Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some perspective on pollution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some perspective on pollution.

    Here in the US the EPA wants to lower allowable ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb at an estimated annual cost of $90 dollars. Over in Bangalore India they have a different problem at the moment...

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...zB&ocid=SMSDHP





    One of these things is a pollution problem, the other isn't. Can you guess which one is?

  • #2
    Those are Brown people, the oppressed.... its probably all our fault anyway because we stole everything from them, even if our nation never had anything to do with anything that happened there in the last 100 years.

    So, they can't be regulated, only us bad people.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • #3
      Not quite ...

      Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
      Those are Brown people, the oppressed.... its probably all our fault anyway because we stole everything from them, even if our nation never had anything to do with anything that happened there in the last 100 years.

      So, they can't be regulated, only us bad people.
      ... back in Dec 1984, a pesticide plant in Bhopal India, already known as a major polluter in the area, released some 30 metric tonnes of methyl isocyanate gas and contaminants into the atmosphere, killing nearly 8,000 "Brown" people initially and approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people in total. US based Union Carbide was the majority owner/operator of the plant in question at the time (now owned by Dow Chemical), and was sued by the Indian Gov't, legal and compensation issues remain before the courts. The plant itself has never been cleaned up, it remains a chemical cesspool.

      Reducing ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb, or even Bangalore's phosphate detergent based froth, don't come anywhere near in comparison.
      "I am Groot"
      - Groot

      Comment


      • #4
        All I was pointing out is that the EPA's newest round of regulations for reducing pollution are utterly meaningless. They need to focus on enforcement not reduction.

        India and China need massive, and relatively cheap reductions in their pollution.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          All I was pointing out is that the EPA's newest round of regulations for reducing pollution are utterly meaningless. They need to focus on enforcement not reduction.

          India and China need massive, and relatively cheap reductions in their pollution.
          Yup, they could do a great job and cutting their problem in half it wouldn't cost them hardly anything compared to what it would cost us to reduce another part per million.

          We can't have diesels that get 50mpg in this country, but Europe can because their regs aren't as insane as ours.
          I wonder if anyone is Europe is upset that the Obama Gang-Green crew is about to destroy VW over this petty BS?
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #6
            Yep, ...

            All I was pointing out is that the EPA's newest round of regulations for reducing pollution are utterly meaningless. They need to focus on enforcement not reduction.
            ... I got that impression, first time round.

            India and China need massive, and relatively cheap reductions in their pollution.
            Sure they do. But it means regulations, and that still cuts into profits, the majority of the large multi-nationals prefer to get away with stuff they wouldn't dream of doing anywhere near their head offices. That's why they're in the likes of India and China in the first place, where jobs & wages vs. quality of life expectations are much lower, for now anyway.
            "I am Groot"
            - Groot

            Comment


            • #7
              The failure of conservatives to get behind environmental regulations have given the left the opportunity to exploit peoples natural sympathies. Everyone wants to live in a clean, rich habitat and not be poisoned by industrial waste and smog. Now we are faced with the prospect of environmental politics be dominated by extremist with little meaningful counter balance.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                The failure of conservatives to get behind environmental regulations have given the left the opportunity to exploit peoples natural sympathies. Everyone wants to live in a clean, rich habitat and not be poisoned by industrial waste and smog. Now we are faced with the prospect of environmental politics be dominated by extremist with little meaningful counter balance.
                I'd put that differently. The non-Left and particularly the Right have fought stricter pollution regulations rather vigorously. The problem is that the Left / Environmental movement uses an emotional appeal and various logical fallacies that sound good to push more regulation.

                For example, take the ozone rule mentioned. The Left's argument for it is "It's reducing pollution. The Right wants more pollution. Doesn't it make sense to reduce it?"
                Now, if you actually think about that position it's an absurd one. First, it will reduce pollution. Of course, what's omitted is that the reduction is miniscule and will have no real impact on anything.
                Next, is the post hoc prompter hoc argument against the Right's position. That is, they use a "do you still beat your wife statement." The Right doesn't want "more" pollution except in the sense they don't want the reduction. But the way the argument is put it sounds like they are in favor of pollution. That makes for a good emotional appeal for the ignorant or slovenly minded.
                Then comes the appeal to consequences. That is, saying "shouldn't we reduce / get rid of pollution?" It doesn't ask what the consequences might be like the massive cost, or the ineffectiveness of the reduction but rather relies on the listener to not think about those things and instead just go with it because it sounds like a positive thing.

