[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly released their annual report on air quality trends. You would never know it from picking up a newspaper or reading news websites, but the report contains great news. Air quality in the United States has dramatically improved and, according to all indicators, it will continue to improve.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.o ... o-be-seen/



More Here...

I'm assuming this is more or less also true up here as well. We've been making improvements too. Maybe not in Prince George (Formaldehyde scare, you know).

[poquas]

It sure isn't the case in the Fraser Valley, especially in the summer. The haze continues to get worse every summer and I doubt my family in Toronto would agree either. Toronto has multiple smog alerts now every year.

[Zipperfish]

Hats off to government for lowering urban air pollution!

[N_Fiddledog]

poquas poquas:

It sure isn't the case in the Fraser Valley, especially in the summer. The haze continues to get worse every summer and I doubt my family in Toronto would agree either. Toronto has multiple smog alerts now every year.

I just did a quick google scan for how we're doing in Canada. I don't know. Compared to the Americans we might, kinda, suck a little.

Here's an old one (2000) from BC. Looks like it depends on the district.

http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/air/fact%20shee ... HEETS1.htm

I think this is recent from Environment Canada.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicat ... 4B5631F9-1

Particulates are just level.

That was just a quick check though. There's probably better info out there.

[sandorski]

...and before the EPA brought in all those Regulations that achieved this, certain folk were preaching Economic Doom and Gloom that such Regulation would bring.

[Donny_Brasco]

sandorski sandorski:

...and before the EPA brought in all those Regulations that achieved this, certain folk were preaching Economic Doom and Gloom that such Regulation would bring.

YES! It is nice to see that the regulations that the far right wing Institute for Energy Reasearch fight tooth and nail to prevent and avoid are actually doing some good.

[N_Fiddledog]

Once more you guys are confusing particulate pollution with Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is not a particulate. It's a benign, even benevolent gas found naturally in the atmosphere like oxygen, or water vapor.

Particulates are pollution, and it is possible to clean the air of those. Apparently they've been doing just that steadily in America, at least. More has to be done to clean the air of pollution in Canada. Maybe if we worried less about non-pollutants such as carbon-dioxide we could do just that. For Example: We have a carbon tax in BC. Supposedly it's going to help limit CO2. It won't in any significant fashion, but that's the scam. However last week we learned there was increasing levels of formaldehyde in the air in Prince George. Suppose Goofball the premier used some of that carbon tax money to find out who was doing this dirty deed, and make them stop. That could actually be done to effect. Wouldn't that be a superior use of tax dollars?

Air pollution does not appear to be increasing in the United States, or even in Canada in spite of the fact the population and it's production is. However we are seeing slight increases in the life-giving gas Carbon Dioxide.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Once more you guys are confusing particulate pollution with Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is not a particulate. It's a benign, even benevolent gas found naturally in the atmosphere like oxygen, or water vapor.

I don't think anyone mentioned CO2. It would be nice if we could just lump all the gases into "benign" or "malignant" categories. It's just not that simple though. Take oxygen. It would probably be considered a "benevolent" gas by those on the political right who insist on black and white labels for everything. Inactual fact, it can be a pain in the ass. One source I found estimated that corrosion of metals (aka oxidation, caused by oxygen) cost the US economy about 4.2% of the GDP.

$1:

Particulates are pollution, and it is possible to clean the air of those.

Cleaning the air of particulates is possible but technically unfeasible. Pollution is reduced primarily through source control (by making sure that teh particulates don't enter the atmosphere to start with).

$1:

Apparently they've been doing just that steadily in America, at least. More has to be done to clean the air of pollution in Canada. Maybe if we worried less about non-pollutants such as carbon-dioxide we could do just that.

I don't think we're much off the pace in Canada. Generally speaking our emissions laws are quite similar (similar emissions laws means, for example, that cars can be sold at either side of teh border without extensive emissions modifications). The number of cars and the rate of energy consumption constantly increases, but emission standards have more than kept pace, resulting in better urban air quality in virtually every urban centre. The Fraser Valley adn the Windsor-Ottawa corridor are the biggest challenges.

