Comments on: Clean Air Act?

Clean Air Act?

twiggy — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:51:16 -0800

Illinois issues its first ever winter dirty-air alert today. For the first time ever in the winter, health officials are issuing a dirty-air alert for the midwest. "Even healthy adults and children are cautioned against heavy physical activity outdoors." This is something the Clean Air Act sought to prevent in 1990. Despite real world warnings like this - there still seems to be constant debate about how much we should really care about environmental issues such as global warming and a host of other environmental issues. Will the new Clear Skies Act be enough to help?

By: twiggy

twiggy — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:53:47 -0800

By: sugarfish

sugarfish — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:07:53 -0800

I wish I had known this before I went for a walk.

By: COBRA!

COBRA! — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:10:52 -0800

Well, Minneapolis has been under an unusual-for-us bad air alert for the past few days, but it's more to do with freak weather conditions than a sudden upsurge in pollutant emission. The weirdly warm weather is trapping soot and fine particles close to the ground, and south winds are bringing more crap in. I'd be really surprised if this wasn't the exact same phenomenon.

By: COBRA!

COBRA! — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:11:33 -0800

Although my wife did give some refried beans to one of our cats last night, and that's doing nothing for the air quality in our apartment.

By: tr33hggr

tr33hggr — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:13:11 -0800

I am a tree hugging hippie. Shame though; it's really the only reason I hate driving upstate to the city (Chi.) - the air quality and visibility noticeably deteriorates. It's quite sunny and a beautiful February day in flat central IL . . . but I'll think twice about taking the doggie for an extended walk tonight.

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:16:32 -0800

By: LeLiLo

LeLiLo — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:20:36 -0800

That happened here in Maine yesterday, too, which was a complete surprise to me. We're used to bad air in the summer (the national park down the street is one of the five most polluted in the country, thanks to all those coal-fired factories in the Midwest upwind of us), but not this time of year. As for the Clear Skies Act, it's just a name. It's actually an attempt to weaken the Clean Air Act that already exists. Like with the administration's No Child Left Behind Act, which leaves a lot of kids behind.

By: twiggy

twiggy — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:21:45 -0800

The sour, unsatisfactory vindication of "tree huggin' hippies"everywhere. Haha, nice. I was just saying that I'm not making this post because I'm some huge greenpeace activist or whatever. I do care about the environment, but I don't fit the "doesn't shave, doesn't shower that often, wishes he were in the 60's" stereotype, is all. I understand that such a warning does not mean that suddenly we have had huge emissions, and has more to do with recent weather. However, I don't really care about that as much as I care about the fact that "even healthy people" are advised not to do anything involving heavy exertion outdoors due to the quality (lack thereof) of the air. That is really disturbing to me, and clearly this could become an every day thing if it's already a problem now "given the right weather changes" - only it won't require specific circumstances with weather. on preview: I know the Clear Skies Act is basically bogus and bad as was No Child Left Behind (ugh). Hence "will it be enough?" - although perhaps a better question would be "will it do even more damage?". I didn't want to have such a pointed question on my FPP though.

By: anthill

anthill — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:28:57 -0800

The aenimic, journalistically acceptable question I would ask about the "Clear Skies Act" is: "Is it doing anything to help?"

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:34:02 -0800

So, when they tell us that people over the age of 55 (I think that's what they said yesterday) shouldn't be outside exerting themselves...uh...how bad is it? Can I skip work using "bad air" as my excuse?

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:46:49 -0800

Minnesota yesterday registered it's worst air quality in the 25 years that it's been keeping track of it. I thought this stuff was supposed to get better over time. I'm sorry you have bad air, Illinois, but I can assure you that we didn't start it. *angry look at North Dakota*

By: chundo

chundo — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:48:40 -0800

We've had these alerts in Chicago since Monday, I think. Mainly because it hasn't been windy lately.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:57:00 -0800

The first alert was on Tuesday, actually, for the reason chundo mentions.

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:17:13 -0800

I know last summer there were air alerts in California because the standards had gotten tighter, even as LA smog got MUCH better over the last 10 years. ANy chance that this is for the same reasons? I mean, it seems that for everything other than CO2 emissions controls have gotten a lot tighter over the last few decades (see the movement from leaded gas to unleaded, catalytic coverters, Clean Air Act, etc)...

