Call me crazy, but I am a dyed flaming redheaded conservative, alternative rock-loving, tattooed, Sinead O'Connor fan who knows every song from the '50's and '60's, and card carrying member of the Republican party.

Environmentalists love to talk about the Bush administration's assault on the environment. They claim Bush has the worst environmental policies than any president in US history. He is cited as the equivilent of a terrorist on our air and Mother Earth.

A recent report by the EPA may actually refute these accusations. The report finds that particle pollution has dropped 10% under Bush's watch.  

"LOS ANGELES A new Environmental Protection Agency report says concentrations of dangerous air pollutants have declined in Southern California in the last five years.

The amount of fine-particle pollution in 2003 dropped 10 percent from 1999, and reached the lowest recorded levels since monitoring began in that year. The trend holds true for most of the country... " ~Associated Press

 

Here is the actual EPA report findings:

 

 

Air Quality Improvements

- Particulate matter (PM) air quality has been improving nationwide, both for PM2.5 and PM10.

-PM2.5 concentrations in 2003 were the lowest since nationwide monitoring

began in 1999 have decreased 10% since 1999 are about 30% lower than EPA estimates they

were 25 years ago.

PM10 concentrations in 2003 were the second lowest since nationwide

monitoring began in 1988 have declined 7% since 1999

have declined 31% since 1988.

In 2003, 62 million people lived in 97 U.S. counties with monitors showing particle pollution levels

higher than the PM2.5 air quality standards, the PM10 standards, or both.

Monitored levels of both PM2.5 and PM10 generally decreased the most in areas with the highest

concentrations. For example, PM2.5 levels decreased 20% in the Southeast from 1999 to 2003. The

Northwest showed a 39% decrease in PM10 levels from 1988 to 2003.

Sources and Emissions

Sulfates, nitrates, and carbon compounds are the major constituents of fine particle pollution.

Sulfates and nitrates form from atmospheric transformation of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide

gases. Carbon compounds can be directly emitted, or they can form in the atmosphere from organic

vapors.

Approximately one-third of the PM2.5 improvement observed in the eastern half of the country can be

attributed to reduced sulfates; a large portion of the remaining PM2.5 improvement is attributable to

reductions in carbon-containing particles, especially in the Industrial Midwest and the Southeast.

Power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide dropped 33% from 1990 to 2003, largely as a result of EPA¡¯s

Acid Rain program. These reductions yielded significant regional reductions in sulfate concentrations,

reducing acid deposition and improving visibility.

Nationwide, reductions in industrial and highway vehicle emissions of fine particles and volatile

organic compounds appear to have contributed to the improvement in PM2.5.

In the eastern half of the country regional pollution accounts for more than half of

the measured PM2.5. This regional pollution comes from a variety of sources, including power

plants, and can be transported hundreds of miles. Sulfates account for 25% to 55% of PM2.5 levels.

Sulfate levels are similar in urban and nearby rural areas. Power plants are the largest contributor to

this sulfate formation.

In the Industrial Midwest, Northeast, and southern California, nitrates make up a large portion of

PM2.5, especially in winter. Average nitrate concentrations in urban areas are generally higher than

nearby rural levels. Power plants and highway vehicle emissions are large contributors to nitrate

formation.

EPA and states have put in place a number of control programs that will continue to reduce

particle-forming emissions. EPA¡¯s 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule will significantly reduce

emissions from nonroad diesel equipment across the country. EPA¡¯s proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule

(proposed December 2003) will reduce PMforming emissions from power plants in the eastern

United States.

 

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 16, 2004

While Bush wont win any eco awards, he is not going to destroy the laws on the books, and that makes us better than the Kyoto accords!

I agree no awards will be won, but he isn't the environmental devil, either.

on Dec 16, 2004
Lets see, the Pollution, and the Washington law. Was there another?


no, i think that was it...we agreed on the washington law thing earlier in the thread too--I think I might have to spew some left wing propoganda so that we can disagree and all can be right in the world
on Dec 17, 2004
Well done to California for reducing particulate pollution.

Just to clarify, particulate pollution is different from gaseous pollution. Kyoto focusses on green house gases, therefore claiming you've done better than something that doesn't even target the particles is very silly. You should read what Kyoto is about before comparing it to something completely different. And before you say 'it should include particle pollution' there are already seperate environmental target levels for particulate pollution.


Paul.
on Dec 17, 2004

Reply #18 By: Solitair - 12/17/2004 5:08:47 AM
Well done to California for reducing particulate pollution.

