- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Air Pollution in Los Angeles-1983 vs. Now-and how regulation isn't always bad
Posted on 11/22/14 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 11/22/14 at 6:58 pm
Los Angeles is one of the most polluted cities in the country. The shear amount of people who live there, coupled with a poor, spread out infrastructure, results in lots of people driving long distances frequently (the traffic is some of the worst in the nation). Combined with other industry (farming, manufacturing), and geography that basically traps the pollution due to surrounding mountains, LA has long been nicknamed "smog city".
The California Air Resources Board states that
I have heard recently from people who lived in Los Angeles in the 70's and 80's that the air quality has in fact gotten much, much better since then. They claim that they don't experience eyes burning, or shortened breath, and can see a lot further than in the 80's and earlier. I decided to check out the air quality over the years and see if it actually has gotten better due to regulations, and I charted CO, NO2, and ozone in 1983 vs. today using a tool on the EPA's website. According to the plots, it actually has improved a lot:
Levels of ozone have gotten better, though there are still days that are unhealthy or unhealthy for "sensitive groups". However, in 1983 there were a lot of very unhealthy days, so it is a big improvement.
As you can see, there is a vast improvement in CO and NO2 levels.
Link to air quality plotting tool
I haven't plotted anything for the central valley or other polluted areas of California (hell, the whole state is pretty polluted) but the charts for Los Angeles seem to be a big step in the right direction for residents who live there and had to suffer breathing in shite every day like people in Beijing do now.
Just thought you guys might find this interesting-I know everyone hates the EPA here, but regulation can be a good thing too. Pictures of Beijing show what can happen when industry runs with little or no environmental regulation:
note: this topic is not supposed to be about global warming (but I'm sure someone will bring it up anyway.)
The California Air Resources Board states that
quote:
Reducing air pollution
The ARB and APCDs pass regulations to reduce or control air pollution. California's air pollution problem is so serious that almost every kind of equipment, product, or business is subject to air pollution regulation.
Regulations that help to reduce air pollution include those requiring the use of gasoline that burns cleaner and evaporates less, consumer products that contain fewer smog-forming chemicals, and requirements for very low-emission and zero-emission vehicles such as electric cars. Other regulations that help to control air pollution include those requiring smog controls like catalytic converters on cars and electrostatic precipitators and baghouses on factory smokestacks.
A regulation sets limits on the release of certain air pollutants into the air from a particular source. These levels are called emission standards. For example, California's emission standards for passenger cars limit the amounts of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide that a car can emit per mile. The ARB and APCDs set emission standards limiting the amount of air pollution from stationary sources such as factories; mobile sources such as cars and trucks; fuels such as gasoline and diesel; and consumer products such as hairsprays and automotive cleaning products.
quote:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/students/airpollu/airpolpage/cleanup.htm
I have heard recently from people who lived in Los Angeles in the 70's and 80's that the air quality has in fact gotten much, much better since then. They claim that they don't experience eyes burning, or shortened breath, and can see a lot further than in the 80's and earlier. I decided to check out the air quality over the years and see if it actually has gotten better due to regulations, and I charted CO, NO2, and ozone in 1983 vs. today using a tool on the EPA's website. According to the plots, it actually has improved a lot:
Levels of ozone have gotten better, though there are still days that are unhealthy or unhealthy for "sensitive groups". However, in 1983 there were a lot of very unhealthy days, so it is a big improvement.
As you can see, there is a vast improvement in CO and NO2 levels.
Link to air quality plotting tool
I haven't plotted anything for the central valley or other polluted areas of California (hell, the whole state is pretty polluted) but the charts for Los Angeles seem to be a big step in the right direction for residents who live there and had to suffer breathing in shite every day like people in Beijing do now.
Just thought you guys might find this interesting-I know everyone hates the EPA here, but regulation can be a good thing too. Pictures of Beijing show what can happen when industry runs with little or no environmental regulation:
note: this topic is not supposed to be about global warming (but I'm sure someone will bring it up anyway.)
This post was edited on 11/22/14 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 11/22/14 at 7:21 pm to TheIndulger
The EPA has its uses, I concede that. Pollution does no one any good.
Posted on 11/22/14 at 8:49 pm to Retrograde
Air pollution regulation in LA and California predates even the EPA. We literally wrote the book on it and the EPA copied it.
Posted on 11/22/14 at 8:51 pm to TheIndulger
The improvement in our air quality in just the last 22 years since I've been here is very noticeable. I've seen photos from the 40's and 50's and it's just unreal that people lives that way.
