LAist: Solo SUV & Hummer Drivers Could Get Car Pool Lane Access

jrb

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:47:19 -0800

Well, five days now and no comment from Jim Battin. Did anyone anyone else go to the flashreport website and read his post there?

bossco

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:25:14 -0800

Well isn't that a stupid idea (unless you have money and own hummer)

LA MapNerd

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:57:35 -0800

What a cop out, Battin. You didn't address a single one of our rebuttals to your ridiculous bill; instead, you focused on name-calling)Well, that's because he knows his ridiculous bill is ridiculous. It's not intended to be a real bill. To him, the bill is just a clever Swiftian satire (Hahahaha!) designed to give him a platform to call Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger hypocrites. You know, a little name-calling? So, to him, it was all about the name-calling all along. And, of course, he came here to show everyone just how Internet-savvy he is. And look how quickly he's gotten the hang of it: ~"I'd love to answer your questions, but I have more important things to do right now"~ ~"What a bunch of haterz!"~ ~"In the meantime, why don't you haterz go read something completely different, huh? Then I can talk about that, instead."~ ~"I'd love to carry on a civil dialog, but I can't waste time on people who say things I can't show to my children."~ ~"Hey, lighten up, it was just a joke. Whassamatta? Don'cha got no sensa humor? Yuk yuk yuk!"~ Why, I'd bet that two weeks ago, the man couldn't even spell "Internet troll"; and now, he is one! Yuk yuk yuk.

jrb

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:36:18 -0800

Hey christina, (or panasonicyouth for that matter), I never said there was anything wrong with anonymity on the boards. I certainly wouldn't want some weirdo to take offense at something I said and come looking for me either. OK, this is in response to Jim Battin's article on flashreport. Maybe I need to wait for a confirming e-mail or something, but for now, my post doesn't show up... Why is it that you right wingers just love to trot out that 30+ year old article as if it proves that global warming is a myth? All that article proves is that scientists, (gasp! yes even scientists!), are, many times, wrong. If you do a bit of actual research, instead of just digging up an article that tries to prove your point, you might find that there wasn't 100% consensus from the scientific community about global cooling. If you want proof of global warming, take a look at satellite photos of the Arctic ice cap 20 years ago, and compare them to similar photos taken today.

christina

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:58:40 -0800

well, christina IS my real name....for what it's worth

jrb

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:47:13 -0800

"'I'm not anonymous at all." LOL! Riiight! So panasonicyouth is your real name.

panasonicyouth

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:28:41 -0800

I'm not anonymous at all. I'd call Battin those names to his face for this kind of stupidity.

Jeremy

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:01:45 -0800

Gentlemanly discourse in politics is on hold, so long as Dick "Go F-ck Yourself" Cheney is still in office.

jrb

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:06:43 -0800

Sorry Jim, but I got a "page not found" at the cut and paste leginfo link. I like a good debate too Jim. Especially with rightwingers. Sorry about the the name calling from my fellow lefties, but it's one of those things that happen all too easily on these anonymous dicussion boards. After all there's no danger of someone reaching through the CRT and popping someone upside the head, and that tends to inspire false bravado. I'll check out that flashreport blog when I get home from work tonight. I recently stopped posting at a heavily Democratic blog. As a Green and around election times Dems tend to get a bit rabid at us, you know, still blaming us for the 2000 election and all, so I'm looking for a new place to discuss politics. I'll use the same moniker "jrb".

panasonicyouth

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:46:13 -0800

What a cop out, Battin. You didn't address a single one of our rebuttals to your ridiculous bill; instead, you focused on name-calling. Stop acting like a disingenuous asshole and we'll stop calling you one.

Senator Jim Battin

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:53:47 -0800

Hello my LAist blogger friends... Sorry for the delay in responding today, but I've been busy doing legislative stuff (my first priority) - and I've got to get to bed 'cuz I'm catching a flight (commercial airline - no G5 for me) in the morning - so this will be short. I'll try and catch up later. OK - what do all you Jim Battin haters think of this bill? http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1194_bill_20080212_introduced.pdfnew I'm also a regular blogger at the FlashReport.org (a dreaded conservative site) and I just posted this: http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2008022620125379&post_offsetP=0&authID=2006111814384800 I'm sure you'll enjoy it and look forward to your thoughts. Finally, what's the deal with the LAist's community obsession with name calling? I wanted to show my teenage daughters the back and forth on this blog - but I can't. I'm happy for the dialogue - but you lose some credibility with the insults. (I know this sounds thin skinned - but it's not - I wouldn't keep the discussion going if I was [and anyone how knows me will tell you I enjoy an active, thoughtful debate] - the name calling looks petty and I just don't take the 'caller' seriously) Let's civilly discuss the issues. I fully respect your right to be wrong, and I'm hopeful you respect my right to be wrong in your eyes too. Finally, finally - I'm so glad some (maybe most) of you read the wikipedia site. My legislative director tells me the the left is humorless. I was starting to think he was right. One of my favorite bills of the past was when my great friend, former Senate pro Tem John Burton (liberal from Marin County) introduced a bill making poverty illegal. I got it then.