$1:

For Example: We have a carbon tax in BC. Supposedly it's going to help limit CO2. It won't in any significant fashion, but that's the scam. However last week we learned there was increasing levels of formaldehyde in the air in Prince George. Suppose Goofball the premier used some of that carbon tax money to find out who was doing this dirty deed, and make them stop. That could actually be done to effect. Wouldn't that be a superior use of tax dollars?

Last week we learned there was high formaldehyde levels in some samples taken 18 months ago. How does that show whether levels were "increasing"? You'd need more than one set of samples over a period of time to determine if the levels were increasing.

If you ever visited Prince George twenty years ago, it is miles ahead today. I remember some days in nearby Prince Rupert when you could barely breathe for the pulp mill stench.

[BartSimpson]

Big whoop. Domestic pollution is down because we exported our heavy industries to China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, and etc.

[N_Fiddledog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Big whoop. Domestic pollution is down because we exported our heavy industries to China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, and etc.

I imagine that's part of it, but why then on the graph is the GDP going up while the particulates are going down?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

If you ever visited Prince George twenty years ago, it is miles ahead today. I remember some days in nearby Prince Rupert when you could barely breathe for the pulp mill stench.

I actually lived in PG back then, and yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I was thinking, hey, it's so obvious the air is getting cleaner, the last time I visited, a couple of years ago, then I heard about that formaldehyde thing, and today I look at the environment Canada graph, and it says particulates are only just level (that's nation-wide though) since 1990 (I think it was).

Were you saying there is not ways to clean mills, and factories, or for that matter car engines of particulates, and real pollution. That's wrong, you know? They're not perfect yet, but there have been considerable advancements. You're not going to make me search, are you?

[poquas]

Then there's always this method to handle the climate info. Muzzle the people working on it!

The Province The Province:

OTTAWA — A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate-change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high-profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate-change science has been reduced by over 80 per cent.”

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy, which required federal scientists to seek permission prior to giving interviews.

In many cases, the policy also required them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to questions submitted by journalists, said the document, obtained by Climate Action Network Canada environmental group.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think anyone mentioned CO2. It would be nice if we could just lump all the gases into "benign" or "malignant" categories. It's just not that simple though. Take oxygen. It would probably be considered a "benevolent" gas by those on the political right who insist on black and white labels for everything. Inactual fact, it can be a pain in the ass. One source I found estimated that corrosion of metals (aka oxidation, caused by oxygen) cost the US economy about 4.2% of the GDP.

Ok, then lets lower oxygen levels, then nobody will be here to manufacture things that rust and the GDP will become a non issue.

This message is from the political right, armed with black and white labels.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

I actually lived in PG back then, and yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I was thinking, hey, it's so obvious the air is getting cleaner, the last time I visited, a couple of years ago, then I heard about that formaldehyde thing, and today I look at the environment Canada graph, and it says particulates are only just level (that's nation-wide though) since 1990 (I think it was).

Yeah, that's the first I heard of the PG thing. Should be interesting--people blaming a pulp mill, refinery, old landfill. I'm sure they'll figure it out, but BC Environment were fools not to tell people.

Yeah, the stats have flatlined generally--it's the population increase driving emissions up and cleaner technology driving them down. It's funny how they somehow get more deadly every year. I think the last stat I saw was 5000 premature deaths a year in the greater Toronto area alone due to poor air quality. I don't buy that--call me a skeptic!

It's the same with smoking. Only 15% or something of the population smokes nowadays, but somehow the death toll and the cost to the health system caused by smokers keeps going up anyways. Apparently it kills more people now than when 60% of the population smoked. I call bullshit.

$1:

Were you saying there is not ways to clean mills, and factories, or for that matter car engines of particulates, and real pollution. That's wrong, you know? They're not perfect yet, but there have been considerable advancements. You're not going to make me search, are you?

Sorry, what I meant was there's no practical way to clean air once the pollution is already in it (which would be response to pollution). Much easier to strip out your nasties before emitting them (prevention). I pound of prevention and all that...

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Ok, then lets lower oxygen levels, then nobody will be here to manufacture things that rust and the GDP will become a non issue.

This message is from the political right, armed with black and white labels.

Did I mention that those on the political right also eat their own young and put library books back in the wrong place on purpose.