Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
I have a policy of not listening to anybody who claims one side just wants clean
air, puppy dogs, and world peace. And the other side WANTS dirty air, hates
dogs, and only wants war. These people are drunk on their political dogma and
are no longer making any sense.Nobody WANTS dirty air. Nobody
thinks, "the dirtier the air the better". When some people PRETEND that
some people actually think this it's amazing but just shows how out of
touch with reality they are.Some people can just deal with reality
and the world as it actually is... and realize that we actually NEED refineries.
That doesn't mean they want the dirtiest air possible. That's a
leap of logic that some make that makes no sense to me. I guess it makes sense
in the rhetoric obsessed mind.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTSome people can just deal with reality
and the world as it actually is... and realize that we actually NEED refineries.
That doesn't mean they want the dirtiest air possible. ========
I actually agree with you, but -- Having what? 4-6
refineries, in an inversion prone, isolated, high mountain
valley, filled with 2 million people, mostly children, doesn't mean that businesses and SUVs can do what they, when they
want, and how they want.That is called "regulation" and some
"conservativs" are against any and all regulation regardless the impat
to humans or the enviroment -- business rules, and money is the ultimate God.
@2 bits - I agree with you, moving the plants is probably a no go from a cost
perspective. Granting them permission to expand on the condition of overall
reduction in emissions is a much more pragmatic solution.But the
rest of the rhetorical tung twisting is a bit silly. Why does driving cars
mean that you must settle for pollution. There is nothing scientifically that
requires this sort of bi-polar decision. And simply because something is done a
certain way now, does not mean it is the best way forward. These either or
discussion just creates false arguments.We can have cars, jobs, and
industry.... and clean air and water.
OMM,When you get into "Regulation"... the question I ask is...
where do you draw the line, and who get's to control whom?Do I
get to control you? Or do you just get to control me? Is it OK
to control people just because their environmental opinions aren't radical
enough? Who do we get to regulate? Anybody who's not as radical about
environmentalism as me? or as radical as you? Where is that line? Would you
be OK if we decided Conservatives could control/regulate you? Or is it only OK
if Liberals are doing the controlling/regulating?You can't say
"Liberals can regulate Conservatives" using environmentalism as their
tool... but freak if Conservatives try to control you with their morality as
their standard. Environmentalism IS a moral issue.That's the
main problem with regulation. There must be a line. I think that's the
only place we would disagree.Environmentalism is a moral issue.
Some appreciate being beat over the head with your morality and regulations as
much as you appreciate being hit over the head with their religious morality and
Open Minded Mormon/2 bits,I am serious and I am NOT trying to play
politics here or to make any kind of political statement.The guy on
television from State Air Quality point blank made this statement:
“…the air quality today better than it was 20 years
ago…”This does not square with what Dr. Moench has been
saying. What REALLY is going on here?
UtahBlueDevil,This is not make believe. How can you drive your car
without gas? How do you get gas without refineries? You can't just pick
them up and move them outside the valley. Even IF you could... that would just
cause MORE pollution (the same pollution from the refining process PLUS the
added pollution to truck the gas to the valley).The refineries would
still be creating the same amount of pollution... just somewhere else. And if
that location is still in the Great Basin... the air will eventually end up
trapped in the valley.---I think we would get a bigger
bang for our buck if we just outlawed driving (instead of moving all refineries
far enough that they won't pollute the Wasatch Front). Heck... Then the
refineries would close too (becasue there would be no demand for their
product).But neither is going to happen. We can't outlaw
driving. And we can't banish existing refineries. The reality
is... we can't drive without gas. And we can't have gas without
refineries. So including some restrictions on driving (not just banishing
refineries) seems like it would be a good thing to consider.
Excellent letter.We are dealing with the same people who've
tried to push the bogus "science" of global warming on the planet. Every
thing liberals do is agenda driven. They have never met an industry they've
not villified, and had as their mission, the desire to destroy it.Leftists always need an "evil" corporation, or other entitiy they
dislike in order to push yet more regulations on the American citizen. Just wait
until Dear Leader pushes cap & trade on this nation via the EPA. Energy
costs will go through the roof, and our nation will continue to decline
economically and technically. We are currently witnessing what
unbridled liberalism (socialism) brings upon a nation.