LA MapNerd

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:04:57 -0800

LA MapNerd

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:55:44 -0800

LA Mapnerd (cool name) Thanks. I stole the idea from the estimable (and much-missed) LA CityNerd, to reflect my life-long love of maps and my longstanding fascination with LA history.1) Oh no, you're not distracting me with pollution. Distracting you? You're talking about altering the rules for the Clean Air HOV Lanes, and mentioning pollution is a distraction?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.This is completely disingenuous - are you seriously telling us you can only focus on the latest fads? Smog control is a longstanding and ongoing concern, and your bill changes the rules for the Clean Air HOV Lanes, which were instituted as a smog control measure. Here's a clue: CO2 doesn't make air dirty - it makes the planet warmer. Admitting "carbon-neutral" drivers to the CLEAN AIR lanes makes no sense. It's illogical. They're the "Clean Air" lanes, not the "Reward For Being Some Sort of Green-ish" lanes. I realize it may be difficult to separate one weird greenie idea (like "reducing global warming") from another (like "reducing smog and toxic air pollution in the Los Angeles basin") in your thinking processes, but, really, they're not the same. And the fact that the one predates the other by about 40 or 50 years doesn't mean it's no longer a concern.Actual pollution is now irrelevant to the enviromental community. Get with it, you're outdated.I know full well what's relevant to the environmental community, and frankly, that's just disingenuous bullshit. I don't use words like "bullshit" very often, but you've earned it with that remark. Environmentalism may have become fashionable; but that doesn't mean that environmentalists are only concerned with the latest fashions. I can't believe that you're so uninformed that you really believe that pollution is irrelevant to environmentalists. You know better; you're just trying to be snarky and smug and dismissive. And that's a really ugly thing in a politician.2) I'm still confused about how on earth having a HOV lane reduces smog.Yes, I can see that.How long have we had carpool lanes? 20 years?Over 30 years, actually. I moved here in '78, and there were diamond lanes even then.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."Pretty much empty"? Wait. Which planet did you say you were talking about? I use LA-area HOV lanes pretty frequently, and the only times I see them anywhere near "pretty much empty" is when traffic in the remaining lanes is so light that even the carpoolers won't bother using the HOV lane. And as for "did this work?", well, I'll tell you, the air in LA is one helluva lot cleaner than it was thirty years ago. How much of that is due to the Clean Air-HOV lanes? I can't say exactly. Can you? Do you have any actual evidence to support the assertion that it "didn't work", or do you just think that if you say something often enough, that makes it true?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.Again, show me some real evidence of that. I've seen plenty of studies on the effects of HOV lanes, and I've never seen a single one that supports that assertion. (But please don't waste my time with the usual right-wing think-tank effluvium.) If ending HOV lanes is really what you want to do, then propose that, and quit wasting our time with this "admit carbon-neutral Hummers" nonsense.3) Yep. Do you support "Cap and Trade"? Because that is exactly what we're talking about.No, what we're talking about is modifying Clean Air HOV-lane rules. My feelings about "Cap and Trade" are irrelevant. I don't think single drivers in high-pollution vehicles should be admitted to the Clean Air lanes just because they can afford to buy global-warming indulgences. Whether those indulgences are good or bad public policy is a different matter entirely (and relevant here only in the sense that your proposal is even more bone-headed if they don't, in fact, work as intended.)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). Yes, and I can see from your repeated pointers to A Modest Proposal that you don't really care about that impact, because you think your bill is some sort of clever Swiftian satire, and so the real issues aren't actually relevant as far as you're concerned. You're just looking for a soapbox from which to make snarky, disparaging remarks about Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger and environmentalists. You're using the legislative process as an opportunity for political grandstanding.I've been in the legislature for 14 years and that's plenty enough for anyone.Well, based on your responses here, I'd certainly agree.I've been called many things (just look at all the creative adjectives above) - but being called bone-headed really hurts. :-(Oh, please. I didn't call you bone-headed. I called your proposed legislation bone-headed. So don't try to play the "Oh, noes, poor me, I'm hurt by your cruel personal insult" game - everybody can see you palming that card.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.Well, let's see: LA Times: Schwarzenegger To Put His Jet On Global Warming Registry Gov.'s Tree Plan And Global Warming Those seem pretty comprehensive, but maybe you don't read the LA Times blogs, just the dead-tree pages? How very 20th Century. ;-) Sacramento Bee: A green policy takes flight: Schwarzenegger's air travel, and its emissions impact, questioned. Cal Thomas: Gore's cult of global alarmism San Francisco Chronicle: Gore talks the talk, but ... Global warming guru hardly lives a carbon-neutral lifestyle Debra J. Saunders:Do as I say, not as I spew Debra J. Saunders: Green giant's big carbon footprint That's three for three. I could go on; but, really, I have other things to do today. Anyone who can use Google can do the same thing thing I just did. [Try Gore+carbon or Schwarzenegger+carbon along with site:[domain name of news source]. That'll usually find the relevant articles - mixed in among other articles about actual carbon policy, of course.] So, is that what "not a peep" looks like in your world? I'll try to bear that in mind next time you use that phrase.This is not "election year whoring", it's just a bill that's time has come.Yes, it is. It's publicity-whoring, and it's happening in an election year. That you're not (currently, at least) planning on running for another office is a relief, to be sure, but it doesn't excuse this sort of grandstanding.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 I think I'm beginning to see why, these days, one must go to Riverside County to experience the sort of eye-searing smog LA once had.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.I didn't "forget to ask" that question. No one in this comment thread has been "critically critiquing"(!) Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger because we aren't discussing Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's your personal hobbyhorse. We're discussing your bone-headed HOV-lane bill, remember?** Your comments were thoughtful too - thanks for taking the time to challenge me **You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

