• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Harvard Study - Stricter Air Quality Needed to Prevent Deaths

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At a time when the Trump administration is moving to delay and dismantle air quality regulations, a new study suggests that air pollution continues to cut Americans’ lives short, even at levels well below the legal limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Air pollution exposure may hasten death, even at levels deemed 'safe,' study says - LA Times

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.
 
Media_Truth said:
At a time when the Trump administration is moving to delay and dismantle air quality regulations, a new study suggests that air pollution continues to cut Americans’ lives short, even at levels well below the legal limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Air pollution exposure may hasten death, even at levels deemed 'safe,' study says - LA Times

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, no matter what you feel on climate change or manmade issues, seeing a smog ring or being in one in a city is not a good thing. Why cons would be opposed to such measures is appalling.
 
Praxas said:
Here's the thing, no matter what you feel on climate change or manmade issues, seeing a smog ring or being in one in a city is not a good thing. Why cons would be opposed to such measures is appalling.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone would be against such measure so long as those measures actually addressed the areas that such occurred in and left the areas where such isn't occurring alone, or at least not be as strict. The problem with the EPA is that when they regulate something it often goes into effect for the whole country which can adversely affect economies in areas that has no need of the kinds of regulations that cities need.

And its not just the EPA that make regulations that shouldn't be made. The USFS often makes idiotic regulations also. Such as moving grizzly bears to the Rockies when their natural habitat is in the open plains, subalpine meadows, and arctic tundra.

Basically, when all is said and done regulations from several different agencies add up and can be a detriment to both economies and nature. There needs to be a balance made and all the agencies either need to work together or have just ONE agency so that we're not getting so many regulations that it hurts from all sides of the spectrum. Like anything else, too much of something is bad just as too little of something is bad. We need a balance.
 
Media_Truth said:
At a time when the Trump administration is moving to delay and dismantle air quality regulations, a new study suggests that air pollution continues to cut Americans’ lives short, even at levels well below the legal limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Air pollution exposure may hasten death, even at levels deemed 'safe,' study says - LA Times

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.
Click to expand...

You guys pointed out this before under Reagan and Bush and we ended up with cleaner air during their tenures.

Just more eco-hysteria from the left.
 
Media_Truth said:
At a time when the Trump administration is moving to delay and dismantle air quality regulations, a new study suggests that air pollution continues to cut Americans’ lives short, even at levels well below the legal limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Air pollution exposure may hasten death, even at levels deemed 'safe,' study says - LA Times

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.
Click to expand...

Please cite which air quality regulations are being dismantled by the Trump administration!
 
longview said:
Please cite which air quality regulations are being dismantled by the Trump administration!
Click to expand...

That was a quote from the article. If you read further down in the article, you will find this:

Despite compelling data, the Trump administration is moving headlong in the opposite direction,” the editorial said, citing the president’s recent steps to dismantle emissions-cutting rules, withdraw from the Paris climate accord and slash the EPA’s budget. “The increased air pollution that would result from loosening current restrictions would have devastating effects on public health.”
 
longview said:
Please cite which air quality regulations are being dismantled by the Trump administration!
Click to expand...

Also, at the end of the article, Scott Pruitt's record is discussed:

This month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a one-year delay in implementing the federal ozone standard, citing “increased regulatory burdens, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.” The decision allows California and other states with ozone levels above the current standard to postpone the adoption of emissions-cutting measures.

Pruitt, who in his previous job as attorney general of Oklahoma made a career of suing to block EPA regulations, is also moving to reshape the agency’s science advisory boards. These include the committee that makes recommendations on federal air quality standards.

Environmentalists and health advocates fear Pruitt will replace academic experts with representatives of regulated industries.

Trump chose a horrid individual for Administrator of the EPA.
 
Media_Truth said:
That was a quote from the article. If you read further down in the article, you will find this:

Despite compelling data, the Trump administration is moving headlong in the opposite direction,” the editorial said, citing the president’s recent steps to dismantle emissions-cutting rules, withdraw from the Paris climate accord and slash the EPA’s budget. “The increased air pollution that would result from loosening current restrictions would have devastating effects on public health.”
Click to expand...
Wrapped up in the quote, is an assumption that CO2 is air pollution>
Your own quote was speaking about fine particle pollution saving 12,000 lives annually,
yet CO2 is not particle pollution and at any atmospheric level humans are likely to produce is safe.
 
Media_Truth said:
Also, at the end of the article, Scott Pruitt's record is discussed:

This month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a one-year delay in implementing the federal ozone standard, citing “increased regulatory burdens, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.” The decision allows California and other states with ozone levels above the current standard to postpone the adoption of emissions-cutting measures.

