• 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!

California Ranked as #1 State with Worst Air Quality

California ranked as No.1 state with worst air quality: report

7 of the top 10 American cities with bad air quality are in California. It doesn't really matter who believes in climate change and who doesn't, when the state that leans the furthest left both treats climate change as a religion, and pollutes the environment with irresponsible policies. If the poster child for blue state America can't even get it right when it comes to important issues like clean air, then who can? I'm both conservative, and concerned about preserving the environment.

Question: Of the Democrats on this site who hope to win future elections by way of population demographics change, and overpopulation, who amongst you will actually want to live in the utopian society you're scheming for when it wreaks havoc on the environment? Is it possible to care about climate change and also support ideas that will destroy the environment?

The "utopian society" Democrats, and rational conservatives, are not the ones who would wreak havoc on our environment. It is the unfettered capitalists who are the ones willing to destroy our environment as long as they can put the Benjamins in their pockets, as history tells us. Now with that big capitalism supporter in the White House, the guy that some on the right support, planning on once again allowing oil drilling in California, righties should admit that it ain't the lefties who will destroy the environment.

Trump Administration Releases Plan to Open California to Oil Drilling

A plan from the Interior Department would end a five-year moratorium on leasing federal lands in California to fossil fuel companies.

THE TRUMP administration on Thursday issued a draft plan that would open up more than 1 million acres in California to leasing for oil companies, angering environmental groups that want to see a broad shift away from fossil fuels.

A federal judge in 2016 ruled that the Bureau of Land Management failed to take a "hard look" at the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in its environmental impact statement for the land around Bakersfield, a city in central California. In a 2017 settlement, the agency agreed to complete a new analysis of the environmental impacts of oil leases in its plan.

According to the plan, which fulfils the judge's demand for further analysis, the agency did not find a "notable increase" in environmental impacts from fracking compared to its previous findings.

The reason the BLM didn't find a "notable increase" couldn't possibly be a result of the number of former energy company lobbyists and executives who are now employed - now, could it?
 
Sorry my right wing droogies, California has always led the way on the environment, its part of who we are because we love our state, our shared resources and the beauty of a clean environment.

Well of course not to mention, if we hadn't...by this point most of Southern California would be well nigh uninhabitable.
I mean, maybe people would still live here but the life expectancy would be pretty bad.
I'm guessing California had very few options.
 
We have had a homeless problem for decades. Homeless people are not stupid, they go where it is warm and friendly, California. In the 70s, the streets used to be filled with crazed Nam Vets with PTSD before they called it PTSD or did anything to help those poor men. Reagan did end some of the places crazy people went which forced a lot of them on the streets way back in the late 60s. Cities will attract all kinds. I find it strange that being poor and homeless is a crime. The problem is, if you build places for them they fill up because word gets out and more come.....

So its fine to keep the homeless problem then?
 
Well of course not to mention, if we hadn't...by this point most of Southern California would be well nigh uninhabitable.
I mean, maybe people would still live here but the life expectancy would be pretty bad.
I'm guessing California had very few options.

Then why are our cities so damn dirty?
 
California ranked as No.1 state with worst air quality: report

7 of the top 10 American cities with bad air quality are in California. It doesn't really matter who believes in climate change and who doesn't, when the state that leans the furthest left both treats climate change as a religion, and pollutes the environment with irresponsible policies. If the poster child for blue state America can't even get it right when it comes to important issues like clean air, then who can? I'm both conservative, and concerned about preserving the environment.

Question: Of the Democrats on this site who hope to win future elections by way of population demographics change, and overpopulation, who amongst you will actually want to live in the utopian society you're scheming for when it wreaks havoc on the environment? Is it possible to care about climate change and also support ideas that will destroy the environment?

This is what happens when the Church of Global Warming offers indulgences to those willing to properly tithe and preach the word. They are all polluting with the serene belief that their money paid into the scheme means some third world, poverty stricken person is being prevented from properly cooking a meal.
 
This is what happens when the Church of Global Warming offers indulgences to those willing to properly tithe and preach the word. They are all polluting with the serene belief that their money paid into the scheme means some third world, poverty stricken person is being prevented from properly cooking a meal.

I read this a couple times, still can't figure out what in the world you are trying to say.
 
Saw this yesterday...what disgusting pigs in San Fran. It's like the 14th century there with people being allowed to **** in the streets. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

What would you do to stop homeless people pooping in the street?

Shoot them, arrest them, bus them to Texas, open up mass amounts of public toilets?
 
This is what happens when the Church of Global Warming offers indulgences to those willing to properly tithe and preach the word. They are all polluting with the serene belief that their money paid into the scheme means some third world, poverty stricken person is being prevented from properly cooking a meal.