carlosthedwarf

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:43:01 -0800

That's an excellent point, Delara

delara

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:48:09 -0800

I'm sure my comment will fall on deaf ears, however I thought the entire point of the carpool lanes were that people who carpool could use it. More than 2 ppl in a car. 1 less car on the road for every carpooler. The day they allowed single driver Prius users to join in the HOV fun was the day they opened the door to this kind of selective legislation. Prius drivers shouldn't get preferential treatment just because they own a Prius. To crack down on these sorts of bills popping up, perhaps we should go back to what the lanes were meant for in the first place, like the Senator says, "to force a change in drivers' behavior." Let's encourage people to get out of their cars. What saddens me is that my interpretation of this whole scenario is that it only lends to more traffic and more environmental waste. We might as well sell those little HOV lane stickers to anyone who can afford them. And to address the Senators comment: "People are trapped in lanes 1-3 (emitting smog) and the HOV lane (lane 4) is pretty much empty." I suppose your commute doesn't take you on the 405 south over the hill in the morning. What HOV lane? :)

jrb

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:39:55 -0800

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 use it, instead of sitting in traffic cursing, shooting each other, and burning overpriced gasoline. That's just a couple I can think of right off the bat. If you need suggestions I'm sure I couls come up with more. And like Carlos the dwarf says. Thanks for dropping by for the discussion. We don't get this opportunity very often!

jrb

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:09:46 -0800

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.

carlosthedwarf

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:32:12 -0800

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.

deafsound

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:58:19 -0800

Sorry I misspelled your name.

deafsound

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:23 -0800

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.

panasonicyouth

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:56:44 -0800

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.

christina

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:17:56 -0800

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!"

Senator Jim Battin

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:51:32 -0800

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.

christina

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:26:28 -0800

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"

Jeremy

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:22:46 -0800

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.

Senator Jim Battin

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:13:56 -0800

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

panasonicyouth

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:51:14 -0800

Childish is a pretty good term to describe that. I hope the Senator replies again.

Andy Sternberg

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:26:41 -0800

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.

LA MapNerd

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:12:52 -0800

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?

LA MapNerd

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:03:09 -0800

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?

qwerty

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:15:45 -0800

"And, also, btw - I drive an Aviator, not a Navigator. The Aviator is smaller, more enviromental friendly." You can't be serious.

Jeremy

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:37 -0800

Senator, then you must be a mind reader, since the civil engineer part came after the insult.

Zach Behrens

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:35:29 -0800

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?

Senator Jim Battin

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:20:21 -0800

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.

b3rti3

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:53:34 -0800

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.

jrb

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:31:30 -0800

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?

Andy Sternberg

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:27:18 -0800

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.

Jeremy

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:26:03 -0800

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.

Senator Jim Battin

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:59:02 -0800

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!

jrb

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:26:53 -0800

"$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.

smokes_quantity

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:33:58 -0800

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!

Bandito

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:45:30 -0800

Very interesting . . . $45/year, though?

Zach Behrens

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:10:53 -0800

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

morrissey

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:47:25 -0800

This article obviously is missing its Onion attribution, right?

carlosthedwarf

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:42:03 -0800

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?

fredcamino

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:20:38 -0800

Great link jrb!

torrmoz

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:15:55 -0800

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.

jrb

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:02:16 -0800

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

Jacy Young

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:00:43 -0800

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?