QUESTION OF THE MONTH

Q:

As we swelter in the summer heat, a recent report has found that U.S. cars and light trucks produce one-fifth of the country's carbon emissions that contribute to global warming and at least as much carbon dioxide as all sources in Japan, India and Germany generate. Do you favor restrictions or taxes on large vehicles such as SUVs to promote fuel effiency and limit emissions?

There is no good reason to continue to allow light trucks and SUVs to be exempted from the more stringent emissions and gas mileage requirements that "normal" passenger cars must comply with. I am in favor of restrictions, taxes or other measures that would force large vehicles to meet such standards.

The exemptions for SUVs and light trucks date back more than 30 years to the early days of emissions controls and gas mileage mandates - when light trucks were a small percentage of the vehicle market, used mostly in commerce and agriculture.

The situation is much different now. Vehicle miles driven have tripled in 35 years. Ozone alert days are now common in the summer.

And SUVs now make up more than 50 percent of new vehicle sales and are used mainly as passenger vehicles. Yet light trucks and SUVs are still allowed to discharge up to four times as much pollutants as a passenger car.

There is just no good reason why a Honda CRV should be allowed to pollute more than a Honda Accord simply because it's registered as an SUV.

And to bring the SUVs into compliance with passenger car standards requires no new breakthroughs or inventions - only the application of existing technology already in widespread use in cars.

The situation is no different regarding gas mileage standards. There is no rational reason that fuel economy standards should not be expanded to include all vehicles.

If that requires downsizing some of the behemoths on the roads, so much the better.

Steve Shimko

Catonsville

SUVs pollute, pound the roads to potholes, block other drivers' vision, take up more than their share of parking spaces and waste gasoline. Yet, on any given day, fully one-third of the parking spaces in my downtown garage are filled with SUVs.

Baltimore is not built on a mountain. It receives little snow. Baltimore SUV drivers are not carrying truckloads of building materials or farm equipment. In fact, I rarely see more than one or maybe two people in the SUVs I see on the roads everywhere.

If the only way to make Americans wake up is by hitting them in the pocketbook, we should impose a state tax on SUVs to cover the cost of the damage they do to the roads and the environment.

If people are so willing to spend money frivolously, they should also bear the costs their SUVs impose on us.

Kathleen A. Morse

Baltimore

It is ludicrous that our nation's automobiles produce such a large percentage of the world's carbon emissions.

New and used cars and SUVs that get below-par gas mileage should be subjected to a hefty annual tax.

A more lenient tax should be applied to owners of light-duty pickups, since many of their owners need the towing and hauling capabilities of a pick-up.

Jeb Cook

Baltimore

Do I favor restrictions or taxes on large vehicles and SUVs to promote efficiency and reduce emissions? My answer is not "no," but "hell no."

I am in principle opposed to anything that provides politicians an opportunity to raise taxes of any type. Once given such authorization, politicians will find ways to attach the levy to everything, including the carbon dioxide you exhale.

None of the taxes so enacted will ever go away, regardless of the efficiency of the vehicles subsequently produced.

But making large vehicles and SUVs more efficient is not an issue for government restrictions. It's good business.

Restrictions on SUVs and large vehicles will take care of themselves when the buying public determines that driving inefficient vehicles is too expensive. But we don't want or need government's help in making that determination.

Let's not attempt to sneak the Kyoto treaty's fatally flawed plans in through the back door. There remains a vast gap between scientific fact and the gross speculations of popular "green" theories regarding global warming.

Let's let our decisions be based on rigorous review and real scientific consensus.

W.C. Harsanyi

Pasadena

Taxes on large vehicles will do nothing to promote fuel efficiency and limit emissions. Drivers with the money to buy expensive vehicles and pay extra costs in taxes and fuel consumption would not be deterred from continuing their assault on the environment.

California has shown us the way by setting strict emissions standards to protect our environment.

The public has no intention to control its appetite for gas-guzzlers voluntarily. Restrictions are the only way to go.

