@ RRB - SLC, UTAccording 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.
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....
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.
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.
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
DN, the Paris accord cost Americans one billion, while the three largest
polluters, China, India and Russia pay nothing. It's a bad
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.
platypusthe 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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.