Pruitt, who in his previous job as attorney general of Oklahoma made a career of suing to block EPA regulations, is also moving to reshape the agency’s science advisory boards. These include the committee that makes recommendations on federal air quality standards.

Environmentalists and health advocates fear Pruitt will replace academic experts with representatives of regulated industries.

Trump chose a horrid individual for Administrator of the EPA.
Click to expand...
I disagree, Pruitt is the right guy to move the EPA back to it's chartered role.
 
longview said:
Wrapped up in the quote, is an assumption that CO2 is air pollution>
Your own quote was speaking about fine particle pollution saving 12,000 lives annually,
yet CO2 is not particle pollution and at any atmospheric level humans are likely to produce is safe.
Click to expand...

Honesty is not something that the current crap elite class is hot for.

They do however so love "IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE!" regardless of the amount of spending in dollars or quality of life that is required to get there.
 
longview said:
Wrapped up in the quote, is an assumption that CO2 is air pollution>
Your own quote was speaking about fine particle pollution saving 12,000 lives annually,
yet CO2 is not particle pollution and at any atmospheric level humans are likely to produce is safe.
Click to expand...

I've discussed issues with you before, and I find it hard to believe that you are making this statement. This article is not about CO2, and it doesn't mention CO2. Let's reserve that for another argument. It is about particle pollution. Obviously, particulate pollution emissions, goes hand-in-hand with CO2 emissions. They are both byproducts of the combustion process.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I disagree, Pruitt is the right guy to move the EPA back to it's chartered role.
Click to expand...

Nice article from a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the EPA, concerning Pruitt, Trump, Congress, etc.

Scott Pruitt Doesn't Understand The Role Of The EPA Science Advisers He's Firing | HuffPost

In terms of membership on the SAB, or on the many ad hoc and standing committees, it’s not all bleeding-heart liberals and tree-huggers. In my different SAB roles, I’ve served alongside scientists from the oil and gas industry, chemical companies, pharmaceutical giants, agribusiness, local and state governments, Native American tribes, and countless others. It’s rare to see membership on committees assembled by the private or public sectors that reflect as much attention to diversity — including a diversity of thought — as is the case with the SAB.

To make a long story short, the composition and level of influence which appear to be desired by Mr. Pruitt and Congress for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board are already in place, and have been for a very long time.

Why go ahead, then, with public dismissals of science advisers and bills like H.R. 1431?

The answer is simple: appearance over substance.

Through these moves, Mr. Pruitt, environmental hardliners in Congress, and the president himself are pandering to their bases. The realities of what the SAB does, and who its members are, aren’t as important to these individuals as alternative facts — about a group of liberal obstructionists — created for little more than political effect.
 
Praxas said:
Here's the thing, no matter what you feel on climate change or manmade issues, seeing a smog ring or being in one in a city is not a good thing. Why cons would be opposed to such measures is appalling.
Click to expand...
Because smog affects the brain and causes more Conservatives. Mercury poisoning from coal plants is also known to do this, as does toxic waste. They're just ensuring the survival of their world. :mrgreen:
 
Media_Truth said:
I've discussed issues with you before, and I find it hard to believe that you are making this statement. This article is not about CO2, and it doesn't mention CO2. Let's reserve that for another argument. It is about particle pollution. Obviously, particulate pollution emissions, goes hand-in-hand with CO2 emissions. They are both byproducts of the combustion process.
Click to expand...
Particulate pollution is and will continue to be regulated by the EPA,
the changes to the EPA are to remove CO2 from the list of pollution.
Co2 should have never been considered a pollutant to begin with.
 
Media_Truth said:
Nice article from a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the EPA, concerning Pruitt, Trump, Congress, etc.

Scott Pruitt Doesn't Understand The Role Of The EPA Science Advisers He's Firing | HuffPost

In terms of membership on the SAB, or on the many ad hoc and standing committees, it’s not all bleeding-heart liberals and tree-huggers. In my different SAB roles, I’ve served alongside scientists from the oil and gas industry, chemical companies, pharmaceutical giants, agribusiness, local and state governments, Native American tribes, and countless others. It’s rare to see membership on committees assembled by the private or public sectors that reflect as much attention to diversity — including a diversity of thought — as is the case with the SAB.

To make a long story short, the composition and level of influence which appear to be desired by Mr. Pruitt and Congress for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board are already in place, and have been for a very long time.

Why go ahead, then, with public dismissals of science advisers and bills like H.R. 1431?

The answer is simple: appearance over substance.