Walter Boyd

Lutherville

My response is a resounding "no."

If U.S. cars and light trucks produce one-fifth of the country's carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, and large vehicles and SUVs contribute a fraction of that amount, why not place restrictions or taxes on the sources of the remaining 80 percent or more of carbon emissions?

Why pick on large vehicles and SUVs as if their elimination would make global warming manageable?

When and if people start dropping over, gasping for clean air they can't find, those in power who care will call for the world's top scientists to suggest drastic solutions.

I suspect the leading solution will not be restrictions or a tax on this country's large vehicles and SUVs.

Robert L. White

Perry Hall

No, do not attempt to target specific vehicles for penalties (which would create another nightmare of regulation).

Instead, raise the price of vehicle fuel 25 cents every 90 days with a federal tax that will allow the prices to reach approximately $5 per gallon. This is the only fair way to lower the emission of pollutants.

Every penny of the new tax could be invested in safe, efficient public transportation and in creating an extensive network of hike-bike trails.

Such an approach could solve all the problems with one tax: Air pollutants would be lowered, roads less congested and noise and light pollution reduced, and we would become healthier and less obese as we become less dependent on foreign oil sources.

It's a win-win situation.

Kirk S. Nevin

White Hall

Yes, we should do something about cutting carbon emissions - mainly because that would mean that would be saving fossil fuels, regardless of global warming.

Starting right now, all major auto producers should be mandated to design and produce automobiles (SUVs and other light trucks included) that will consume not more than one gallon of fuel for every 50 miles of highway travel.

This restriction should start now, with vehicles on the drawing board and in the planning stages, and take mandatory effect by the year 2010. The technology is in place to do this.

Franklin Littleton

Baltimore

When it comes to automobile choices, Americans stick out like sore thumbs in a world increasingly concerned with protecting our environment.

We seem to feel that our healthy economy gives us the inalienable right to drive behemoths that hog gas at two to three times the rate of a small- to mid-sized sedan. The rest of the developed world is shaking its head at our arrogance, and with good reason.

I fully support slapping a hefty tax on SUVs. Let those who refuse to be environmentally conscious pick up the tab for the rest of us.

Jennifer Lambert

Catonsville

Yes, I favor restrictions or taxes on large vehicles and SUVs to promote fuel efficiency and limit emissions.

I object to these vehicles not only because they cause excessive pollution, but also because of the extra space they take up (especially in parking lots), the fact that it is difficult to see around them, the overwhelming force they carry to crush smaller vehicles and the arrogance of their owners.

Doris Rausch

Ellicott City

I'm convinced that taxing gas-guzzlers will do little to promote fuel efficiency.

Drivers of SUVs could care less about global warming or pollution.

Richard King

Elkridge

Most countries levy heavy taxes on gas to encourage conservation and force consumers to consider alternative forms of travel such as public transportation.

However, the United States has always kept gas prices low because of the lobbying efforts of the automobile industry, thus encouraging waste, inefficiency and the current production of road vehicles more akin to Sherman tanks.

Something's wrong here.

Arthur Laupus

Columbia

Gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing SUVs are a hazard to our health and environment, and standards should definitely be tightened.

In addition, in light of the events of Sept. 11, I would say it is now downright unpatriotic to own an SUV. Purchasing more and more oil to stoke these vehicles provides more funding for terrorists and their supporters in oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia.

But while many of us are quick to condemn our support of terrorist-supporting, oil-producing countries, when it comes to sacrificing our comfort we offer lip service only.

Stephen L. Sprecher

Catonsville

We should adopt a national policy to encourage the reduction of emissions from cars and light trucks.

A giant step in this direction would be a large increase in the federal gasoline tax - of $2 or $2.50 a gallon. The revenues should go to improving the country's inadequate infrastructure of roads, bridges and public transportation.

Such taxes are in effect in many European nations, and have worked well.