Posted on 11/22/14 at 8:51 pm to TheIndulger
Libertarians will not explain this because they can't.
Posted on 11/22/14 at 9:22 pm to TheIndulger
quote:It certainly has it's place.
Just thought you guys might find this interesting-I know everyone hates the EPA here, but regulation can be a good thing too.
But attributing the air pollutant reduction solely to "regulation" would be at least partially wrong. I'd reckon that the use of fuel injection over carburetors in most vehicles probably as much or more to do with it. You should be thanking affordable microprocessor technology just as much if not more.
This post was edited on 11/22/14 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 11/22/14 at 9:39 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
But attributing the air pollutant reduction solely to "regulation" would be at least partially wrong. I'd reckon that the use of fuel injection over carburetors in most vehicles probably as much or more to do with it. You should be thanking affordable microprocessor technology just as much if not more.
Sure.
But California regs consistently push for newer technologies particularly with commercial fleets.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 10:55 am to Powerman
This is true. By and large it is impressive considering the population increase as well.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 10:59 am to TheIndulger
quote:this is just another example of glorification of victimhood and avoidance of personal responsibility. Smog does not cause eyes to burn. That's just alarmist propaganda.
They claim that they don't experience eyes burning, or shortened breath,
This post was edited on 11/23/14 at 11:00 am
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:01 am to Taxing Authority
quote:and fuel efficiency and emissions standards had nothing to do with that. lol.
. I'd reckon that the use of fuel injection over carburetors in most vehicles probably as much or more to do with it.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:02 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Libertarians will not explain this because they can't.
Oh, it's very easy to explain. If you don't want to live where pollution is bad... MOVE. When people move the population in a high density area will decrease and pollution will go down.
Where you have govt that is polar opposite to libertarian (CHINA) you have the worst pollution.
Or, perhaps you think the Chinese Communists should increase the degree of regulation of the lives of individuals? That would be North Korea.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:06 am to TheIndulger
I'm with Stossel on this.
Thanks EPA, you can reduce your size now
Thanks EPA, you can reduce your size now
quote:
Thanks, Environmental Protection Agency! You've required sewage treatment plants, catalytic converters on cars, and other things that made the world cleaner than the world in which I grew up. Good work.
quote:
In a rational world, environmental bureaucrats would now say, "Mission accomplished. We set tough standards, so we don't need to keep doing more. Stick a fork in it! We're done."
OK, I went too far. America does still need some bureaucrats to enforce existing environmental rules and watch for new pollution problems. But we don't need what we've got: 16,000 environmental regulators constantly trying to control more of our lives. EPA should stand for: Enough Protection Already. But bureaucracies never say they've done "enough." That would mean they were out of work.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:27 am to TrueTiger
quote:
But bureaucracies never say they've done "enough." That would mean they were out of work.
Spot on!
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:35 am to TheIndulger
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:46 am to NC_Tigah
Yeah, I just chose 1983 because it is the earliest year that I could find air quality data for on the EPA website.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 11:53 am to Zach
quote:
Oh, it's very easy to explain. If you don't want to live where pollution is bad... MOVE. When people move the population in a high density area will decrease and pollution will go down.
Running from problems isn't always the answer. Fighting and fixing them is the right thing to do, and in this case, it worked. Now the 13 million people in the LA metro area can live there with good air, without having to move somewhere else.
quote:
Where you have govt that is polar opposite to libertarian (CHINA) you have the worst pollution.
Since they are polar opposites to libertarians, there should be tons and tons of regulation. So what has the Chinese government done to help the air quality?
Posted on 11/23/14 at 12:02 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
Running from problems isn't always the answer. Fighting and fixing them is the right thing to do, and in this case, it worked. Now the 13 million people in the LA metro area can live there with good air, without having to move somewhere else.
Well that's what sane people do, but sanity and being a libertarian seem to be separate paths.
Posted on 11/23/14 at 12:36 pm to Retrograde
quote:
The EPA has its uses, I concede that. Pollution does no one any good.
So now we've conceded the philosophical point...everything else is just a debate over degree, correct?
Posted on 11/23/14 at 12:37 pm to Zach
quote:
MOVE. When people move the population in a high density area will decrease and pollution will go down.
And this is your narrative of what's happened in LA?
Posted on 11/23/14 at 12:37 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
So now we've conceded the philosophical point...everything else is just a debate over degree, correct?
The overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News