Air-polluting cars:Why drive them, when we could beRiding unicorns?
"If you don't want to live in weather-related inversions, there are
plenty of other places to live."True... you could move to cities
like Chicago where it's -70 wind chill... or in other Midwest states where
your house can be blown away in a wind storm.
@2bits......you said "The refineries would still be creating the same amount
of pollution... just somewhere else."Ummm.... not sure how many
turnarounds you have actually done, but I have done more than a few..... and
most of those facilities are OLD. I know it hard to imagine, but there are
actually newer and cleaner ways to do things. Part of any expansion is to bring
grandfathered assets up to current standards, and in the process, produce less
emissions. There are multiple was to improve technologies that can aide in
optimization of the operation in catalytic reforming process, optimize the
fluid catalytic cracking, or even reduce excess oxygen present in the flue gas,
reducing the amount of incomplete combustion. This is just a start.If you had read carefully, I agreed, moving the facilities is not economically
viable. But to say a net new facility would pollute the same just is false,
very false.And to your comment that we need gas for our cars...
today... yes - mostly. Tomorrow, not so true. To say the technology of 100
years ago is our only option and we are stuck it lacks just a little bit of
vision... to say the least.
Most of the writers in this blog fail to understand that climate is both global
and very local. Establishments such as the refineries, Rio Tinto, and
Stericycle affect the region, but they also affect much more acutely their
immediate neighborhoods. No one knows for sure what the full impact of these
establishments is on their nearby neighbors, and the establishments don't
want to know, and indeed don't care. This is the great dilemma of
environmental epidemiology - we don't know the full impact of the
pollutants because the science has not been done. As to the culpability of
these establishments, conservatives would say innocent until proven guilty -
leftists would be more inclined to be cautious and say guilty until proven
innocent. Or in other words we should error on the side of caution. The effects of pollution may be evident in the future when the casualties have
already occurred. I have directly experienced such.
The responses to my letter are pretty much what I expected. I must be an
uneducated, Mormon, gay hater who works for big dirty industry and loves dirty
air. I am surprised somebody didn't find a way to call me a racist.
Unfortunately, this just shows the stereotypical name calling that liberals
always use to denigrate anybody with a different view. I'm college
educated, self employed, parents were both Democratic, and have no religious
affiliation. So how about we deal with reality. Either the head of air quality
for Utah lied by stating inTV/newspaper interviews that the air has improved for
the last twenty years or he is correct and it has improved.If he lied then we
should be going after him for the coverup. If he is telling the truth, then Dr.
Moench isn't telling the truth. Simple question, who is telling the truth?
And unless you are not driving a car, heating your home, or using any lights,
then your use of fossil fuels is just as bad as mine. What makes your use
different from mine?
Marxist,"No one knows for sure what the full impact of these
establishments are on nearby neighborhoods". Kennecott and the refineries
have been here for 50+ years. How much longer do we need to wait to see if there
is a cause and effect? Has the medical/government been hiding the results?
Jeff BowlesSalt Lake, UTMarxist,"No one knows for sure
what the full impact of these establishments are on nearby neighborhoods".
Kennecott and the refineries have been here for 50+ years. How much longer do we
need to wait to see if there is a cause and effect? Has the medical/government
been hiding the results?8:22 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014=========
Utah [Salt Lake in particular] has an Autism rate 4 times the
national average.Autism has been linked to mercury,mercury has been
used by Kennecott, andis emmitted by burning fossil fuels.Cause v. Effect.But I guess it's not a problem or doesn't
happen if YOUR kid isn't the one ruined for life from it.
Here is the complete quote:“However, as bad as the air quality
currently is in Salt Lake County, overall it was actually worse 20 to 30 years
ago. Our cars and industry pollute less today, and public education has also
made a big difference. “We've been monitoring air
pollution since the 70s, and we can see a steady decline across the board in
every aspect of air pollution. So it is getting better.”Bo
Call, Air Monitoring Section ManagerUtah Department of Environmental
QualityKSL Television, 2 Jan 2014
LDS Liberal,Based on available science, normal ambient air
concentrations of mercury vapor, averaging 1.6 nanograms per cubic meter of air,
do not appear to be a cause for concern.Do you have any reference to
the level of mercury vapor being released to the atmosphere by Kennecott?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments