Imminent domain, if our elected officials didn't want spray of the jet
chemtrails, could they stop them. I don't think so.
Who wouldn't want to go off grid, except if you do your power rate bill
dubbles. So ya can spend a lot on split that won't get the sun because of
the spray from her plans clouding the sky killing birds ( in Draper) all over
the world. What goes up must come down, is fish an is as people. It does change
ya, not for the good, but for good.
@Impartial7"The political powers have convinced the Utah public that
WE are the main cause of pollution. Cars, fireplaces, BBQ's, lawn mowers,
leaf blowers, nail salons, wood fired restaurant ovens, etc. All while ignoring
the main sources; Kennecott, US Magnesium, oil refineries, etc. "Political powers? These studies were done by scientists in relevant fields,
just like with climate change research. Those studies say that roughly half of
the locally generated pollution is from vehicles, and another third is from
things like homes/businesses. A sixth of the pollution problem is from what you
call the "main sources" (of course a power plant is way more than a
car... but we have a whole lot of cars).
jsf,A revenue-neutral tax is designed to change the relative price
of substitute goods available to consumers. For example, if the external social
cost of driving your car everywhere was internalized into the price of gasoline
via a tax, then the monetary and inconvenience cost of taking the bus would be
more comparable to driving and more people would ride the bus on the margin.
Sending the tax revenue back to consumers wouldn't cause behavior to revert
back to the original consumption values, because some consumers would substitute
more bus rides for car trips.It's a form of a pigouvian tax,
and is commonly proposed by economists, but is rarely implemented by
policy-makers. Usually because they fail to understand how it works. Subsidies
are more common in practice, but are more expensive in terms of economic
"(The “sin tax” on carbon energy and fuels can be returned to
the public equally in the form of household tax credits or checks.) "The government takes and takes and takes. If the funds are returned to
household credits how does that solve the problem? If you tax the polluters for
using carbon, raising their costs, and then reimburse them with the same
dollars, less the governments take, then how did you create a cost incentive to
not use carbon fuels.This would be taxing it then subsidizing its
use. Except the government steals more tax dollars.
The problem is not coal. If coal is scrubbed of particulates, nitrogen and
sulfur oxides it is pretty clean. Besides the plants are not even in the
valleys. Natural gas is a clean fuel for power plants and autos and trucks. As
Nonames says it is not that expensive or difficult to go to natural gas for
surface vehicles. And the fuel is comparable or less than gasoline.
I would suggest initially starting by having government buy natural gas powered
vehicles for their state, county, city needs. As more and more vehicles are so
fitted the private sector will get involved thus dramatically lowering
Just live.with an asthmatic and you'll know how bad the.air can be here.
Blah, ba blah, ba blah, blah, blah.We live in a bowl. We live in a
bowl. We live in a bowl. We get inversion especially bad in January and
February. When the weather cooperates, we have the cleanest and clearest air.
When it does not, we don't.There is no fix to the inversion.
To Impartial7:re: "You couldn't be more off the mark. Those
technologies already exist and are in use in most places in our country.
"Right, got it. Once again, short on any details, at all. What
specific technologies and what regulations? Our climate, geography, population
density and economy are quite different/unique on the Wasatch Front. This
isn't California where natural gas heating isn't needed much, or San
Francisco where there is little need for air conditioning in the summer. We
don't have the population density to justify multi deca-billion dollar mass
transit like a subway system or high-speed electric trains. We need cars in our
suburban-like, modest density Wasatch Front. We don't have tens of
thousands of $300k+ jobs on the Wasatch front that will support most people
buying $40k+ electric cars, especially with our larger family sizes, charitable
contributions, and public ed needs.Come on, specifically, what would
you propose to SIGNIFICANTLY cut emissions and pollution without imposing very
expensive costs on our economy and hurting job growth desperately needed for one
of the fastest growing populations in the country?
casual observer; I am still invested in Utah. I have two daughters and four
grandchildren there. I am concerned for there wellbeing.We need
government to be a police agency to regulate, enforce and fine businesses for
not complying.It is hysterically funny to believe that these
corporations would create their own regulations for the sake of mankind and
comply with them. I say, "Ya right!"Don't forget,
the EPA was a Republican idea.
@carman;"It will take years to get cost-effective technologies that
can replace our current higher polluting technologies. Pushing draconian
regulation would have massive negative consequences for our economy."You couldn't be more off the mark. Those technologies already exist
and are in use in most places in our country. It's not killing their
economy. Utah has the laxest air pollution regs that are allowed by law. Hence,
some of the worst pollution in the country. Half of the UTAH DAQ monitoring
sensors don't work. That's not by accident. The Utah regulatory
agencies, that are supposed to protect Utah citizens, actually work to protect
big polluting industries. How do you vote?
To Baron Scarpia:re: " to avoid the poor quality of life in
Utah. "Haha. We are consistently ranked among places in the
U.S. with the highest quality of life. I just drove through St. George where it
was 12 degrees colder than 2,000 ft higher in Cedar City. How can this be?
It's called inversion, and it traps air near the earth's surface. I
note that those calling for "cleaning up the air" on the Wasatch front
offer few, if any, real solutions. The only way to quickly change the air
situation would be to shut down dozens of businesses, cut automotive emissions
by 50%+, cut home natural gas use by 50%, ban diesels on our highways along the
Wasatch Front, ban snow blowers, take our plows off the roads, jack up gasoline
taxes by 2x-3x, or similar draconian measures. And these wouldn't solve
the problem, but would only reduce the problem.It will take years to
get cost-effective technologies that can replace our current higher polluting
technologies. Pushing draconian regulation would have massive negative
consequences for our economy. Stating otherwise is just ignorance or blindness
LOU Montana - Pueblo, COBad air in Utah is Utah's problem and
if we do not fix it we are responsible, not the federal government or Trump.
