Reader comments
My view: Support California's emissions efforts

luv my carbon footprint | 4:51 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Don't just blame Ford, Chrysler and GM ( not that the author did)but the Japanese automakers lobbied very aggressively against these increased standards.
I'm all for clean air but I'd rather not have the Government make the decision for me about what kind of car I should drive. If we don't have free markets then we as well be living in Communist Cuba or China. When you start overregulating businesses then you start lowering your citizens standards of living - not to mention taking away freedom of choice in what is supposed to be a free country.
I respect Mr French's views but I think that like a lot of environmentalists (e.g. Al Gore) they aren't very realistic. Not everyone can ride a bike to work - some people need larger vehicles for work and some people just like to have a little more steel around them when they drive ( I think I'd rather take a chance of dying from air pollution than die of massive head injuries because I was struck by a vehicle while biking to work)
Maybe California should just secede from the rest of the country - I won't lose any sleep over it

Mike | 5:56 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Mr. French has made some valid points about CO2 polution and about one way to reduce CO2 polution. Will driving cars with lower emmissions work? In my opinion, they will, but only to a very small extent. When a company is ordered by the government to change the way that it manufactures a product, the normal and natural costs that are part of a product's natural evolutionary improvement are shelved, and extensive costs are incurred by the manufacturer. Those costs are passed on to the consumer. When a product costs too much, the consumer refuses to buy. When a consumer decides to NOT buy a new, more efficient automobile, he will continue to drive his old less efficent automobile until it falls apart, then he will replace it with another used inefficient automobile.

Instead of reducing CO2 emmisions, government meddling could just as easily keep more old and inefficient automobiles on the road and actually increase CO2 emmisions.

Anonymous | 6:28 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I'm waiting for the usual, "there is no problem, this is just another commie, liberal tree-hugger lie that Al Gore is making up - Vote Republican!"

Comments continue below

Mahershalalhashbaz | 6:57 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Californias emmisions reduction the way Arnold wanted is worthless. Al Gore says we will all be dead by then. And the EPA chief just knows he's right, so what does it matter if we die a month later because CA reduced their greenhouse gasses a small fraction? Or is it because the vast majority of Americans know this is a crock?

Mahershalalhashbaz | 7:01 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Maybe the auto industry knows about the parent in the UK who sued the government there for showing an inconvenient truth to his kids. He said propaganda is against UK law, so he sued and won. The judge showed it contained 9 blatant lies. Take your lies, and go somewhere safe. If you believe global warming is caused by man, I have some iceberg front property in Antarctica I'd like to sell you!

Anon | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Let's ban automobiles and bring back the horse.

Anonymous | 8:51 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Mahershalalhashbaz-
I am not challenging the truth of what you say, but could you providea reference or a searchable key word. I can't seem to find this.

AlpacaFamilia | 8:58 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Mahershalalhashbaz-
Nice that you referenced that suit. Except that the court sided with the school district and the truth came out that he was fully funded by coal and oil industry sources. Hmmmmm. Thats a bit different than you represented it. Use the search words "inconvenient truth" "lawsuit" "UK" and CBS (or any major news group if you hate CBS). This is a typical way that the Global-Warming-Is-
A-Fraud people use evidence. They take something that proves the exact opposite of what they believe and represent it as supporting their possition.

MC1K | 9:08 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Since Mr.French is so concerned about CO2 emissions, I propose he get the UN to sponsor a "No Breath Day", as every mammal on the earth emmits CO2, 24/7/365 for 80+ years, if your the average US human. Maybe we can have Al Gore be the leader and set the example and be the first to stop breathing for the day. We can repeat again next year if necessary.

Anonymous | 9:11 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I see by some of the far-right postings above, Rush Limbaugh has been working his magic on people once again.

Anonymous | 9:19 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Hey Maherblahblah!
Why not step outside and take a whiff of that beautiful yellow-brown air?
Head-clearing, isn't it?

To... | 9:28 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

To "Carbon Footprint". There's a long way to go from sensible regulation to Communist China. Perhaps you ought to turn off the radio. The fact of the matter is that your stinkpot SUV is putting crap into the air I have to breathe. I don't give a hoot if you poison yourself. It's the rest of us I care about.

Dick Willardson | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "Many of us have been held hostage when an inversion moves in and starts trapping poisons from auto tailpipes and coal-fired power plants for us to breathe......The consequences of air pollution are something that we should not have to live with or die from. I fear that we can't even imagine the consequences of out-of-control global warming."

This type of hyperbole is typical from the global warming zealots who purposely and sometimes ignorantly confuse pollution with so called "greenhouse gases". Many of the doom sayers have no idea that greenhouse gases consist of primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide with much smaller amounts of ozone and methane. These "poisons" are quite essential for our survival on the earth.

Gus | 10:08 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

It seems apparent from some of the comments in this thread that change is okay as long as it doesn't cost anyone anything and the government is not involved.

Having automakers manufacture more fuel-efficient cars is desirable. Having the costs included in the price of the cars is reasonable business practice. Like seat belts, there will always be some who decry the change, but these people are in that very small community who are afraid of change.

As for government mandating these changes, it seems there continues to be those same few who fear change and try to blame government for making us change. If there was a town meeting and a majority of attendees voted to change something to make the community better and that affected everyone in the community, it is clear that a few disgruntled residents would complain about the "mandated" change.

MC1K | 10:11 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I see the liberal do-gooders are out in full force this morning. They can't address the points made by us "Far Right"(I prefer eductated) people, even if our comments are a bit crude. So they resort to name calling and and attacking a persons logical thought process.

The global climate change zealots don't have a good near term record, missed the next ice age that was supposed to occur in the 70's, and since NASA corrected their data on global temperatures, currently its not quite so hot as was once thought when compared to historical records. Prove that CO2 is a cause of global warming, and I'll take your crys of doom and gloom seriously. In god we trust, everyone else has to prove it with data. A good theory is not data!

willie | 10:17 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Let's thank the Publicans for their point of view and their lemming like rush to pollute the nest.

Darwin came up with the "survival of the fittest" theory, and unfortunately, we cannot direct the results. The good news though, is that if Publicans keep insisting on soiling the nest, they too will die off. Just not enough of them, or soon enough.

Do Publicans have some sort of "crazy/greed gene" that makes them want to get more all the time, and destroy themselves (and us) in the process?

Mahershalalhashbaz | 10:17 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

To Anonymous 8:51 am. Go to wikipedia and do a search for dimmock v secretary of state for education and skills. It will give you more info about the case and links than you can stand.

To AlpacaFamilia: Who cares who paid for it. Of course you have two opposing sides with opposing views and opposing money in opposition. Thats why you go to an impartial judge to settle a disagreement. And who won? Thats right. The parent.

Stevan Madrigal | 10:18 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

RE: Dick Willardson - I believe Mr. French correctly referred to source of the pollutants in inversion trapped air; his last sentence makes an analogous comparison to global warming consequences. The article is largely about improving emission standards, not global warming. Who's getting hyperbolic, Dick?

To Anonymous 9:19 am | 10:19 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I don't see any yellow-brown air. I see Way cleaner air than back in the 60's before the catalitic converter. It's the pot smoking your doing in your house that is causing the yellow brown air!

Roscoe | 10:32 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

to "Dick", yea and water is essential for life as well, but if you drink enough, it can kill you. It upsets me that the inane comments of you and others stand in the way of improving our air quality. The air that my young children breathe. Anyone paying attention knows that CO2 is the greenhouse gas we're talking about.

essential poisons? | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Dick,

Yes, CO2 is essential to life on earth. So is oxygen. Too much of either, however, does damage.

There is no contradiction in observing that CO2 is essential to life on earth _and_ that man-made increases in CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere are changing the climate in ways we're not going to like.

To... | 10:42 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

To Dick Willardson. You call complaints about inversions "hyperbole". Perhaps you should try living with an asthmatic. The stuff stuck in an inversion is a lot more than CO2. There are particulates from coal, sulfur dioxide, tons of other types of crap. When your wife is coughing her guts out all winter, then let's hear what you've got to say.

ediddy | 11:04 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

anonymous, do you ever offer a a substantive comment with some positive suggestion for improvement? All I ever read from you are sarcastic remarks and name calling. This invective is part of the problem. Too many people throw garbage from the cheap or anonymous seats rather than seek viable discourse and solutions. Opinions may differ, but the barrage of sniping does not even constitute opinion. The monitor here ought to be a little more dilligent.

Anonymous | 11:10 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I see grade school is still out and the kiddies have found a new toy on this blog.

Anonymous | 11:10 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation," APTA director Howard Collier said. "Fortunately, as this report shows, Utahns have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that."

luv my carbon footprint | 11:11 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

To: "to..." - kind of like Fidel Castro just instituted a little "sensible legislation" in Cuba....

grundle | 11:20 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Mr. French makes a plea to expect higher emission standards. I see nothing wrong with trying to be more and more efficient. It is up to us to provide the market for these more efficient vehicles. The power is in our wallets.

I see this as a plea for all of us to support corporate efforts to be "greener".

Sounds reasonable.

The credibility is lost when global warming is introduced. We have not established a correlation that indicates man as a causation factor in global warming.

also...we should stop responding to statements like the ones posted by "Anonymous". They are designed to stir the pot and add nothing to the dialog.

Mike | 11:26 a.m. Dec. 28, 2007

There is a lot of misinformation floating around when it comes to weather changes and the scientific facts that support those changes. Political rhetoric emphasizes some facts while it excludes other facts. Political rhetoric sometimes distorts facts and it sometimes uses lies as substitutes for facts.

