Comments about ‘State airs proposed plan to clean up Wasatch Front pollution’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Oct. 4 2013 1:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Prodicus
Provo, UT

After briefly going over some of the Utah County portion of the plans (available from the DEQ web site) I have to strongly agree with Mascaro that the plans don't go far enough.

The plan procrastinates getting back to air quality that meets the standards until 2019- the absolute maximum time the EPA will allow for implementation plans. It doesn't even seem very realistic that it will happen by then either- AFAIK they have basically no plan for significantly slowing the growth of mobile emissions, much less reducing them. I didn't catch the details of how they're predicting future Utah County population and emissions growth, but from what I can see of the measures they claim will suffice, I think their growth estimates have got to be rather low for the numbers to add up to compliance in 2019.

Besides all the natural bad consequences of having bad air and not cleaning it up, being in non-attainment already brings us a bunch of sanctions and penalties, which it'd be nice to be free of faster than 2019. If we're still out of compliance in 2019, which seems likely, there will be considerably more trouble.

trueblue87
Provo, UT

One thing that can be done is to limit the new homes being built along the Wasatch Front, especially between the 2 mountain ranges. On average, for each new home built in the Salt Lake-Ogden metro area, 2 new cars are added, which brings with them more pollution. I propose that if the State were to move the prison, to turn it into a park with the majority of the funds coming from private donations. This will not only prevent the addition of the numerous cars to the area but will also increase the plants that thrive on CO2 and produce oxygen. Another suggestion is to increase the sizes of properties that new homes are being built on.

Fred T
PHOENIX, AZ

To trueblue87, perhaps you should move? That would be one less household to contribute to pollution. If you get yourself and other like minded people to move somewhere else, then the pollution levels will go down.
Hmm, don't like that idea? You shouldn't. But it is the same as you saying new people can't or shouldn't move in.

Back in the early 80's we had over 100 days of that dang inversion.... I've been up to SLC in the winter a few times since I moved (see I'm doing my part ;-)
I avoid SLC like the plague in winter now. Summers aren't much better.
Just like I did in the early 80's, I head up the canyons and 'above' the muck for fresh air and warmer temps when I visit now.

Maybe you should build large fans and just blow the inversion away..... as much success in this plan as telling people they can't move in.

Oh... if you build a large park instead of houses, then the people will build houses farther out and have even longer commutes..

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Hopeless faked documents again. Why does Salt Lake County and the state keep blaming northern Utah 120 miles away for the pollution in the SL Wasatch Front? The law to force emission testing is a waste of time becasue the cars sold there are the same cars sold here and emissions tests in SL county are marginally useful. Natural air flow in Utah is south to north, not north to south.

They are grabbing at straws to create havoc on the citizens with fixes not even related to vehicle emissions, believe me I know as a certified emission technician, ret. This state has to acknowledge the problem is in development corridor, the I-15 pollution river of death over flowing the banks of the freeway corridor.

That TRAX and its rail system and land grab by secret property scams are the states pollution problem. Shut down the trains, spread the development beyond the SL county and all will improve. Kill the plan to relocate the prison and add more pollution to the valley with more development. Government greed is the problem of pollution in Utah.

Yanquetino
Ivins, UT

The plan concedes that "Vehicles contribute over half of the emissions that lead to the formation of PM 2.5 during winter inversions, so reducing mobile source emissions in nonattainment areas is a priority."

If that is such a priority, the DAQ needs to explicitly propose that the Utah legislature alter the tax incentives in the state's Clean Fuel Vehicles program. It makes no sense for Utah to award $2,500 for a natural gas vehicle, yet only a paltry $605 for an electric vehicle, when the latter is indisputably the cleanest alternative. Our government needs to henceforth award an equal --if not greater-- tax incentive to EVs.

We cannot ignore the transportation "elephant in the room" any longer while debating the use of minor contributors like hairspray and polishes. The sooner we encourage our citizens to purchase and drive EVs with NO tailpipes, the sooner our air quality will improve.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments