SUV Owners campaign against California greenhouse-gas law
The SUV Owners of America group has launched an advertising campaign blasting California's legislative efforts to curb greenhouse gases. The automakers already have a lawsuit against the measure that goes into effect with 2009 model year vehicles. SUVOA spokesman Ron DeFore argues that even if all vehicles in California were eliminated, worldwide greenhouse gases would be cut by one only one-tenth of one percent. Calling it "absurd," he says the law will "have no effect on global temperatures."
The SUV owners main fear is that the only way automakers can meet the greenhouse-gas objectives is to build smaller vehicles or drive less.
California officials say the SUV owners erred in estimating California's effect on global warming. They figure it's more like a full one percent.
Related:
[Source: Dave Downey / North County Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Anderson 12:32PM (2/19/2007)
What these SUV owners don't realize is that everyone needs to do their part to help cut greenhouse gases and pollution. What's more, California is an environmental, economical, and cultural model that is showing others the way to cut down our negative impact on the Earth.
Reply
charlie 1:11PM (2/19/2007)
What these environmentalists don't realize is that there has NEVER been a study that has shown with statistical significance that the marginal decrease in CO2 emissions caused by the california regulations will have a higher value than the associated marginal decrease in economic activity.
I feel like people think, "well I don't really know whats going to happen, but we should at least try to avoid global warming", and dont take into account that actions taken against global warming almost universally result in a decrease of economic activity.
Reply
Doug R 2:27PM (2/19/2007)
So you think California is the model for the country #1? Now let's see, in their minds, they refuse to "dirty their air and water" to provide for their own needs. No power plants built in 30+ yrs., a refusal to drill for oil off their shores, etc.. Yet they expect us dumb country bumpkins out here in fly over country to "dirty our air and water" to supply them with petroleum and electricity.
Then, after leaving themselves at the mercy of the midwest, they throw a holy fit whenever they feel they're being overcharged for said services. Since in their view, if we (the mental midgets of the midwest)are expected to "dirty our air and water" for their needs, we should be allowed to charge whatever we darn well please. Don't like it? Make your own.
This is how California has created, as you say, the "evironmental, economic, and cultural example".
Reply
Karkus 1:49PM (2/19/2007)
Umm....did you ever consider that maybe global warming will "almost universally result in a decrease of economic activity" ?
Reply
charlie 2:43PM (2/19/2007)
"Umm....did you ever consider that maybe global warming will "almost universally result in a decrease of economic activity""
Why would I automatically assume that?
Reply
Mulad 4:52PM (2/19/2007)
It's not a matter of automatically assuming, it's a matter of weighing the possibility.
Reply
John Rowell 7:07PM (2/19/2007)
Everyone's got an agenda, don't they? Why can't these groups just cooperate and find a way to support forward-thinking legislation in a way that doesn't harm them - instead of complaining about it and making their members look bad in the process.
Reply
TDIMeister 7:41PM (2/19/2007)
#2: "What these environmentalists don't realize is that there has NEVER been a study that has shown with statistical significance that the marginal decrease in CO2 emissions caused by the california regulations will have a higher value than the associated marginal decrease in economic activity."
Keeping the scope of the discussion the topic of the entry, that is, to the CO2 impact of cars and SUVs, how is economic activity and productivity -- the primary measure of economic efficiency -- decreased if you commute around a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicle than one that is polar opposite to all the above? And please don't say objects of vanity and status symbols (which are what unnecessary use of SUVs boil down to being) stimulate the economy. LOL
Reply
Chris M 8:09PM (2/19/2007)
Where did Doug R get his misinformation? California has added several power plants in the past 30 years, including several wind farms, upgrade to Guysers geothermal, some natural gas turbogenerators, and enough solar to provide nearly 2% of our electricity. Of course, successful conservation measures mean we didn't have to add any new coal fired plants.
It was the Enron crooks that shut down California power plants and sent power out of state, so they could overcharge for bringing power back. After Enron collapsed and the crooks were jailed, California had no more major electrical supply problems.
But that has nothing to do with SUV drivers whining about having to reduce their fuel consumption. The same people complain loudly about high fuel prices, but refuse to take any responsibility for their overconsumption that drives up fuel costs.
Reply
brian 12:01PM (2/20/2007)
"Where did Doug R get his misinformation?"
I think Doug R has two hobbies.
#10 Listening to Rush Limbaugh.
#2 Spreading misinformation on Autoblog green.
Perhaps someday he will realize what a fool he is making of himself.
Reply
Doug R 2:07PM (2/20/2007)
#8, the average compact gets twice the mileage of a larger vehicle (say a suburban) yet the larger vehicle carries more than 3 times the load. Which means if you can't do your errands in one trip in the compact (most families can't), then you make an extra trip that completey negates any fuel savings at all. You've wasted your valuable time, contributed needlessly to congestion and doubled your chances of being involved in an accident (in a smaller vehicle).
It's not what I've read, but if you've added new power plants then I stand corrected Chris. Your alternative energy sources and conservation efforts are the reason you didn't need coal fired plants. That's why you were put into the situation for Enron to put you over the barrel in the first place. So the "grayouts" were an example of California's energy independence?
Government environmental regulations:
Severely limit domestic oil exploration
Require 10+ yrs. of environmental impact studies before a new refinery can be built. No new refineries in 30+ yrs.
Requires 40 different blends of gasoline for various areas of the country. 40, not 10 or 15 or even 20, 40. Radically imbecilic to say the least.
