billvon 3,120 #1 November 23, 2002 The first time I ever saw LA, I drove into it with my family back around 1980. We came over a mountain pass and descended into a brownish-yellow haze that stretched as far as the eye could see. It was really bad in 1970, and (fortunately) has been getting better ever since. We don't get too much of it, but enough spills over from LA that you can still see the slightly brown layer when you climb to altitude in San Diego. Still, it's gradually been getting better, which is cool. Looks like that's gonna stop. From [URL "http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-112202epa_wr.story"]the LA times:[/url] "The Bush administration today eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quatorze 1 #2 November 23, 2002 Long live King George II I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 November 23, 2002 I'm still undecided on this whole thing, but I question your sole source of the story at hand...c'mon, the LA Times? You have to go back in time to find another publication that's more askew in its viewpoint... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropdeded 0 #5 November 23, 2002 Ya go north of L.A. and come down the Grapevine,we get the crap from the S.F. Bay Area and Sacramento piling up here at the end of the valley.Plus all the agricultural crap in the air.NASTY air. dropdeded pcss#26 ------------------------------------------ The Dude Abides. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #6 November 23, 2002 >the LA Times? You have to go back in time to find another >publication that's more askew in its viewpoint... Hmm. I thought everyone agreed NPR was the most skewed to the left. In any case, check just about any news outlet but FOX and you'll get a similar story: MSNBC: "State air pollution officials and environmentalists said the revisions will increase pollution and premature deaths." CNN: "The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. " At least the Enrons are happy. To look at the original overall plan, check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lagerhead 0 #7 November 23, 2002 Quote"The Bush administration today eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants." The state can still pass and enforce stricter regulations though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 November 23, 2002 Quote...I thought everyone agreed NPR was the most skewed to the left... At least the Enrons are happy. NPR is not the media forum I was referring to (radio vs. print). No matter...I'm pretty centrist overall, but alert enough to know that the LA Times, CNN and MSNBC all serve a common agenda. Let's all bear in mind this little tid-bit too: The Clean Air Act was ammended in 1997, and these ammendments laid the foundation for what Christine Whitman did: Jane Taylor-CATO Institue "The root of the conflict goes back to the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, which established two sets of pollution rules for industrial facilities — one tough set for plants built after the law was passed and another, more lenient set for plants built before the law. Old plants can operate under the lighter pollution rules indefinitely. But if they are ever substantially modified, they become "new plants" for legal purposes and are hit in the teeth with the tighter pollution regulations." Everyone has a side to the story, but The Clean Air Act hasn't been in place long enough...LA will always be LA, smog and all...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoby 0 #9 November 23, 2002 Quoteis not the media forum I was referring to (radio vs. print). No matter...I'm pretty centrist overall, but alert enough to know that the LA Times, CNN and MSNBC all serve a common agenda.\ You know, when I worked fir the LA Times, I remember seeing Cal Thomas and William Raspberry at the office... I thought everyone was so right wing there... Oh well... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 November 23, 2002 >I'm pretty centrist overall, but alert enough to know that the LA >Times, CNN and MSNBC all serve a common agenda. Which is . . . ? The new source definitions were put in place to placate utility owners who did not want to pay the money to conform to the new, tougher standards. The intent was always that as they closed down the plants, newer plants (meeting the regulations) would replace them. Now that has been watered down, allowing those older plants to be essentially gutted and replaced without new pollution controls. It's a victory for the Enrons at least. >but The Clean Air Act hasn't been in place long enough...LA will >always be LA, smog and all... LA is between 75 and 90%* cleaner than it was 30 years ago, due primarily to EPA regulations. That seems like a pretty good result, one that is worth continuing. (* = based on particulate, unburned hydrocarbon, SOx and NOx pollution, but not ozone.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)