You realize that California has the agency called CARB which has stricter air pollution regulations than the EPA, in an effort to clean up California's air. Something Trump wants to stop, making it so that higher pollution cars and trucks can be sold in California, which would worsen its air quality
 
You realize that California has the agency called CARB which has stricter air pollution regulations than the EPA, in an effort to clean up California's air. Something Trump wants to stop, making it so that higher pollution cars and trucks can be sold in California, which would worsen its air quality

And it's doing great! :roll: :lamo

You know WHY it is failing? Offsets. People literally buy their way into being excused for air pollution.

If you want to play a role in making the world a greener, cleaner place, do it yourself. Don't send cash to a company who promises to pile your responsibility on to third world villages.
 
Then why are our cities so damn dirty?

We're talking about AIR quality.

But okay...
Why are our cities so dirty? Because CA has the great weather and that attracts a lot of ne'er do wells.
The PERMANENT side effect of having weather that others dream of having is: Others dream of having our kind of weather, and they come here in pursuit of that dream.

Without injecting any emotion or politics into this, let me clarify:

1) People have been writing folk songs and ballads about going out to California and living "the HOBO LIFE" since the 19th century, since before California was EVEN A STATE.

2) Recognizing that California has ALWAYS had what used to be called a "hobo problem", let's fast forward to the urban version, the Chronic Bum or Drifter. When you live in paradise, one of the by products is, you attract all the chronic bums, drifters and grifters.

3) In recent years, housing has priced low skilled and unskilled labor out of the housing market.

***NOW ADD THOSE DISPLACED WORKING POOR PEOPLE TO THE ALREADY SWOLLEN CHRONIC BUM POPULATION.

See? So, we not only now have a significant number of chronic bums and hobos, we now also have all the people who USED to have a place to live but got priced out. When a ONE bedroom 14 foot by 30 foot TRAILER costs as much as a HOUSE in most other parts of the country and the lot rent is equal to an apartment or condo in other parts of the country, that's where all the displaced working homeless are coming from.

Why are our cities so dirty?

Because a crap ton of displaced people are "generating" even more "dirt" than the already large number of "professional bums" that already have been living here since time eternal.


It was just BARELY manageable when it was just the chronic bums and hobos. It is no longer manageable because that population tripled in the last ten years, maybe even quadrupled.

In 1984, I was renting a four bedroom house in the artsy fartsy section of Venice Beach for $750 a month, AND...it was "rent to own", meaning if we all paid on time for two years, the rent would have become a mortgage and we would eventually OWN IT.

Last year that property SOLD for FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, but before that, the RENT on it was $4200 a month.

RialtoHouse22.jpg

As you can see, they removed the lovely front porch and turned it into a business property. There is now only one remaining residential property on that entire street. All the rest are now businesses, HIGH PRICED businesses.

RialtoHouse1.jpg

This is a wide shot of what it looked like back when we lived there:

(Corner of Abbott Kinney and Rialto, Venice Beach)
AbbottKinneyHouse3.jpg
 
My OTHER property in Venice was a basement two room apartment that I used as a video editing studio, on the corner of Westminster and Speedway. The building is known as "The Morrison Apts" because JIM MORRISON, the legendary singer for the The Doors, once lived in the building's penthouse.

The rent on my little two room studio apartment in the basement was only $160 a month, that was in 1987.

Morrisonfar.jpg

That same apartment now advertises:

"Morrison Apartments has rental units ranging from 515-811 sq ft starting at $2550."
But none are available.

morrisonBIG.jpg
 
When was the last time you pulled up behind some truck or clunker on the 405 and was blasted with black smoke when they hit the gas? Or how about idling in traffic next to a truck belching white smoke because it was burning oil? Well, in my youth that was pretty common, now it seems so rare that when it does happen people call the cops on the jerk.

I think most people camping on this thread are either too young to remember, or they have selective memories, or they have failing memory issues.
But I DO remember.

The air was so bad it actually SMELLED like exhaust no matter where you went, even inside a house or apartment, the HOUSES smelled like car and truck exhaust. You couldn't even get away from it by going indoors. And you could barely see a block and a half down the street.

But yeah, scroll up and bear witness to all the malcontents talking about how "liberals are lax about enforcing smog tests" and "turning the other cheek when it comes to air pollution."

I wish I had a time machine so I could put them all back in 1982 and let them try breathing for an hour or two, just to remind them.
 
What would you do to stop homeless people pooping in the street?

Shoot them, arrest them, bus them to Texas, open up mass amounts of public toilets?
The same way the rest of us manage to not **** in the street when we aren't home.
 
I think most people camping on this thread are either too young to remember, or they have selective memories, or they have failing memory issues.
But I DO remember.