The people who want to drive gas-guzzling vehicles can do so, and those more sensible will opt for more efficient means of transportation.

John L. Warthen

Catonsville

The Sun's question, although thought-provoking, doesn't suggest a positive approach that could more effectively promote efficiency and limit emissions without resorting to punitive measures, costly retooling or even new technologies.

Such an approach would provide incentives, perhaps including tax breaks, to those who are willing to forgo purchasing new, overpowered six- or eight-cylinder cars with automatic transmissions and instead purchase cars featuring five-speed manual transmissions and four-cylinder power plants.

Dick Fairbanks

Barbara Fairbanks

Baltimore

I am disappointed by the ever-growing number of people who, apparently because it is fashionable or is perceived to denote wealth, purchase huge, gas-guzzling SUVs, most of which will not see action any closer to "off road" than the Kmart parking lot.

Don't these people read the papers or watch the news?

We are at war, and to deny that oil is a large part of the reason shows either ignorance of world politics or selfishness.

In addition, the quality of our air, especially in the summer, worsens every year, and excessive, avoidable vehicle emissions are a large part of the problem.

In my opinion, anyone who wants to purchase such a huge vehicle should have to prove a need for it.

Otherwise, he or she should have to pay a luxury tax, the proceeds of which should go to research into reducing, and ultimately eliminating, our reliance on foreign oil.

Lynn Stonebraker

Annapolis

People who purchase these huge vehicles should pay a tax, to be used to clean up the air. And manufacturers should make those vehicles fuel efficient to reduce our dependency on imported oil.

People buy SUVs to feel macho. But not only are they bad for the environment, they are a hazard on the road.

Norman S. Hovermale

Baltimore

Yes, I'm in favor of restrictions on large, studly, show-off vehicles for many reasons - two of which are to promote fuel efficiency and to limit emissions.

My other reasons are that the SUVs are so large that they restrict your vision and they are a pain in the neck when you have to see around them.

The average car is at a dangerous disadvantage sharing the road with them.

Beth Fox

Randallstown

As we argue about whether fossil fuel use contributes to global warming, wouldn't it be wiser to err on the side of caution until we prove it doesn't foul up the environment?

We should be developing alternative energy (and economic) options.

At best, fossil fuels are finite. Wisdom dictates looking elsewhere.

Denise Cellinese

Baltimore

Taxing people who own SUVs or other heavy fuel-inefficient vehicles (and I don't) is not a viable solution to control emissions. What may be a solution is to institute a gasoline rationing program.

Such a program, although inconvenient for many, might induce more carpooling or use of public transportation to get to and from work, while significantly reducing emissions.

Sy Steinberg

Baltimore

I favor taxes on large vehicles to promote fuel efficiency and limit emissions.

It would be perfect if SUV manufacturers would increase the fuel efficiency and limit the emissions of their vehicles, but that probably won't happen until some pressure is applied.

Janford Hof

Gambrills

The question of the month is too narrowly framed because SUVs are just a symptom, not a cause, of our foul air and degraded landscapes.

Fundamentally, we need to turn away from fossil fuels.

Even more fundamentally, we need to move away from the romance of engines and power and fierce individualism and embrace an ethic that cherishes nature.

Kids should be taught to become fascinated with the complex engine of the natural world, instead of with the internal combustion engine and the computer operating system.

J. Russell Tyldesley

Catonsville

Scientists from around the world have verified the dangers of the long-term warming caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases.

But I don't need any scientist to tell me that the air in Baltimore is verging on unbreathable. My eyes, nose and throat tell me all I need to know. It doesn't take a Nobel laureate to know which vehicles are wasting the most gas and producing the most noxious emissions.

People are free to buy and drive these behemoths, but a tax on gas could make them pay for some of the damage they are doing, and might encourage some people to make wiser vehicle choices.

And if some people continue to drive gas-guzzling monsters, at least I can get a chuckle from hearing them whine at the gas pump.

Carl Aron

Baltimore