The lawsuit that was cited earlier contains a lot of easily found facts. Mr. Stewart Dimmock, a 45 year old truck driver AND a school governor from Kent, brought suit because the film "An Inconvenient Truth" contained at least eleven blatant lies. However, the reason for the suit was that their law prohibits the promotion of partisan political views. As far as I've read, schools can show that film in England IF the students are told about the eleven lies before the film is shown.

The two-hundred word limit on these posts makes it impossible to write the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in our posts, but being certain that posted facts are both truthful and undistorted should not be too much to expect.

Score another for Utah | 12:05 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

WASHINGTON, DCï¿½The Environmental Protection Agency issued a bulletin Tuesday warning the bodies of American citizens, with their large concentrations of artificial, synthetic, and often toxic substances, have been reclassified as industrial waste.

"The average human body is now only 35 percent organic," EPA chief said. "Due to changes brought about by modern detergents, silicone implants, and processed cheese food product, it is no longer safe to allow human tissue to come into contact with our nation's topsoil."

The chief said the EPA is seeking funding to construct a massive, federally managed human-body containment facility in the Utah Desert to safely and viably store human remains.

Anonymous | 12:34 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I'm sorry, but it's vital to the health of the U.S. economy that we destroy the entire Earth.
I'm sorry, but it's vital to the health of the U.S. economy that we destroy the entire Earth.

Vote Republican!

Dick Willardson | 1:33 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I've never known anyone against clean air and water. French's piece is clearly about wanting Utah to follow California's example regarding CO2 emissions. Anyone who has lived along the Wasatch front knows that the air quality today is better than 35-40 years ago. Bravo to that!
The levels of "greenhouse gases" (and temperatures) have fluctuated naturally, in 1500 year cycles, over the past 200,000+ years. We are nowhere close to toxic levels of any of these gases.
If you are truly worried about global warming, do yourself a favor and read all points view on the topic. You'll find that there are literally 10s of thousands of scientists who are speaking out against the "doomsday" types like Al Gore.
Good luck in your research!

This WAS the place | 2:18 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I get the biggest kick out of people like "Dick Willardson" above who says the air quality is just peachy.
The air is so sweet and clean along the Wasatch Front is the primary reason why The Utah Clean Air Alliance was formed last month.

Don't you sometimes wish Al Gore haters and tree-hugger haters would switch off Limbaugh and listen to some easy listening music for once?

The tracks you leave behind | 3:36 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

We have Rush Limbaugh a college drop out, draft avoider, drug addict who has never taken the covenant of marriage seriously and Al Gore a army vet who served in Vietnam and who has a degree, has stayed with the same wife who fought against obscene lyrics in the music industry.

Why don't I take Rush's word of climate with less than a grain of salt?

Mike | 4:11 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Shouting never solves a problem. Everyone, step back for a few minutes. Take a breath. LISTEN, then, submit ideas worthy of consideration.

When an idea as important as clean air is presented, it should be worth considering.

I totally disagree with most of the statements that seem to say that the sky is falling TODAY, and that unless we totally change everything TODAY, that we won't live until tomorrow; however, listening is the same as learning. Listening and gaining knowledge about a subject allows us to draw our own conclusions. Debate is good; but, debate without listening is useless.

ediddy | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

To "Tracks..." Neither of the descriptions you proffer qualify either Limbaugh or Gore credence or expert status in the global warming debate, but you do successfully point out the foolishness of basing your opinion on the merits of the popular instead of the knowledgeable. If Limbaugh were all you say he is and still scientifically correct, he would still have credence. Likewise with Gore, if he was all you say and without sound basis, he would still be flawed in his premise. This debate is too important to be swayed by foolishness.

Roscoe | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Gone forever is yesterday
I don't believe in tomorrow
I used to dream of a pot of gold
but it only brought me sorrow

John Hartford

ediddy | 4:23 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

...btw, anonymous, you continue to prove my point about worthless comment.

Haze is smog | 4:42 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

I believe in gathering my own scientific evidence.
When I hear the weatherman say we will have "haze" today, I automatically glance at the lowest part of the valley (usually around I-15 corridor) and watch this "haze" manifest itself in some rather interesting colors. Then if I'm really feeling scientific, I'll trek up anywhere in the mountains for a while and experience the cleaner-smelling air. When I return to the valley (in just a matter of minutes) I experience what I would call a chemical smell that I liken to paint thinner.
I need no so-called conservative guru telling me anything that I can see for myself.

Sensible Scientist | 8:12 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Anyone who believes in anthropogenic global warming must first wrestle with this fact: carbon dioxide levels have always risen AFTER temperature rise, not the other way around. That is in the IPCC's own data. There is no data that shows CO2 is the main driver of climate--none.

If you believe in global warming and support California's mandates, you must first answer this challenge.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.