                The non-Left / Right respond to such an argument with either dry logical facts that tend to lose many potential supporters or they try to argue against the Left's position directly.
                That is, they show the reduction is miniscule but fail to present it in a way that can be simply understood by someone who can't do percentages without a calculator with a percent button on it.
                The other argument is no better than the Left's. That would be something like "This regulation won't have any significant impact on things..." Well, that doesn't present their argument in a positive light that appeals to people.

                So, instead the way to present this is in a very simple and visual means. You might do this:

                What is 75 ppb? The population of the US is about 300 million people. 75ppb of that is 23 people. So, if people were air, everyone would have a blue T-shirt with "Air" on it except for 23 people randomly selected that get one that is say white with "Ozone" on it.
                Reducing this to 70 ppb means we find two of those people and take away their white "Ozone" T-shirts and give them a blue "Air" one instead. Now, what are your chances of running into one of 21 people versus 23 people out of 300 million nationwide?

                You can do the same with cost. List major industries that produce ozone. Or other sources thereof. Explain how this rule will raise the cost of a car, the loss of someone's job, etc.

                When the average person sees that they will quickly be appalled at the ineffectiveness and cost as they can easily understand it. That ends support for such a regulation. Then it becomes a problem of the Left forcing the regulation on an unwilling public. That might work short term but long term the Left finds opposition mounting to everything they try and do. That leads to a fail and their inability to retain power.
                Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 08 Oct 15, 01:32.

                Comment


                • #9
                  "That makes for a good emotional appeal for the ignorant or slovenly minded."

                  I think this is where you have to take a look at your approach. The left has mastered the art of sound bites and feel good slogans. Conservatives need their own environmental organizations that address issues people care about and have a spin value added.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    "That makes for a good emotional appeal for the ignorant or slovenly minded."

                    I think this is where you have to take a look at your approach. The left has mastered the art of sound bites and feel good slogans. Conservatives need their own environmental organizations that address issues people care about and have a spin value added.
                    The absolute best way to approach it is get the Leftist supporting it to debate you. The Left kind of instinctively knows they can't win a factual, logical debate so they won't engage in one.


                    Here's Bernie Sanders giving a speech at Liberty University that invited him to speak. Liberty University is about as far Right as you can go. The interesting thing is, find a Right wing speaker not only invited to speak at a entrenched Leftist / Progressive university but who receives the same sort of audience reaction Sanders did.
                    I doubt seriously there is a single example to be had.



                    This is the real problem for the Right. They'll debate the Left but the Left won't respond in kind. Instead, it will shut opposing opinions out of the pubic square. It will substitute ad hominems, vitriol, even physical violence for debate. When the MSM has a near lock on being sympathetic to Progressive and Leftist positions it makes it hard for anyone else to have a chance to counter their positions.

                    Where the Left has to rely on public opinion and present a good argument they crash and burn. Witness how poorly MSNBC does with ratings, or the complete fail of Progressive talk radio.

                    The Left only succeeds when it can operate on shallow sound bites and without serious opposition.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Perspective...
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      The primary regulatory problem is that Congress has effectively created a self-empowering fourth branch of government over the past ~80 years. The latest SCOTUS decision on the EPA's Cross.State Air Pollution rule makes it very clear that only Congress can fix this problem. Regulatory agencies, like the EPA, have become unaccountable to any power other than the President. The Federal bureaucracy can often wield as much power as POTUS desires. This is antithetical to the form of government created by our Constitution.

                      Facing a Hobson's Choice?

                      The Constitutionality of the EPA's Administrative Compliance Order Enforcement Scheme


                      Christopher M. Wynn, Candidate for J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law, May 2006

                      […]

                      Under the Clean Air Act the EPA's administrative compliance orders (ACOs) are important enforcement tools used to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other environmental statutes. 1 It is clear why these informal agency actions have become the EPA's most commonly used enforcement device? ACOs may be issued with relatively little administrative process and do not require the EPA to go to court.3 An ACO serves to provide a regulated entity with notice that the EPA regards it as in violation of statutory or regulatory requirements, and it often requires the party to take or refrain from taking a particular action in order to comply with the applicable law.4 If the regulated party does not comply, the EPA may pursue judicial enforcement or administratively assess penalties. 5 Because disobeying an ACO is itself a separate violation of law over and above noncompliance with a particular provision of the Act, ACOs provide the agency with a powerful enforcement mechanism that requires a relatively modest expenditure of scarce agency resources.6 Moreover, until recently, the EPA could issue ACOs without triggering a right to pre-enforcement judicial review because courts had not viewed the orders as "final agency action."7 This gave the EPA added leverage to press regulated parties into compliance with the terms of the ACO, while retaining the discretion whether and when to seek enforcement.8From the regulated entity's perspective, however, being on the receiving end of an ACO can present a painful "Hobson's choice."9 The entity may disregard the order and risk accrual of civil and criminal penalties for either the underlying violation of the law or for violating the terms of an ACO.10 On the other hand, a party can comply with the ACO, often at enormous cost, and potentially forfeit the right to obtain judicial review of the factual or legal accuracy of the EPA's position. 11

                      […]

                      In order to understand the purpose of the ACO in its current incarnation, it will be useful to summarize the evolution of the CAA enforcement scheme. The CAA has undergone three major overhauls in its thirty-five year history with the most recent and comprehensive revisions coming in 1990.75

                      […]

                      75. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No.1 01-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990); see Michael R. Barr, Introduction to the Clean Air Act: History, Perspective, and Direction for the Future, in THE CLEAN AIR ACT HANDBOOK 1, 2 (Robert J. Martineau, Jr. & David P. Novello eds., 2d ed. 2004) (noting that the major overhauls of the CAA were the an1endments of 1970, 1977, and 1990). The 1970 Amendments established a major federal regulatory role in air regulation for the first time. Id. at 5. The 1977 Amendments doubled the size of the CAA, and the 1990 Amendments doubled it again including exponential growth of the EPA's regulations. Id. at 2.

                      http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/62-4Wynn.pdf

                      Most pollutants are already at or near irreducible levels and almost all are well below the national standard; yet the EPA continues to ratchet down the standards, exponentially increasing compliance costs.

                      NO2 and SO2 were already well below the national standard and declining *before * Maobama sent the EPA on an Enviromarxist jihad against American industry...



                      SO2 was at, or very near, an irreducible level before Maobama's jihad against industry...



                      PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) was already below the national standard and falling before Maobama's war on productivity...



                      PM10 (coarse particulate matter) was way below the national standard and falling before Maobama's dictatorship of the proletariat ...





                      The EPA says, "The annual standard for PM2.5 is met whenever the 3 year average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for designated monitoring sites in an area is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3." The particulate matter pollution problem is not in the United States...

                      Ozone (O3) pollution has also been declining for 30 years...



                      Note that the National Standard for surface level ozone (O3) is ~0.07 parts per million. Ozone isn't a problem until it gets above 0.2 ppm...

                      0.200 ppm
                      Prolonged exposure of humans under occupational and experimental conditions produced no apparent ill effects. The threshold level at which nasal and throat irritation will result appears to be about 0.300 ppm.

                      0.300 ppm
                      The ozone level at which some sensitive species of plant life began to show signs of ozone effects.

                      0.500 ppm
                      The ozone level at which Los Angeles, California, declares its Smog Alert No. 1. Can cause nausea in some individuals. Extended exposure could cause lung edema (an abnormal accumulation of serous fluid in connective tissue or serous cavity). Enhances the susceptibility to respiratory infections.

                      http://www.understandingozone.com/limits.asp


                      Lead (Pb) is generally considered to be one of the most toxic pollutants. Lead pollution dates back at least to Roman times. It appears that lead pollution peaked in the mid-20th century and have been dropping like a lead weight since the 1960's, totally ignoring the population "explosion" and the EPA (which did not commence its mischief until 1970). Lead levels are currently about where they were before the industrial revolution.







                      Annual compliance costs are in millions of 2006 dollars.

                      Pollution abatement follows a production (AKA diminishing returns) function. Each dollar spent removes less pollution than the previous dollar. The cost of compliance with the Clean Air Act is rising exponentially while the return in pollution abatement is asymptotically approaching zero...