Through these moves, Mr. Pruitt, environmental hardliners in Congress, and the president himself are pandering to their bases. The realities of what the SAB does, and who its members are, aren’t as important to these individuals as alternative facts — about a group of liberal obstructionists — created for little more than political effect.
Click to expand...
Boards need to be changed from time to time to keep them and their ideas fresh.
If people on the committees stop doing science and start doing advocacy, it might be time for a change.
 
longview said:
Particulate pollution is and will continue to be regulated by the EPA,
the changes to the EPA are to remove CO2 from the list of pollution.
Co2 should have never been considered a pollutant to begin with.
Click to expand...

OK, so back to the subject at hand. We're in agreement that particulates are pollutants. The article maintains that this Administration is relaxing regulations on particulates, which cause more loss of lives. whereas those deaths could be prevented, and more lives saved annually, if regulations were tightened.
 
Media_Truth said:
OK, so back to the subject at hand. We're in agreement that particulates are pollutants. The article maintains that this Administration is relaxing regulations on particulates, which cause more loss of lives. whereas those deaths could be prevented, and more lives saved annually, if regulations were tightened.
Click to expand...
Can you cite something that says the EPA is relaxing the regulations on particulates?
 
Media_Truth said:
At a time when the Trump administration is moving to delay and dismantle air quality regulations, a new study suggests that air pollution continues to cut Americans’ lives short, even at levels well below the legal limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Air pollution exposure may hasten death, even at levels deemed 'safe,' study says - LA Times

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like this administration is on the right path.

Isn't it stupid to tighten gasoline vehicle standards farther, when the end result on modern designs is so near zero emissions, there is no significant improvements to be made?

The EPA should focus on real environmental issues. Not these liberal feel-good ideas by snowflakes.

Coal power in the USA is mostly clean, and dirtier plants are being decommissioned. Diesel fuel burning is getting better, but that is a major problem. We need to focus more there, not these other silly areas.

We need to get the biggest bang for our bux. Not all these expensive liberal feel-good projects.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You guys pointed out this before under Reagan and Bush and we ended up with cleaner air during their tenures.

Just more eco-hysteria from the left.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, that was due to the formation of the EPA under president Nixon. It takes years for policy changes to affect the earth system.
 
Media_Truth said:
That was a quote from the article. If you read further down in the article, you will find this:

Despite compelling data, the Trump administration is moving headlong in the opposite direction,” the editorial said, citing the president’s recent steps to dismantle emissions-cutting rules, withdraw from the Paris climate accord and slash the EPA’s budget. “The increased air pollution that would result from loosening current restrictions would have devastating effects on public health.”
Click to expand...

What type of emissions?

particulates please...
 
Media_Truth said:
Also, at the end of the article, Scott Pruitt's record is discussed:

This month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a one-year delay in implementing the federal ozone standard, citing “increased regulatory burdens, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.” The decision allows California and other states with ozone levels above the current standard to postpone the adoption of emissions-cutting measures.

Pruitt, who in his previous job as attorney general of Oklahoma made a career of suing to block EPA regulations, is also moving to reshape the agency’s science advisory boards. These include the committee that makes recommendations on federal air quality standards.

Environmentalists and health advocates fear Pruitt will replace academic experts with representatives of regulated industries.

Trump chose a horrid individual for Administrator of the EPA.
Click to expand...

Is ozone a particulate, or a gas?

Do you understand what forms ozone?
 
longview said:
I disagree, Pruitt is the right guy to move the EPA back to it's chartered role.
Click to expand...

Yes, do actual environmental protection, instead of all this liberal feel-good BS.
 
Praxas said:
Here's the thing, no matter what you feel on climate change or manmade issues, seeing a smog ring or being in one in a city is not a good thing. Why cons would be opposed to such measures is appalling.
Click to expand...

Can we separate CO2 and actually nasty pollutants?
 
Media_Truth said:
Also, at the end of the article, Scott Pruitt's record is discussed:

This month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a one-year delay in implementing the federal ozone standard, citing “increased regulatory burdens, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.” The decision allows California and other states with ozone levels above the current standard to postpone the adoption of emissions-cutting measures.

Pruitt, who in his previous job as attorney general of Oklahoma made a career of suing to block EPA regulations, is also moving to reshape the agency’s science advisory boards. These include the committee that makes recommendations on federal air quality standards.

Environmentalists and health advocates fear Pruitt will replace academic experts with representatives of regulated industries.

Trump chose a horrid individual for Administrator of the EPA.
Click to expand...

BS. California is excluded from EPA Clear Air regulations because those standards exceed the Federal Standards. They operate under a Clear Air Waiver granted by the Federal Government - the only State in the US to be given that grant.

The California Air Resources Board sets those standards and they are independent of what the EPA sets.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/ozone/ozone.htm

When an editorial has to depend on lies and misrepresentations, it has no credibility among objective and informed consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom