Lawmakers mull Gov. Herbert's clean air recommendations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • rocklaw Holladay, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    The lamest excuse of all is the supposed "risk" of adopting stricter emission standards before the federal mandate takes effect. Since when was being ahead of the curve deemed a liability??? Give us better emission standards or give us better legislators!!

  • ArgoFY Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    Notice how the governor and Utah lawmakers always conspicuously leave industry off the table as a recommendation for reducing Utah's horrible air? They take the 'let's all cut way back on polluting on an individual scale, so our precious big businesses in Utah can continue to do nothing. That way, Utah's economy will always be better off.' My question is, better off for whom? Have you ever seen those 'smaller scale' refineries? Those things are the equivalent of ten-thousand single home fireplaces burning all at once. Add in Kennecott, Stericycle, the NSA building, Hill AFB, etc...and it's little wonder Utah has some of the worst air in the country. If our illustrious governor and his cronies were truly serious about bettering Utah's air quality, they would impose a pollution cap on those businesses, while stopping the tax break and polluting incentives they have used in the past to attract big polluters to Utah in the first place.

    I'm not saying that we as individuals shouldn't be doing our part, but it won't do a lot of good if other responsible parties in Utah don't also take responsibility.

  • Tire_Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    The biggest contributor to our bad air quality is vehicle emissions so the Governor and Legislature want to pass legislation for cleaner cars and fuel which will take years to implement. Instead they could improve air quality immediately by allowing State workers to telecommute but that's never discussed. What are they afraid of?

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    With cheap and plentiful natural gas, and extremely efficient furnaces available, it makes no sense to burn wood for heat on the Wasatch Front. Wood is time consuming/expensive to cut, haul, split and stack. It is inefficient and contributes some of the worst pollutants in our air. The negative externalities from burning wood shift the total cost of heating the home with a wood-burning stove from the homeowner to his/her neighbors.

    Its time to come out of the cave-man era, and switch to clean-burning natural gas. This move alone would cut the worse elements of air pollution significantly, and overall pollution levels substantially.

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    So if someone always gets up late in the morning we should allow them to speed 100 mph down the freeway to get to work or if someone can't give up cigars then we give them an exemption to smoke in buildings? Or someone throws a fit they like to sit in front of their fireplace to relax their stress away then we should allow them exemptions to burn wood and coal? One coal burning unit can pollute one percent of the valley. It would pay to give free propane to those people to heat their homes who only have "wood" as their only source of heat. This is ridiculous.

  • rocklaw Holladay, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    Excuses, excuses. The public has spoken. Now listen to the legislators make every excuse they can come up with to avoid implementing the public will.