BTW, Denver's bad air needs a local solution also. The argument
that cleaning up the air will kill jobs is an empty vessel. Air pollution is
@impartial.Industry certainly contributes to our pollution but our
vehicles contribute the bulk of it.@No names accepted High density housing is being pushed by builders because there is more profit
@Impartial7: "Please tell me where, in America, anyone, anywhere is forcing
birth control?"So, shall I assume we mostly agree on the issue
of forcing high density housing and mass transit onto unwilling individuals and
neighborhoods? How many Draper residents want apartments and train tracks in
their neighborhoods? Or seeing the UTA insiders get rich while not providing
decent service?You should seek more areas of commonality rather than
rushing to disagree.As for forced birth control, this nation has a
sad history of forced sterilization. Sanger started Planned Parenthood with the
overt desire to limit the population of "undesired" groups. Elective
abortions remain grossly disproportionatley used by poor minorities.Please tell me you don't suppprt tax penalties for having "too
many" children. Tell me that even as you support socialized medicine and
all manner of other welfare programs that you are not resentful of the taxes you
pay to support schools for your Utah Mormon neighbors' kids. Tell me you
don't have concerns about worldwide "over population".My concerns are not limited to current policy in the US. They include a
warning of where things could go.
@ carman"...killing jobs and self-sufficiency"I
hear this tired argument that doing something environmental is going to
"kill jobs" ... sadly, our bad air is actually killing economic
opportunity in our state. We've had many economic development
representatives report that business scouts come to Utah during our ski season,
witness/experience our bad air, and then decide to set up their businesses
elsewhere to avoid the poor quality of life in Utah. Sadly, our
ambivolence about air pollution is costing the state economic opportunity -- and
jobs for our ever-booming population.
Forcing lower emissions before reasonably priced alternatives are available will
do more harm than good by killing jobs and self-sufficiency. Without jobs,
people cannot afford to eat well, take stress-relieving vacations, get good
medical and dental care, or live in safe/healthy communities and homes.Everyone wants clean air, but it has to be balanced with a healthy economy.
The air is much cleaner in most cities today than it was in the 70's. We
will continue to make progress, but we need more efficient technologies, bridge
technologies, pollution abatement technologies, more affordable solutions, etc.
Those who focus solely on the single issue of air pollution without considering
the economy or jobs will do more harm than good with heavy-handed regulation
than the bad air itself is doing.
I'm all for clean air unless it becomes political. When politicians get
involved weird things happen, billions of dollars are lost to "leaders"
of the clean air movement, faulty science becomes law and people actually get
angry if you don't agree with their point of view. Educating is
way better than policy making, propaganda and demonizing, which is what has been
happening the last 20 years. All people want clean air, that's
not an issue, it's the means to the end that becomes questionable, if not
self-serving. To clean our air let's become neighborly, not
@NoNamesAccepted;"I will oppose efforts to impose high density
housing, the use of mass transit, forced birth control, higher taxes, or limits
on landscaping our yards."Please tell me where, in America,
anyone, anywhere is forcing birth control? Really- where? Time for a
different radio channel.
What do we do about the yellow plume that blows into the valley from north of
the lake? The magnesium refinery's contribution to Wasatch Front pollution
is generally not mentioned in these kind of articles. The copper refinery has
cleaned up their act so we know that it can be done.One cannot be
concerned about air pollution on the Wasatch Front and at the same time support
the rampant over-development we are experiencing. More people means more stuff
in the air.
Solar and wind cannot replace other energy sources at least until electrical
storage technology gets far less costly. And both of these energy sources
impose environmental costs of their own as huge areas of (usually remote, rural)
land must covered with windmills, PV panels, or mirrors, along with new
transmission lines. Nuclear power, in contrast, requires very little
land and produces relatively little pollution, none of which contributes to
global warming.Converting automobiles from gasoline to compressed
natural gas reduces pollution between 50 and 90%.We will not
eliminate all pollution. The question is whether the goal is to really reduce
in meaningful amounts, or whether the goal is to use environmental concerns as
an excuse to dictate how others live or to take their money.We all
value a clean environment. I will happily support environmental efforts that
respect my freedom and lifestyle.I will oppose efforts to impose
high density housing, the use of mass transit, forced birth control, higher
taxes, or limits on landscaping our yards.For the cost of fixed rail
we could convert most,commute cars in Utah to CNG.
Very admirable goal the author is proposing. Unfortunately, we have no "Tony
Stark" with an actual innovative idea to 1) Convince the public to
trade in their carbon fueled vehicles spewing millions of pollutants into the
air for individual transportation that actually runs on clean energy.2)
Offer a tax incentive to make such "chicken in every pot" technology
available to the common automobile owner or inventor attempting to market such
new technology.Show me a political leader with this kind of vision and
I'll be sure to vote for him/her.I'm convinced if everyone did
not drive their cars, for just one day, the real smog producers in our fair
valley would be revealed.Good luck!
It's never getting fixed. The political powers have convinced the Utah
public that WE are the main cause of pollution. Cars, fireplaces, BBQ's,
lawn mowers, leaf blowers, nail salons, wood fired restaurant ovens, etc. All
while ignoring the main sources; Kennecott, US Magnesium, oil refineries, etc.
All the guys that funnel campaign cash to our government. We (the people) could
cut our emissions to zero, and we'd still have horrible air, due to
industrial pollution. Our government leaders are selling out constituents health
for big industry polluters.
You are going to have to learn to deal with your bad air. Trump is dismantling
the EPA and promoting the use of coal. The air quality in Salt Lake Valley is
only going to get worse. Sad!