popular in the public conscience now, but Map Nerd is right. The HOV lanes were implemented to reduce smog. Hybrids not only are fuel efficient, leading to less CO2 output, but are also ultra-low emissions vehicles.
I can see the exact reason you authored the bill. You're trying to grenade a carpooling program for the sole purpose of calling Al Gore a hypocrite. Congrats Senator, you're the bigger man in this fight.
Also, please submit your freeway capacity analysis that shows that opening up that extra lane is going to increase flow.
[ report this ]
disgusting.
i think this senator needs to come hang out on the freeways i regularly travel and then let me know how 'empty' the carpool lanes are during peak traffic times.
saying the aviator gets better gas mileage than the navigator isn't saying very much, is it? and yes, we CAN criticize you regardless of how many offsets you buy. you are incredibly irresponsible and childish. "bring your hummer" and "so there"? ugh.
i think the bill is ridiculous and your reasons are even worse.
andy, i too feel ashamed to be a californian when i see garbage legislation like this.
and senator, it's "hypocrisy"
[ report this ]
I hope you had a chance to go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal
Read the entire wikipedia item and take a deep breath (believe me, it will help).
---
Christina -- I represent most of Riverside County. I'm well aware of socal traffic. And yes, sometimes the carpool lanes are slower - but that's only when the other three lanes are a parking lot.
If you're going to criticize me with disgust, I want to know your feelings about the lifestyles Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger lead versus their words. I'm still waiting for someone on this site, and on the left in general, to be honest and consistent on this. So here's your chance Christina....go for it.
Thanks for the spell check - "hypocrisy" is a word I always spell wrong.
Please check out the wikipedia item - it will help.
[ report this ]
i don't know why expressing my feelings about al gore and arnold schwarzenegger is somehow the only way to validate my opinions about your legislation.
"you aren't allowed to criticize me unless you're criticizing the other hypocritical douchebags too!"
all that's missing is a "neener, neener!"
[ report this ]
Senator, stop linking to 'A Modest Proposal.' If you're trying to bludgeon us with the idea that your bill is a witty form of satire, you're failing. It's a ridiculous and offensive way to go about the problem.
So I'll say what you've been practically begging someone to say: Fuck Al Gore and fuck Arnold Scwarzeneggar for being hypocritical assholes. I feel comfortable saying this, not just to placate you, but because I am an urban cyclist and I am actually making strides towards reducing my carbon foot print completely.
However, do you see me trying to one-up the douchebaggery of my peers? When my friends buy gas-guzzling vehicles and their friends praise them for it, do I go out and buy one too just to spite them?
Your legislation is childish and immature. Instead of tackling the problem head-on and dealing with it in a proactive way, you're acting like a whiny 8-year old. And the worst part? About 95% of the people who will hear of this bill won't get that you're doing it to make it point. Instead, they'll join their fellow douchebags, vote for the measure, and clog up the HOV and carpool lanes, believing they're making a "difference."
Disgusting.
[ report this ]
Jim Batten, why does your beef with Arnold and Gore have to effect me? Go after them and don't drag me into your dumbass bullshit.
[ report this ]
Sorry I misspelled your name.
[ report this ]
Hey Senator, although I do still think you're a giant douchebag, I do appreciate you responding to the LAist community and taking time to engage in a dialogue with us. It IS rare of politicians to do so, so you get a gold star for that.
But I still think you're wrong!!! Clearly you're a driven man; I wish you would focus your energies on something good and useful for your constituents, rather than a bill that seems driven by bitterness and jealousy.
I can guarantee that you'd earn the respect of a LOT of folks, even the jaded jerks of LAist such as myself, if you spent your energies on bills that meant something to people, instead of just driving to help Paris Hilton get in the carpool lane.
[ report this ]
Jimmy, you're obsessing on Al and Arnie. And how exactly does enabling every one in California to join the hypocrite club, make you, (or them), any better than Al or Arnie?
You could be proactive instead, but I realize that you tighty righties don't understand the concept.
[ report this ]
Jimmy, here's few suggestions on being proactive;
Close the "sloophole". You know? The law that lets rich people keep from paying sales tax on the expensive toys they buy? And what's so bad about paying taxes anyway? It pays for things like more police, more firemen, much needed equipment. Look at it as the dues you pay to live in a safer, more civilized society.
Ringfence that gasoline tax that is supposed to go to public transportation. Stop letting your buddies in Sacto raid that money everytime there's a budget crisis, (christ there's always a budget crisis!) If you we have more abundant, attractive, well thought out, well funded, public transportation options, people will leave those cars at home and u