By: blendor

blendor — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:36:45 -0800

Note: I'm one to poke fun at "tree huggin' hippies". However, to see a warning issued in my home state / city saying that even healthy people should avoid heavy exertion today is quite sobering and is worthy of discussion. i don't mean to snipe, but all the science and experts and studies weren't sobering enough? i'm not a tree-hugging type, either, but i think it's totally messed up that it takes actual health hazards to healthy people for everyone to stop and say "wait a minute... maybe we are causing this." not to mention how the current administration plays it down.

By: FormlessOne

FormlessOne — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:09:15 -0800

Nature's End marches on. Somewhere, Whitley Streiber grins.

By: ibidem

ibidem — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:14:34 -0800

What bothers me most about the people who just dismiss it as weather-related ("If everything was circulating as normal, it would be business as usual"), when it seems to me it's two separate issues. Yes, if the air were circulating normally, rather than being stagnant due to weird weather patterns, the pollution would just magically be blown away (or at least moved around) like it usually is. On the other hand, if were were continually putting out less and less pollution, we wouldn't have such serious problems when the weather does decided to sit still for a few days. We can't control the weather, but we certainly can control what we send out into the world.

By: ibidem

ibidem — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:20:23 -0800

I also, obviously, can't type. Forgive the typos and the only-partial rewording of the first sentence, resulting in an awkward read.)

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:58:20 -0800

We can't control the weather, but we certainly can control what we send out into the world. ibidem, clearly this is just the natural result of what the earth would normally do were we not here. Additionally global warming will give the Russians that great northern sea route they've wanted for so long. (Snort! - I can't even write that with a straight face - amazing how someone could say it) As soon as I saw this in Da Trib I thought: Running Man. - both the book itself and the schism between the story in the book and the shallow but glitzy movie mocking the shallow but glitzy world - with added Schwartzenegger - as sort of an analogy between actually doing something about pollution vs. co-opting the 'doing something about pollution' thing and turning it into a shallow but glizy government program. Mebbe I'm reading too much into this....or it's the caffeine. For the more militant seed-eating, birkenstock wearing, tree hugging types there's always direct action.

By: ilsa

ilsa — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:27:08 -0800

Will the new Clear Skies Act be enough to help? Bwahahahahahahahahaha. [deep breath] bwahahahahha! [cough cough cough darn polluted air] Others have already pointed out the inaccuracy of this act's name. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more bills didn't start to have "how the heck can you vote against that" titles, such as "Help America to Hug Cute Kitty Cats" or somesuch nonsense. I'm just glad I'm not the only person who has seen a cat eat refried beans.

By: hank

hank — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:47:01 -0800

There was a suggestion a long time ago that the whole water pollution problem could be solved by forcing every water user to put his intake downstream of his output. That turns out to be the case with air pollution -- being as the world is round, and the atmosphere goes 'round and 'round. Just one tidbit from among many: http://www.igaconference2004.co.nz/abstractsToDate040716.asp PERSISTENT TRANS-PACIFIC TRANSPORT CAUSES ASIAN AEROSOLS TO DOMINATE THE "BACKGROUND" AEROSOL OVER NORTH AMERICA. ... Six weeks of continuous ... and ... a decade of twice-weekly aerosol sampling by a network that spans North America combine to show that Asian aerosols are a dominant component of the "background" over extra-tropical North America..... aerosols collected at elevated sites in western North America are persistently of Asian continental origin .... Asian aerosols are regularly present at remote sites across North America, often overwhelming local aerosol sources.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:32:51 -0800

Never mind your fucking asthma. The ocean is becoming too acidic. No Google News hits from American newspapers. Quelle surprise. When I read things like this, I sometimes despair.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 06:56:47 -0800

Can't wait for summer! Toronto is quickly becoming the Mexico City of the North. Walking through the summertime soup the air here often consists of brings this exchange to mind: Lisa: I feel like I'm gonna die, Bart. Bart: We're all going to die, Lise. Lisa: I meant soon! Bart: So did I. Another cheerful factoid to keep in mind is, every time we post something to MeFi, we make the problem worse.