Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 49445
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2024/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

2008/3/13-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:49445 Activity:moderate
3/13    "The federal Clean Air Act requires that health standards for ozone
        and a handful of other air pollutants not take costs into account."
        http://www.csua.org/u/l0w
        Whoa! I am an environmentalist, but this is nuts. Almost as nutty
        as invading a country without stopping to consider how much it
        is going to cost.
        \_ It isn't like bad air is happening naturally.  People are creating
           pollutants and not actually paying for the externalities.  I
           have the right to breathe healthy air which means fuck the costs,
           if someone wants to make my air unhealthy they should have to pay
           to clean it up.  Why is that so hard to understand?
           \_ Okay, all cars are banned.  Does that make you happy?
              \_ How about gas is taxed to pay for cleanup costs?  You know
                 the funny thing is the EPA was a big Nixon thing.  He was
                 proud of it.  Man, I can't believe I miss Nixon.
              \_ I thought you said 'fuck the costs' -- well, the air will be
                 a /lot/ cleaner with no cars.
                 \_ It would be cleaner yet with no ships. I say keep cars
                    and ban commercial shipping.
                  \_ And that's why you have a standard to meet.  The EPA
                     has a standard that has to be met.  Not perfection, but
                     "no worse than this."  Why is that so hard to expect?
                     \_ Why not completely virgin air?  Since we're being
                        arbitrary, where do you draw the line?
                        \_ It's not arbitrary.  The EPA exists in part
                           to determine when levels become harmful.  The free
                           market is notoriously bad about this kind of stuff
                           which is why regulation is important.
                           \_ Um, yes it's arbitrary.  Someone's making some
                              decision based on pretty much nothing.
                              \_ Let me guess, you also think global warming
                                 is a big fraud?
                                 \_ And you think the moon landing was?
                                    \_ And how did you get there?
                                       \_ Et tu?
                           \_ Nothing goes from 'not harmful' to 'harmful' in a
                              single stroke.  There's a judgement about what is
                              'too harmful', and it's silly to ignore cost when
                              making that judgement.
        \_ The moment your ancestors climbed down from their tree and started
           their first fire we began the pollute the air.  If you want truly
           'virgin' (to use someone's phrase above) air then we have to simply
           end civilization and go find trees to climb.
           \_ nice straw man.  Hint: 70 ppb ozone is not "virgin air"
              \_ Neither is 60 ppb. How do you decide to chose one as the
                 clean air limit over the other? Don't you think the cost
                 of compliance should figure into the decision?
                 \_ Do you know how 60-70 ppb was arrived at?
                    \_ I think it is quite obvious that the EPA ignored the
                       law andd took cost into account in their decision.
                       Do you know how the numbers were arrived at?
                       \_ The numbers were arrived at by a scientific
                          process involving a panel specifically charged with
                          coming up with such numbers.  I think it is quite
                          obvious that the EPA ignored its own advisory
                          panels because it's run by an administration that
                          is waging a war on science.
2024/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/12/4-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54545 Activity:nil
12/4    "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second"
        http://www.csua.org/u/yk6 (news.yahoo.com)
        Yes, that's *a second*.
        \_ yawn.
        \_ (12/14) "AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming"
        \_ (12/14)
	...
2012/1/12-3/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54287 Activity:nil
1/12    "The Case for a 21-Hour Work Week"
        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-case-for-a-21-hour-work-week.html
        Yeah, let's beat the Europeans on laziness.  If their purpose really
        is to save the planet, why not re-direct the "excess" consumption
        towards environmental causes?  I don't see how traveling, for example,
        in the extra free time is not a form of consumption.
	...
2009/11/23-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53539 Activity:high
11/22   What no chatter about the Climate Hack?  MOTD, I'm so diappointed
        \_ What is impressive about breaking onto an academic server? I
           broke onto the Astronomy machines when I was a sophmore.
           \_ Way to miss the point. The hack itself was not impressive.
              The information that was exposed, however, make the above
              thread kind of moot.
	...
Cache (6595 bytes)
www.csua.org/u/l0w -> news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_go_ot/dirty_air;_ylt=AuXdvcuqauxLgwsOtJq54tUiANEA
The Environmental Protection Agency announced it was tightening the amount of ozone, commonly known as smog, that will be allowed in the air. But the lower standard still falls short of what most health experts say is needed to significantly reduce heart and asthma attacks from breathing smog-clogged air. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the new limits "the most stringent standards ever," and he said they will require 345 counties -- out of more than 700 that are monitored -- to make air quality improvements because they now have dirtier air than is healthy to breathe. Johnson said that state and local officials have considerable time to meet the requirements -- as much as 20 years for some that have the most serious pollution problems. EPA estimates that by 2020 the number of counties failing to meet the new health standard will drop to about 28. About 85 counties still fall short of the old standard enacted a decade ago. Some of those chronic polluters are far above the old limit. Los Angeles County and a large swatch of southern California, for example, and a long stretch from Washington up to New England on the East Coast. Some areas that would be newly included under the stricter standard include Indianapolis and Cleveland's Cuyahoga County in the Midwest; All of Florida and Oklahoma currently comply with the smog standard. Nine counties in each state are unable to meet the tougher requirement. Johnson's decision was met with sharp criticism from health experts and some members of Congress accused the EPA chief of ignoring the science. The new standard goes counter to the recommendations of two of the agency's scientific advisory panels -- one on air quality and the other on protection of children. The new EPA standard will lower the allowable concentration of ozone in the air to no more than 75 parts per billion, compared with the old standard of 80. The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses. "Today's decision means millions of Americans will not get the protection that the law requires," said Bernadette Toomey, president of the American Lung Association, which had strongly urged the EPA to follow the advice of the science boards. Johnson said he took those recommendations into account, but disagreed with the scientists. I adhered to the science," Johnson said in a conference call with reporters. Johnson said he did not consider the cost of meeting the new air standard. States and counties would have to require emission reductions from factories, power plants and cars to meet the tougher health rules. "Benefits are likely greater than the cost of implementing the standards," said the EPA in a statement. Electric utilities, oil companies and other businesses had lobbied hard for leaving the smog rule alone, saying the high cost of lower limits could hurt the economy. The federal Clean Air Act requires that health standards for ozone and a handful of other air pollutants not take costs into account. He said the Bush administration plans to propose legislation to Congress to overhaul the 1970 law so that in the future costs can be considered when setting health standards. Any such move is likely to be met with strong opposition in Congress. Health experts and environmentalists view the setting of health standards without consideration of cost as essential for assuring public health. Such changes "would gut the Clean Air Act which has saved countless lives and protected the health of millions of Americans for more than 35 years," said Sen. "It's disheartening that once again EPA has missed a critical opportunity to protect public health and welfare by ignoring the unanimous recommendations of its independent science advisers," said William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, whose members will be developing programs to meet the federal air quality requirement. Becker acknowledged that the tighter the standard the more difficult it will be to meet, but he said: "The public deserves the right to know whether the air they breathe is healthy." In recent weeks, some of the most powerful industry groups in Washington have waged an intense lobbying campaign at the White House, urging the administration to keep the current standard. Electric utilities, the oil and chemical industries and manufacturing groups argued that lowering the standard would require states and local officials to impose new pollution controls, harming economic growth, when the science has yet to determine the health benefits conclusively. The 80 parts per billion standard was enacted by the EPA in 1997, but its implementation was delayed for several years because of court challenges by industry groups. "Hundreds of counties haven't been able to meet the current standard set a decade ago," said John Kinsman, senior director for environment at the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most of the country's power companies. "Moving the goalpost again will inflict economic hardship on those areas without speeding air quality improvements." The EPA has said, based on various studies, cutting smog from 80 to 75 parts per billion would prevent between 900 and 1,100 premature deaths a year and mean 1,400 fewer nonfatal heart attacks and 5,600 fewer hospital or emergency room visits. A separate study suggests that tightening the standard to 70 parts per billion could avoid as many s 3,800 premature deaths nationwide. Smog covers midtown Manhattan in New York in this July 10, 2007 file photo. Some of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington are waging an intense campaign to head off tougher regulations on smog that health experts blame for hundreds of premature deaths to asthma and other respiratory diseases. The EPA within weeks will decide whether it should further reduce the allowable amount of ozone, a precursor of smog, in the air. The tougher standard would require hundreds of counties across the country to find new ways to reduce the smog-causing emissions to meet the revised federal health standard. Groups representing manufacturers, automakers, electric utilities, grocers and cement makers, met with White House officials recently in a last ditch effort to keep the health standard unchanged. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.