Just to clarify, particulate pollution is different from gaseous pollution. Kyoto focusses on green house gases, therefore claiming you've done better than something that doesn't even target the particles is very silly


What they aren't saying is that if you cut back too far on the greenhouse gases we all die.

Link

on Dec 17, 2004
<
on Dec 17, 2004

no, i think that was it...we agreed on the washington law thing earlier in the thread too--I think I might have to spew some left wing propoganda so that we can disagree and all can be right in the world

I also appologize for saying "he/him".  LW told me you were of the fairer Gender.  Learns somthing new every day!

on Dec 17, 2004

Well done to California for reducing particulate pollution.

You should read the entire article, it clearly states that it is nationwide.  and while Particle pollutants may be different than greenhouse (or icehouse gasses depending upon which decade you read the article), it shows that we are doinga lot more than the rest of the world.

And for the last time, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.  It is a byproduct of animals that is required by plants.  It is called nature.

Notice how the trees have seemed to be greener lately?

on Dec 17, 2004

You should read the entire article, it clearly states that it is nation

Thank you for that Dr. Guy. Why do people refuse to read everything before spouting their opinion?

on Dec 17, 2004

Reply #22 By: Dr. Guy - 12/17/2004 12:07:12 PM
Well done to California for reducing particulate pollution.

You should read the entire article, it clearly states that it is nationwide. and while Particle pollutants may be different than greenhouse (or icehouse gasses depending upon which decade you read the article), it shows that we are doinga lot more than the rest of the world.
And for the last time, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It is a byproduct of animals that is required by plants. It is called nature.


Your right Doc, CO2 *is* naturally occuring gas. However CO2 also makes up part of the *greenhouse* layer around the earth. Hence they call it a *greenhouse* gas.
on Dec 17, 2004

Your right Doc, CO2 *is* naturally occuring gas. However CO2 also makes up part of the *greenhouse* layer around the earth. Hence they call it a *greenhouse* gas.

Putting it that way, os is O2 and Ozone.  They both are naturally occuring gases and botrh protect the earth and make up part of the greenhouse (without Oxygen, we would be a lot colder!).  So in that respect you are right.

Does that mean we should work to curtail O2 as well?  If so, then cutting down trees is a good start.

on Dec 17, 2004
My question, is why does water vapor never seem to get mentioned when speaking of greenhouse gases. It's been a while since I did any research into this, but I took a sustainable development course back in college, and in the course of some research on global warming, I cam across several articles pointing to this gas as being by far the most prevalent g-gas on the planet; to the degree that if it were included in the total volume of greenhouse gases, the increase that we have seen in CO2 from human activity was a fraction of a percent.

Did I just happen to come across faulty data in several reports, or has no one ever really heard of this?
on Dec 17, 2004
Putting it that way, os is O2 and Ozone. They both are naturally occuring gases and botrh protect the earth and make up part of the greenhouse (without Oxygen, we would be a lot colder!). So in that respect you are right.
Does that mean we should work to curtail O2 as well? If so, then cutting down trees is a good start.


Its called too much of a good thing. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere would cause global warming which in turn causes massive flooding. Simplistic to just say its a natural phenomenon. There are many things in nature that if taken to extreme would result in the extermination of all life on the planet. Methane for example is a naturally existing gas. However I am sure that you wouldn't want that gas to be increased. Increase oxegen to 100% and then light a match.
on Dec 17, 2004
My question, is why does water vapor never seem to get mentioned when speaking of greenhouse gases. It's been a while since I did any research into this, but I took a sustainable development course back in college, and in the course of some research on global warming, I cam across several articles pointing to this gas as being by far the most prevalent g-gas on the planet; to the degree that if it were included in the total volume of greenhouse gases, the increase that we have seen in CO2 from human activity was a fraction of a percent.

Did I just happen to come across faulty data in several reports, or has no one ever really heard of this?


I beleive you, can you provide some links or key words for google? I would love to read up on it.
on Dec 17, 2004
Its called too much of a good thing. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere would cause global warming which in turn causes massive flooding. Simplistic to just say its a natural phenomenon. There are many things in nature that if taken to extreme would result in the extermination of all life on the planet. Methane for example is a naturally existing gas. However I am sure that you wouldn't want that gas to be increased. Increase oxegen to 100% and then light a match.


Try living in a pure O2 atmosphere (food will be provided).

See how stupid this all is? We are trying to destroy the eco system due to misplaced junk science.

Why dont we defer to the earth. She knows more than you or I.
on Dec 17, 2004

Why dont we defer to the earth. She knows more than you or I

Good point.

3 Pages1 2 3