Op-ed: Air pollution is bad for business

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    June 15, 2017 7:23 p.m.

    @ RRB - SLC, UT

    According to recent reports, China is responsible for 65% of the pollution in the western United States.

    Just a question how much of that pollution is from manufacturing the Cheap stuff that Walmart etc are sell to the people.

    We export both the jobs and the pollution when we buy imported goods.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 15, 2017 11:47 a.m.

    Op-ed: Air pollution is bad for business


    Not if you are in the coal and oil industries,
    and have bought out the Republicans who are in control....

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    June 15, 2017 9:22 a.m.

    Most of our air pollution is from fossil fuel burning. They are primarily sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Its affect on temperature is tiny contrary to global warming hype. Moreover we just might be in a downturn in global temperature. The pollutants mentioned can be removed from coal fairly easily, but the CO2. CO2 is hard to remove, but it isn't necessary. Coal plants would thus be more practical. In the meantime trains, semis, all trucks should be converted and new ones use natural gas as it has none of the pollutants. Solar and wind are impractical as they cost 5-10 times as much as coal. Natural gas is not a lot more than coal and a good replacement for coal plants.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    June 15, 2017 7:40 a.m.

    Air Pollution is bad for business, health and family life. That is for sure.

    So why don't we require every house to have solar producing enough energy for the house, 2 cars, and an electric lawn mower?

    Net Zero energy and Net Zero water demand per house. Now that's a better water and energy policy.

    Solar saves more water than a house uses indoors and outdoors. We would be far better off by putting our water dollars into solar, because solar saves more water than the water project may produce.

    We can have clean air and abundant water with Solar instead of the usual air pollution and expensive water project to dry land speculators.

    We need better dialog on Solar to get better water policies.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    June 14, 2017 11:50 p.m.

    Dear Brian,

    I have an honest question. Which one of the items you listed that Trump has abandoned would improve air quality in the Salt Lake Valley?

    June 14, 2017 9:50 p.m.

    DN, the Paris accord cost Americans one billion, while the three largest polluters, China, India and Russia pay nothing.

    It's a bad deal.

    June 14, 2017 9:46 p.m.

    According to recent reports, China is responsible for 65% of the pollution in the western United States.

    Ad to that the nature of the Wasatch front, and how it traps pollution in it's valleys, I would suggest we start yelling about China and India, and the pollution they are sending us. Other than removing the mountains, or limiting the population, that's our options.

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    June 14, 2017 9:03 p.m.

    the petulent child left at the end of his term last January.

    what's wrong with asking for an unbiased study, or even the identification of who conducted the other studies?

    how often do you drive in the winter v taking public transit? do you leave your thermostat at 65 or lower?

    what are you doing personally, rather than demanding govt fix everything?

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    June 14, 2017 9:00 p.m.

    It is difficult to monetize human suffering and premature death. Air pollution is a factor beyond question in cardiopulmonary disease and it is past time for the legislature to address the issue seriously.

  • cool47 Saratoga Springs, UT
    June 14, 2017 7:34 p.m.

    Irony Guy...I beg to differ. Just suppose the majority of the vehicles in the Wasatch Front were required to be electric and the power gen (natural gas, which it already is) and solar.

    Despite the fact, we live in a bowel the pollution would go way down. Now the above proposal may be unrealistic over the short term but over the longer term it is very doable. Say in 10 years we could have substantially better air quality throughout the year.

    What does it take to get there. A little forward thinking that is translated into the right policies. And yes regulation may play a role.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    June 14, 2017 6:52 p.m.

    While we are deregulating lets stop scrubbing smoke stacks whats wrong with a little acid rain? And the county could save money by collecting the trash once a month, whats wrong with more flys.

    Being serious now, as science has improved so as our quality of life. That improvement has increased life expectancy by reducing infant mortality and prolonged our lives.

    The changes that made this possible did not happen by accident they happened by regulation. Yes some of those regulations cost money, but the benefits save money also.

    @Carman The problem with regulation is that the costs are disproportionately born by the middle class and poor, while the benefits are spread more evenly. It is also the middle class and poor that had the shorter life expectancy and more chronic health issues.

    Although I don't want to live till I am 100 I do want to enjoy a retirement and see grandchildren

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 14, 2017 6:00 p.m.

    We don't need to do anything about air pollution in the Salt Lake Valley because we live in a mountain bowl. It's inevitable. Just grin and bear it. Stop complaining. Your whining is a nuisance. It's geography--get used to it. Nothing can be done. Do you hear? Nothing!

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    June 14, 2017 4:46 p.m.

    Another pitch for regulation from the DNews. The problem with regulation is that the costs are disproportionately born by the middle class and poor, while the benefits are spread more evenly. Regulation drives up the cost of gasoline and natural gas, etc. It drives up the cost of heaters and air conditioners. It drives up the cost of cars and homes. It drives up the cost of taking a vacation, commuting to work, etc. Yes, it does bring benefits, but sometimes the costs are greater than the benefits. I am all for working on cleaner air and water, but let's do it responsibility, not willy nilly just because wealthy do-goodness who can afford the costs latch onto these regulations as a way to address their pet issues.

    To Hutterite: Anyone who compares the Wasatch Front to Beijing hasn't spent much time in either place. Our air here is very good-to-excellent 80-90% of the time. Also, Beijing air has improved in recent years despite massive growth as the local authorities have worked on the problem. They will likely never solve the dust from the Goni desert which is often confused with smog, however.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    June 14, 2017 4:37 p.m.

    We get it DC the GOP always puts profit above health, businesses before citizens.

    Doesn't take any science to convince conservative of these moral choices, money talks, the poor, middle class, average citizens don't have a say, because they aren't contributing?

    It will continue to get worse with the petulant child president, listening to money, instead of science.

    Worked for tobacco.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 14, 2017 3:55 p.m.

    America’s UN commitment broken? How? The senate never ratified them. Do you mean BO’s commitment broken? That’s closer to the truth, like his promises on health care, an open administration, and the economy.

    “study in 2013 examined employment in businesses affected by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (They) triggered $5.4 billion in lost or reduced earnings. But that’s only half the equation. The EPA and others calculated that the cumulative health and economic benefits from 1990 to 2020 will include the sparing of 4.2 million lives, 43.8 million asthma attacks, 3.3 million heart attacks, 2.1 million hospital admissions, 2.2 million emergency room visits and 313 million lost work days.”

    Sounds like EPA trying to justify its existence. who are those “others”? are ANY of them unbiased, without a dog in the fight?

    If it’s possible for those prior “studies” to economically quantify those supposed benefits, why is it impossible to quantify what we’ve learned about pollution and pregnancy? Perhaps it was also impossible to quantify the benefits in those other “studies”, and the outcomes were predetermined fabrications.

    what studies show coal plants kill 52k per year?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 14, 2017 3:52 p.m.

    It is jarring to see it for the first time. I've had clients remark how similar it is to Beijing when they come here.