The air was so bad it actually SMELLED like exhaust no matter where you went, even inside a house or apartment, the HOUSES smelled like car and truck exhaust. You couldn't even get away from it by going indoors. And you could barely see a block and a half down the street.

But yeah, scroll up and bear witness to all the malcontents talking about how "liberals are lax about enforcing smog tests" and "turning the other cheek when it comes to air pollution."

I wish I had a time machine so I could put them all back in 1982 and let them try breathing for an hour or two, just to remind them.

You bet. By 82 though it was a lot better. In the early 70s it was miserable. I know my old Rambler had bad rings and burned oil constantly. When I idled in traffic it looked like Pig Pen was driving the car, white smoke would cover the cars around me. But I wasn't the only one, there used to be trucks and cars doing the same thing everywhere. Hell, when you hit the gas back then black smoke would belch out even with newer cars. What young people don't realize is that prior to around 1990, cars did not last that long, they fell apart around 70k miles and then got worse and worse. I used to drive cars until they dropped and then tow them to junkyards for the 25 buck salvage fee. Then I would buy another clunker for 400 bucks, drive it till it dropped and start all over again.
 
You bet. By 82 though it was a lot better. In the early 70s it was miserable. I know my old Rambler had bad rings and burned oil constantly. When I idled in traffic it looked like Pig Pen was driving the car, white smoke would cover the cars around me. But I wasn't the only one, there used to be trucks and cars doing the same thing everywhere. Hell, when you hit the gas back then black smoke would belch out even with newer cars. What young people don't realize is that prior to around 1990, cars did not last that long, they fell apart around 70k miles and then got worse and worse. I used to drive cars until they dropped and then tow them to junkyards for the 25 buck salvage fee. Then I would buy another clunker for 400 bucks, drive it till it dropped and start all over again.

Ummmm, you aren't what most would term a "car enthusiast"?
Not slamming you, just asking if you ever tinkered or enjoyed working on cars.

The "shade tree" or "backyard" mechanics of the old days were the ones who managed to keep cars running beyond 70 or a hundred thousand miles. Even back in the 1950's/60's and 70's, a taxicab could be counted on to have 200 thousand miles or more on the clock.
But one must also remember what the market was AIMED at in America back then.
In our roaring postwar New Deal economy, a middle class guy could be counted on to get a new car every three or four years, and his trade-in ultimately went to the guys who tinkered in their back yards.
Some of them tinkered because they loved to do it and some did it because they had to in order to have a running vehicle.

One of my proudest moments as a teen was buying a "clunker" Chevy Nova with 85 thousand miles on it, swapping out the tired old 307-2 barrel/3 speed powertrain for a 396-4 barrel/Muncie 4 speed and putting in a posi-traction differential and selling the car for much more than I paid for it.
I got the engine and trans out of a wrecked El Camino and the diff from a brand new appearing Chevelle that had met what had to have been a tree head on.

What a sweet car she was, metallic gold.
 
Ummmm, you aren't what most would term a "car enthusiast"?
Not slamming you, just asking if you ever tinkered or enjoyed working on cars.

The "shade tree" or "backyard" mechanics of the old days were the ones who managed to keep cars running beyond 70 or a hundred thousand miles. Even back in the 1950's/60's and 70's, a taxicab could be counted on to have 200 thousand miles or more on the clock.
But one must also remember what the market was AIMED at in America back then.
In our roaring postwar New Deal economy, a middle class guy could be counted on to get a new car every three or four years, and his trade-in ultimately went to the guys who tinkered in their back yards.
Some of them tinkered because they loved to do it and some did it because they had to in order to have a running vehicle.

One of my proudest moments as a teen was buying a "clunker" Chevy Nova with 85 thousand miles on it, swapping out the tired old 307-2 barrel/3 speed powertrain for a 396-4 barrel/Muncie 4 speed and putting in a posi-traction differential and selling the car for much more than I paid for it.
I got the engine and trans out of a wrecked El Camino and the diff from a brand new appearing Chevelle that had met what had to have been a tree head on.

What a sweet car she was, metallic gold.

I worked on cars, rebuilt my vega two times, my valiant once. My girlfriends stepfather was my auto shop teacher in high school. I had the run of the shop on weekends. Sure folks could keep them going but my point was about the quality of the cars. I remember being in a 64 Chrysler station wagon when it hit 100k miles. The adults were so proud and shocked. Of course, once it hit 99,999 it flipped to zero miles. Remember those days?
 
I worked on cars, rebuilt my vega two times, my valiant once. My girlfriends stepfather was my auto shop teacher in high school. I had the run of the shop on weekends. Sure folks could keep them going but my point was about the quality of the cars. I remember being in a 64 Chrysler station wagon when it hit 100k miles. The adults were so proud and shocked. Of course, once it hit 99,999 it flipped to zero miles. Remember those days?

Absolutely I remember those days.
For us, a Chevy Vega was a platform for ladder bars, a GM 8.5-inch 10-bolt differential, and of course a V8 with a four speed or a GM TH350 or TH400 automatic slushbox capable of handling the power.
Same with the Pintos, any Pinto we knew of eventually became a V8 Pinto.
Good times!

64 Chrysler wagons...sigh...sad to say I did not respect the MoPar wagons back in their day but they could be more often than not be counted on to have at least a venerable 318 in them, good for AT LEAST 150 to 200 thousand miles if you changed the oil religiously and kept the valves adjusted.

The Valiant/Dart lineup was, at least for me, a wannabe Barracuda but I loved and respected the slant-six models because they were so bulletproof.

By the way, now that I am semi-retired, I'm working on a 1965 Imperial, aiming to drop a 3.6 liter Pentastar V6 into it from a modern day wrecked 2016 Jeep. Update the brakes to dual system four wheel disc and modernize the suspension and I will wind up with a "Mafia Staff Car" that might get 18-20 mpg and will still have almost 300 HP.

Getting rid of my Prius, I needed it when I was a full time working camera guy but it is at once the most reliable but BORING car I've ever owned, NO FUN ALLOWED. I just want my old man cruiser-mobile, but one I manage to actually drive and enjoy at 75 mph on our freeways out here.
 
Absolutely I remember those days.
For us, a Chevy Vega was a platform for ladder bars, a GM 8.5-inch 10-bolt differential, and of course a V8 with a four speed or a GM TH350 or TH400 automatic slushbox capable of handling the power.
Same with the Pintos, any Pinto we knew of eventually became a V8 Pinto.
Good times!

64 Chrysler wagons...sigh...sad to say I did not respect the MoPar wagons back in their day but they could be more often than not be counted on to have at least a venerable 318 in them, good for AT LEAST 150 to 200 thousand miles if you changed the oil religiously and kept the valves adjusted.

The Valiant/Dart lineup was, at least for me, a wannabe Barracuda but I loved and respected the slant-six models because they were so bulletproof.

By the way, now that I am semi-retired, I'm working on a 1965 Imperial, aiming to drop a 3.6 liter Pentastar V6 into it from a modern day wrecked 2016 Jeep. Update the brakes to dual system four wheel disc and modernize the suspension and I will wind up with a "Mafia Staff Car" that might get 18-20 mpg and will still have almost 300 HP.

Getting rid of my Prius, I needed it when I was a full time working camera guy but it is at once the most reliable but BORING car I've ever owned, NO FUN ALLOWED. I just want my old man cruiser-mobile, but one I manage to actually drive and enjoy at 75 mph on our freeways out here.

My valiant was three on the tree, slant 6. I loved it but blew it up, thermostat broke and the thing froze up. So once again, my buddy towed my clunker to my garage. I rebuilt it in the garage over a few months, dropped it into the car and bam, it was back in business.
 
California ranked as No.1 state with worst air quality: report

7 of the top 10 American cities with bad air quality are in California. It doesn't really matter who believes in climate change and who doesn't, when the state that leans the furthest left both treats climate change as a religion, and pollutes the environment with irresponsible policies. If the poster child for blue state America can't even get it right when it comes to important issues like clean air, then who can? I'm both conservative, and concerned about preserving the environment.

Question: Of the Democrats on this site who hope to win future elections by way of population demographics change, and overpopulation, who amongst you will actually want to live in the utopian society you're scheming for when it wreaks havoc on the environment? Is it possible to care about climate change and also support ideas that will destroy the environment?

I think the Federal govt should fine California $1T/yr to help pay for the Green New Deal.
 
California ranked as No.1 state with worst air quality: report

7 of the top 10 American cities with bad air quality are in California. It doesn't really matter who believes in climate change and who doesn't, when the state that leans the furthest left both treats climate change as a religion, and pollutes the environment with irresponsible policies. If the poster child for blue state America can't even get it right when it comes to important issues like clean air, then who can? I'm both conservative, and concerned about preserving the environment.

Question: Of the Democrats on this site who hope to win future elections by way of population demographics change, and overpopulation, who amongst you will actually want to live in the utopian society you're scheming for when it wreaks havoc on the environment? Is it possible to care about climate change and also support ideas that will destroy the environment?

So then you'd be all for more regulations on businesses and traffic and vehicles, etc etc etc to resolve the problem?

Unless you have another solution for that pollution? Please offer that.
 
Back
Top Bottom