                      [/URL]

                      The gov't routinely exaggerates the supposed benefits of regulations, usually relying on unverifiable claims, such as, "Regulation X prevented 1,500 premature deaths." There is no way to test or verify a claim that things would have been worse if gov't didn't impose these real costs on your business. And the costs are very real.

                      The EPA routinely uses asthma as a justification for new reg's. They claim the reg's will reduce the incidence of asthma. The EPA's own data show that atmospheric concentrations of SO2 and NO2 have been declining, while the CDC says that asthma diagnoses have been increasing over the last few decades.



                      If the pollution abatement was reducing the incidence of asthma, why is the percentage of children being diagnozed with asthma risng?

                      At times, the EPA will resort to totally [email protected] metrics like the “Social Cost of Carbon” when they can’t gin up any speculative health “benefits.”

                      In this particular case, SCOTUS ruled that the EPA failed to properly weigh the costs of the new rule against the benefits.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Perspective on ozone...

                        What will cost up to $270B annually and accomplish nothing?

                        The EPA's new ozone rule...
                        EPA Proposes New Limit for Ozone Emissions

                        The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced a new proposal to limit emissions of ozone, arguing that curbing the smog-causing pollutant will have wide-ranging public health benefits.

                        [...]

                        The EPA argues that ground-level ozone can pose serious threats to public health, including aggravation of lung diseases like asthma. Republicans and fossil fuel industry advocates say that a suite of recent EPA regulations are unnecessary, too costly and will result in job losses.

                        The new proposed regulation would lower the current limit for ozone pollution from 75 parts per billion to between 65 to 70 parts per billion. It would also solicit public comment on an even lower threshold of 60 parts per billion, which environmental groups have sought.

                        http://www.powermag.com/epas-propose...-15b-annually/
                        Ground level ozone (O3) has been steadily declining for more than 30 years...



                        The annual cost to lower O3 to 65-70 ppb is estimated to be $3.9 to 15 billion...
                        Annual costs are estimated at $3.9 billion in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb and $15 billion for a standard of 65 ppb. The agency’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the rule meanwhile suggests that the alternative standard level could cost up to $39 billion annually.

                        “If the standards are finalized, every dollar we invest to meet them will return up to three dollars in health benefits,” said the EPA.

                        http://www.powermag.com/epas-propose...-15b-annually/
                        If reducing ground level O3 reduces the incidence of asthma, why did the incidence of asthma double or triple while ground level O3 was being halved?




                        http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/....157.4.9704140


                        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db94.htm

                        If the greentards and Enviromarxists get their way and the standard is lowered to 60ppb, the cost will push $270 billion per year!



                        With a cumulative cost of more than $2 trillion and a loss of 101 GW of electricity generation capacity by 2040...



                        http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/...zone-Standard/
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Perspective in one slide...

                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The particulate chart is misleading only because it shows the dust being kicked up in the Sahara.

                            Locally, the Tittabawasse River is clean enough for walleye to live in it. The river is no longer the industrial sewer it was in the 50s, for Dow, Michigan Chemicals, and Total Petroleum as well as the raw sewage from all the towns and cities along it. The air is much cleaner thanks to the use of clean coal and basic scrubbing of the smoke that removes most of the particulate and sulfur dioxides. The water much cleaner thanks to basic sewage treatment and efforts made by Dow to control loss of chemicals into the environment.

                            Such basic controls has been not that expensive to implement in addition that newer energy generating plants are much more efficient.

                            On the other hand, most of the industrial jobs have vanished along with the factories to Mexico and China where there is no concern about worker's safety or the environment whatsoever. Much of that has been the result of industries fleeing the cost of excessive government regulations and union feather bedding work rules.

                            The ridiculous mandates concerning further reducing so called pollutants to zero levels, as well as CO2, are so cost prohibitive that they will drive all remaining manufacturing overseas and result in rationing of very expensive energy for those still living here.
                            “Breaking News,”

                            “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Dust from deserts is just as dangerous to human lungs as any other particulate matter... Which means that most sources of anthropogenic PM are insignificant compared to natural sources.

                              Just like CO2...

                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X