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.

 

 

23,218 views 32 replies
Reply #1 Top

So ignoring the environment is the way to improve it? Wow, that blows me away.

You do realize that changes in the environment occur over large periods of time, right? Was it just magic that when Bush got elected that air started to clean itself? If it wasn't for the work of countless others (not Bush) years before Bush stepped into office you wouldn't be able to say there has been an improvement. And you think this improvement with contiune with Bush's policies? Even if the stats are true doesn't mean there is no longer a problem. I like how all these arbitary statistics are tagged with insults. Well done guys!
Reply #2 Top
So southern California means its down across the country. California has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country, which in many instances even override federal guidelines. I don't think this has anything to do with the administration.

I was thinking of Enviro Whacko, but that works


That would probably be anyone that thinks about the environment at all in your book. Do you think that there is any limits on what businesses can do to the environment before we step in? When it comes to clean up, they usually fall well short both environmentally and footing the bill.
Reply #3 Top

{Devils advocate}Yea, but he did not mean for it to go down! 

[says who?]

{DA} Says Me!

Reply #4 Top

{Devils advocate}Yea, but he did not mean for it to go down!
[says who?]
{DA} Says Me!

One could replace "DA" with "liberal Democrat."

Reply #5 Top

One could replace "DA" with "liberal Democrat."

I was thinking of Enviro Whacko, but that works!

Reply #6 Top
I was thinking of the District Attorney.
Reply #7 Top
The drop in air pollution has little to do with the current administration and a lot to do with the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. The CAAA of 1990 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for major air pollutants--any area exceeding these standards was declared "nonattainment." Nonattainment areas have to implement plans to acheive attainment (called State Implementation Plans or SIPs). The plans detail the action to be taken and the completion dates.

Of course, the NAAQS have been tweaked and refined over the years, but you are going to have a hard time giving "credit" for them to any one administration or congress.


Reply #8 Top

 mismos

So ignoring the environment is the way to improve it? Wow, that blows me away.

How did you draw that conclusion? Wow, your comment blows me away.

Even if the stats are true doesn't mean there is no longer a problem. I like how all these arbitary statistics are tagged with insults. Well done guys!

The "arbitrary statistics" are from the EPA report. Take your scientific skepticism up with them.

whoman69

So southern California means its down across the country. California has some of the strictest environmental laws in the country, which in many instances even override federal guidelines. I don't think this has anything to do with the administration.

You obviously didn't read the whole article. I cited the EPA report which includes the whole US.

shadesofgrey

you are going to have a hard time giving "credit" for them to any one administration or congress.

I don't recall giving any administration credit in my article. Maybe I implied that, but it is interesting there was an improvement, considering people think Bush has done everything he can to pollute the air...........

 

Reply #9 Top
I don't recall giving any administration credit in my article. Maybe I implied that, but it is interesting there was an improvement, considering people think Bush has done everything he can to pollute the air...........


sorry, that was a collective you, not a pointing finger you.
Reply #10 Top

sorry, that was a collective you, not a pointing finger you.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought I might have to bite the finger.....

Reply #11 Top

You do realize that changes in the environment occur over large periods of time, right? Was it just magic that when Bush got elected that air started to clean itself? If it wasn't for the work of countless others (not Bush) years before Bush stepped into office you wouldn't be able to say there has been an improvement. And you think this improvement with contiune with Bush's policies? Even if the stats are true doesn't mean there is no longer a problem. I like how all these arbitary statistics are tagged with insults. Well done guys!

You miss the point entirely.  No, it was not due to Bush.  It was due to following the laws in place!  that we have reduced pollution by 10% means that we are doing better than kyoto!  And without their bad law!  if we continue to follow good laws, and refine them in the process, we dont need Kyoto, but the rest of the world does!  For they cant write good law, that is obvious.

In another thread, you are arguing we must follow Kyoto, yet here you see we are doing better than kyoto.  Yes, past pollution is there, but America is not the cause of future pollution.  You should celebrate the fact that regardless of the president, our laws are making the air better!  You dont have to like Bush to celebrate that.  And signing Kyoto would not have achieved any more than we have.

Reply #12 Top

That would probably be anyone that thinks about the environment at all in your book. Do you think that there is any limits on what businesses can do to the environment before we step in? When it comes to clean up, they usually fall well short both environmentally and footing the bill.

You dont read much or you would not have made that stupid statement.  I will let you read what I have written and then either retract it or confirm it.

Dont Pigeon hole people.  You only reflect on yourself when you do.

Reply #13 Top

The drop in air pollution has little to do with the current administration and a lot to do with the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. The CAAA of 1990 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for major air pollutants--any area exceeding these standards was declared "nonattainment." Nonattainment areas have to implement plans to acheive attainment (called State Implementation Plans or SIPs). The plans detail the action to be taken and the completion dates.

Shades, it is rare we agree!  But if you look 3 posts up, you will see I basically said the same thing. 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!

Reply #15 Top

that's not true, we've agreed twice in recent days!


Or is that 3 times since I just posted that we agreed twice on another thread.  Could be!


Lets see, the Pollution, and the Washington law.  Was there another?

Reply #16 Top

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.

Reply #17 Top
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
Reply #18 Top
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.
Reply #19 Top

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

Reply #20 Top
<
Reply #21 Top

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!

Reply #22 Top

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?

Reply #23 Top

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?

Reply #24 Top

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.
Reply #25 Top

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.