Published: Monday, Jan. 28 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
I can see requiring a big polluter to shut down when an inversion pattern
begins, to protect the air we will be stuck with for the next week or two.But the liberal notion of taking money from the polluters and giving it
to the people is crazy. Here is what would happen to it. Federal government
makes a bureau to handle this task. They take the money from polluters. 80% goes
to pay for the bureau. Payouts to people are minuscule. Government gets bigger
and more powerful. Valley is still polluted.As the liberal posters
here love to point out, "you can't breathe money".This is liberal hypocracy at its best.
Kennecott's emissions are regulated by the government. Now someone wants to
put the government in charge of billing Kennecott for excessive emissions. Why
not mandate that a bureaucrat be sent to your home every morning to start your
car and to turn on your furnace? Why not just turn everything over to the
government? They've done such a wonderful job teaching our kids, keeping
us healthy, and keeping our streets safe.
In utah, man cannot modify the climate. Therefore any effort to correct the
current issues we are experiencing is a non starter.
" Why don't they close down or reduce activities on red air days? Why
haven't they cleaned up their emissions (technology is available)? "Because Big Polluters send Big Dollars to our Governor & Lawmakers.
Adding a costly layer of bureaucracy and giving a household money doesn't
relieve asthma. Addressing a problem with a bad solution is not the answer. Try
Which decade are you living in? Kennecott doesn't pollute like it did in
the 60's. They have had a new stack and scrubbers etc. for years now as
required by the EPA. Carbon isn't a problem in our atmosphere anyway. Stop
believing the global warming religionists. And why the attack on Kennecott? They
are offering a help to people who can use the bus passes rather than drive their
cars. And in case you don't realize it, it will be YOU who are paying the
carbon tax. Corporations do not pay taxes, WE are the ones paying those through
higher prices, lower wages, etc. Taking money from one person/group and giving
it to another is unconstitutional. There is no provision for it anywhere is the
"But the liberal notion of taking money from the polluters and giving it to
the people is crazy."You mean that "liberal notion" that
was first introduced by Republican George H W Bush?It was called
emissions trading when President Bush proposed it. Now it is called Cap and
JoeBlow,sounds to me like you want bush back
True, Cap and trade was a conservative idea from way back just like mandatory
healthcare insurance. People have such a team mentality they are
willing to live with dirty air because someone else in their political party is
making more money by polluting than not. I'd rather be
associated with clean air.
"JoeBlow,sounds to me like you want bush back"No, what
I want is for people to be consistent.And to recognize that the GOP
does EXACTLY the same thing as the dems. The first poster calls
this a "liberal notion". If that is a liberal notion, than all I want
is to understand that the GOP has been pushing "liberal notions" for
years.Just like the insurance mandate was a Heritage foundation
concept backed strongly by the GOP. But now it is branded as
"socialist".I am not defending what those on the right label
"liberalism". I am just pointing out that both parties do it. The right gives an easy pass to everything the GOP does, regardless of
how liberal and then screams bloody murder when the dems do it.See
We have to realize that some processes that are necessary to our survival will
have some inevitable, unavoidable air pollution -- it's a price we simple
have to live with (it cannot be totally eliminated). Mining is one of those
processes. Transportation is another.Imposing financial penalties
for unrealistic expectations results in lost jobs and a slower economy.
It's not worth the price, not matter your motives.
CO2 is not a pollutant, neither is it the cause of smog.If
you're going to complain about pollution, at least you should know what
you're talking about.
AsthmaCOPDHeart AttacksStrokeLung CancerAll of these things will start being more recognized
during 'red alert' days in Utah, where they factually ENCOURAGE you to
avoid going outdoors and the population in Utah goes up.Hard to be
proud of a state where the air makes you sick.
While I believe we need to do something, this is simply not a realistic
To "Pagan" unfortunately your complaints are not substantiated.Take Asthma for example.If you look at the demographics of who has
asthma, you would expect that the senior citizens in Utah would have a
significantly higher asthma rate than the youth. However, according to the Utah
Health department, the old and young have nearly the same asthma rates. Next,
if you look at asthma rates in various areas around the state, you have high
asthma rates in the areas of low population density, how do you explain that?With lung cancer, if pollution is the cause, why does Utah have the
lowest lung cancer rate in the US?
Ms. Allbury's letter contains an inaccuracy that needs correction.
Kennecott contributes approximately 3.8 percent of particulate emissions to the
airshed on a typical winter day and about 5.8 percent of particulate emissions
annually, not one-third or 30 percent. See how our emissions are accurately
calculated by viewing the February 2012 PM 2.5 FAQ on the Kennecott site under
Environment. Our partnership with the Downtown Alliance to provide
free transit passes and our work with numerous other companies to assist with
the development of idle reduction programs are part of our commitment to find
action-oriented solutions to the air quality problems faced by Utah’s
citizens.Kyle Bennett-Kennecott spokesperson
This is Utah, and Science is a sham.Sudies are controlled by Liberal
elitists at the Colleges and Universities - where they are controlled by special
interest groups who pay for them.There is no smog - it is a natural
inversion, and has always been in the valley even before 1847.Man is
considered too puny, and can not change or control the environment God himself
has created....and only smoking tobacco can cause heart and lung
disease along the Wastach front.[sarcasm - off]
The headline writer messed up. CO2 is colorless and odorless. If that's all
Rio Tinto emitted, we would be in great shape.Inversions are the
result of geography and weather - there's nothing we can do to prevent
them. We can and are doing something about the gunk we emit that gets trapped in
them - does nobody remember the 1940s? But we need to be reasonable about it.
For example, we could shut everything down during inversions, but would that
leave us better off? I don't think so.People with serious
health risks due to inversions should probably consider relocating, and I
don' t mean that to be offensive. Most people here survive the inversions
Oops. I see now that the letter-writer also suggested that carbon emissions are
the problem - it wasn't the work of the headline writer. CO2 emissions
aren't the problem. They having nothing to do with inversions or the
pollution that builds up during inversions. CO2 emissions foster plant growth,
so we certainly shouldn't tax that.
Tax driving during inversions by doubling gas prices when we are choking on
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments