Comments on: California To Allow Giant SUV’s To Buy HOV Lane Stickers?

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:03:38 +0000

Everyone seems to forget what HOV stands for (High Occupancy Vehicle). there is no way a Toyota Prius or any other small Hybrid vehicle can be classed as a High Occupancy Vehicle. People driving those cars should be commended for their participation in contributing to a cleaner environment, but should not be allowed to drive in HOV lanes just because they decided to make the sacrifice. By the very name of the lane, it should be reserved for vehicles that do in fact have high occupancy. Not those that supposedly give off less pollutants. Lets get real folks and do the right thing….People driving large SUV’s etc. should be allowed to move along quicker in an HOV lane which would in turn give off less emissions (less time on the road transporting more people at once).

By: david

david — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:21:00 +0000

I think we will have to agree but disagree at the same time Nate!

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:48:53 +0000

I think we agree on the following: essentially no one should be buying new SUVs.

But to break it down a different way, let’s look at it financially. The hybrid driver paid extra to be allowed to use the HOV lanes without carpooling, why shouldn’t a SUV driver be given the same chance? The hybrid driver is lessening their impact by reducing emissions, the SUV driver is lessening their impact by paying for someone else to reduce emissions because they *can’t* reduce theirs. True, though, the bill should open this up to all classes of cars. Just SUVs is dumb.

Cap & trade only does nothing to reduce pollution IF the cap is left where it is. You’re right, in that scenario, no amount of trading will lower overall pollution. But if the cap is lowered – and it can be done more aggressively than 12 years – then companies will adapt at the rate they can afford.

The first year Company A has a good solution to lowering their emissions so they do it and sell the credits to Company B, who can afford the credits but not an actual upgrade. Next year Company C has the best solution (for twice as much), and company B still finds it cheaper to buy those credits. Finally it’s more expensive for Company B to buy credits (or no one’s selling) than actually upgrade, so they do it. Done. Less pollution every year, as long as the cap keeps shrinking.

By: David

David — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:16:58 +0000

Nate, I don’t own a hybrid, so I cannot use the HOV lane. So that part of the conversation is null and void.

Again, just because you choose to buy an SUV does not mean you should be able to buy your way into the HOV lane. Like I said, does that mean that a guy in an Accord or a Malibu should be able to buy his way in too? If that’s the case, we are taking away 1. incentive to buy a more fuel efficient car and 2. the motivation to car-pool. It benefits no one but the SUV driver, and if you are going to give them an offer, you have to provide it to everyone. And then the HOV lane goes away.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything; but the law was set up to reward those people who choose to buy a car that does not pollute that much and get better MPG. If you want to drive in the HOV lane, either buy a hybrid or car-pool, it’s a fair law.

Cap and trade does nothing to reduce pollution. It keeps it the same. Company A pollutes less, Company B can pollute more but it’s ok cause they can pay for it. It’s faulty logic on behalf of our elected officials. It’s like making MPG standards higher…but in 12 years instead of in a few.

If someone wants to buy an SUV, go right ahead. I personally think it is dumb unless you actually use the 4wd or have to haul a family of 8 around, but it’s your choice. But that doesn’t mean you should be able to assuage your guilt about it by buying offsets, which I think is a “get out of guilt” free system that probably does no good.

Thanks for the comments, appreciate them.