Compliments of the environmental lobby, not big oil. Add Katrina to this supply and demand nightmare and you get $3+ a gallon fuel. It has nothing to do with SUVs.
Standing up against elite socialists for the right to choose what you drive without being persecuted in some way is not "whining". Ironic how environmentalists "whine" incessantly about oil company profits and yet it was the implementing of their policies that created the whole situation.
Why do I drive an SUV? I need the space to do my errands in one trip with either my family or alone to the hardware store with both rear seats down. I like the safety of the 4WD in bad weather for myself and my family. Is it a vehicle I would "choose" to drive if not needed? No. I'm sure I could think of something more fun.
Two consecutive 10 yr. doom and gloom predictions not counting the initial man made global "cooling" claim in the Mid 70s. 2 or 3 degrees of warming (which is not occuring) will prove the man induced warming theories, as if the earth's climate is static and never changes in it's own. This time around they've gone 100 yrs. into the future, good way to CYA.
Yeah brian, you have an incredible amount of intellectual ground to stand on to call me a fool. Keep on listening to your genius grand poobah Al Gore.
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 6:15PM (2/23/2007)
People have to understand that these small steps are what we need for the future and may not be of huge significance right now. But, when you add up what the other billions on this small planet can do when it comes to small steps is gigantic in the big picture. Sure it is easy to bash India and China but, they are already begining to pass us in the solar production, and the CAFE standards they are implementing makes the US look silly and they have plans for intensive use of wind energy. We put blame on them for coal energy when we here are using more than them and we are planning an increase. They are interested in a clean future and they ARE planning to do more than us in a shorter period of time. They look to us not for answers of what to do but, what not to do. Remeber when we bashed on the Japanese? Now they lead in technology and reliability. It is based in their culture. Our base is cheap, fast and breakable so we can buy a new one. Sorry folks, once our planet is broken we can't just buy a new one.
Reply
Chris 5:49PM (2/20/2007)
Doug R, you're a total tool. Jesus, give up your whole "total trips" thing, we've all heard it, and I maintain that most people don't live as far away from a town as you and don't make like what, one major trip a week to stock up on goods? Certainly not in California, the topic of discussion here. Give it a break. And besides, maybe this will compel the auto manufacturers to make hybrid SUVs to meet fuel economy standards. And that will be a good thing no matter how you look at it, from the perspective of global warming, economic stimuli, particulate emissions, or reducing or dependence on foreign oil.
Praise regulation! It's the only thing that works. Market-based "solutions" never work.
Reply
Chris 5:52PM (2/20/2007)
Sorry, I meant "our" dependence on foreign oil.
Reply
Chris M 8:58PM (2/20/2007)
Thank you, Doug R., for proving my point. Some right wing conservatives are all for supply and demand economics, except when it doesn't favor them. The huge and growing demand, mainly from oversized vehicles with poor fuel economy, inevitably drives up prices. As much as you may want to shift the blame elsewhere, you are part of the problem.
Ironic that you should mention oil refineries. Shell Oil shut down their Bakersfield refinery in 2004, claiming it wasn't needed and was loosing money. That caused an artificial shortage and drove up the price. Under pressure from the public and shareholders, Shell eventually sold the refinery to Flying J, who is operating at a profit and selling the fuel through their own chain of truck stops. Oh, but it is sooo much easier to blame "environmentalists" than to blame crooked actions by your "dealer" or your own wasteful ways.
If for some reason you must have a truck to haul things, choose one with good fuel economy.
If you must obsess over safety, then look at actual crash test safety ratings - the safest vehicles are not the heaviest, nor the least economical to drive.
Reply
allanalessio 2:19AM (2/25/2007)
5. "Umm....did you ever consider that maybe global warming will "almost universally result in a decrease of economic activity"
You say that like it's a bad thing! What's wrong with reducing our economic activity? Americans are 3% of the world population but we use 25% of the worlds resources. Where is it written that Americans shall inherit the wealths of the world and the less fortunate shall be our servants? Our current American generation has been the most wasteful in all of human history!
Reply
Tom Walker 8:09PM (2/26/2007)
I dont give a hoot about this global warming nonsense. The Planet's past is full of warmer time periods and colder climate periods. I do however support LESS foreign oil, so I am going...so called Green. Lets keep our $$$ here instead of Iran and Venezuela!
Reply
Kathleen 8:17PM (2/26/2007)
Wah-wah. So the drivers/manufacturers of ridiculosly huge SUV/van owners are gonna take some heat. I'm playing my tiny effing fiddle. Too bad, so sad. Here's a new idea: buy/make smaller/more efficient and get used to it. You don't think this will make a difference? It takes small steps to make a big difference. Kudos to California for taking the first small step. Now I think the rest of the country should join in.
Reply
OK 8:16PM (2/26/2007)
You people whine and cry all you want. California is no model for me and no one will ever force that idea upon me. California is not self sustainable, never was and never will be. Do what you want out there and I will do what I want back here. But STFU about trying to make the rest of us be losers like you all
Reply
chris 12:26AM (3/01/2007)
Well lets see here .... suvs are bad? How bad is it going to be when the big 3 are no longer in existance? They manufacturer these "BIG" suvs. People want safety. Size does matter. This nonsense needs to stop. Tarrifs, would help for those of you so concerened with the enviorment. Consider how poluting everyone else that is making these cars are. WOW theres something to think about. if we forced others to compete on a equal basis, think retirement, green energy, osha, workers safty... theres your probblem.
Reply