Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I admit I do see this more as a Central Valley, Inland Empire problem. This is partly due to the the fact that this is where it all sits. But you're right, it really is more of a statewide issue.
I suspect that politicians and others including those who fined the Central Valley blame much of the pollution on the Valley itself. It's kinda like blaming a bowl for being a bowl.
That said wouldn't you agree that there are still things which could be done locally to decrease pollutants as well? I am talking about pollutants from farming practices, vehicle emissions, residents burning trash, etc...
As has been mentioned already vehicle traffic up and down Hwy 99 & 5 probably accounts for much of the local pollution. I don't know how you address that one locally or even on a state wide level. Those are major trucking routes and arteries throughout the state.
Maybe we need to go more hog wild on emission control laws encouraging less fossil fuel usage? Certain companies like UPS and gov't entities like the Post Office have been exploring more environmentally friendly vehicles. Though sweeping change seems to be slow in coming.
I can understand the frustration on the part of CV residents. I mean even if all local pollution ceased, though somewhat unlikely, the rest of the large coastal cities would still blow all their pollution into the same valley.
Although you have demonstrated that certain areas have improved over time, California still houses the lion's share of our nation's pollution. A much greater percentage of residents in the CV suffer from respitory related medical conditions. So yes, there is still much work to be done.
Derek
But Derek, it isn't a local problem when much of the pollutants can still be derived from coastal cities. For instance, are homes on the coastal cities allowed to burn fireplaces freely year round? Because in the Central Valley, we have designated no burn days which disallows home residents to start a fire in their chimney.
While I have personally never seen residents burning trash, there are growers utilizing biomass incinerators to burn agricultural waste. But that is not the only source -- dead wood imported from the bay area and Los Angeles also add to the pollution level in the Central Valley.
We have also been subjected to added pollutants in recent years due to the wildfires in the San Diego and Los Angeles areas, as well as the mountains in the Grapevine that sits between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. That isn't to say that these wildfires alone account for most of the pollution levels in the Valley, but it does present plausible evidence showing the way air travels from coastal areas like the Los Angeles county that is heavily populated with commuters on a daily basis.
That's not to say that the bulk of our pollution levels are coming from the coastal cities. There are agricultural and industrial practices that accounts for the Central Valley having the worst pollution level in the nation. Driving habits that includes gas guzzling SUVs and trucks need to be curbed by the locals AND coastal residents as well.
Yeah, I admit I do see this more as a Central Valley, Inland Empire problem. And you're right it really is more of a statewide issue.
Unfortunately most people don't see it as a statewide issue. It seems easier to talk about Global Warming than to talk about how coastal areas can help with air quality improvement for inland areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer
That said wouldn't you agree that there are still things which could be done to decrease pollutants in the air? I am talking about pollutants from farming practices, vehicle emissions, residents buring their trash, etc...
Much has been or being implemented. For example almost all open burning is now banned with no more trash burning and very limited burn permit issuance for ag burning if no other alternative is considered practical. Farmers must apply for a burn permit and show why nothing else like shredding is practical. Older diesel construction/farm equipment/school busses are being replaced thru several programs but the money is limited and it takes time.
Is there more than can be done locally? Yes, although I'm not sure how much more without shutting down much of the economy in the region (both ag and other industries).
But much of the source problem is out of the control of locals.
Mobile sources like trucks, cars, etc are the overwhelming source of pollution in the San Joaquin Valley; on-road vehicles including cars and trucks generate 55-65% of Valley air pollution and other mobile vehicles (trains, planes, off-road vehicles for construction/recreation/farming, etc) add another 15-20%.
You mention vehicle emissions but on-road vehicle emission standards are set by the state and feds. A local air district cannot tell auto manufacturers to reduce emissions produced by their cars. We can't have different standards for inland and coastal California, only statewide.
Unfortunately, I would not expect the political power brokers to push for manufacturers to meet better standards. After all it isn't a problem for their coastal constituents and tougher smog controls would show up as a cost to voters in more expensive cars or smog checks.
Its much easier for California politicians to talk about "Cap and Trade" for business then to tell voters in all parts of the state that their next car will cost $1000 more in order to improve air quality inland.
As both KC6ZLV and I mentioned earlier, the inland air districts had to sue the Bay Area to force it to implement Smog Check II. But as I showed above once it went into effect in 2003 there was a corresponding decrease in inland pollution.
If coastal residents are concerned about the environment why does it have to be so difficult to get them to implement measures that help those of us who live inland??
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer
As has been mentioned vehicle traffic up and down Hwy 99 & 5 probably accounts for much of the pollution (not blown in from other areas). I don't know how you address that one locally or even state wide. Those are major trucking routes and arteries through our state.
Again it takes better vehicle emission controls on both cars and trucks. But as long as the coastal cities don't consider it also their problem nothing will happen in this state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer
I can understand the frustration on the part of CV residents. I mean even if all local pollution ceased, though somewhat unlikely, the rest of the large coastal cities would still blow all their pollution into the same bowl.
Derek
Also think of our neighbors to the south. You mentioned earlier in the thread that Long Beach has better air quality than the Inland Empire. But where is the pollution produced in Long Beach (and the rest of coastal Southern California) ending up??? It isn't disappearing, just becoming someone else's problem inland.
I think it is time to stop this game of pollution hot potato. Instead of who ends up holding it last, time to admit everyone is part of the problem no matter where it ends up.
Well, I'll just say that I've witnessed many, many low-income homes (usually Mexican) burning crap in their backyards. I'm not sure what they're burning but often times it has a rancid smell.
Cars out here in the CV tend to be bigger too.
Here's an interesting read, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition of California - Who's Responsible (http://www.calcleanair.org/research/whos-responsible.html - broken link)
Another article from the same site, http://www.calcleanair.org/2008/files/Health%20Impacts%20English.pdf (broken link)
Another problem is that business owners are willing to drive to Los Angeles just to get a few things cheaper, I'm talking .50$-1.00$, it's absurd considering they have to make the trek down there, wasting gas, time, and adding to the air pollution -- another reason to add tolls. It's amazing how strict and regulated tobacco is in California (if you don't know, the State Board will come into any place selling tobacco and check every single tobacco item bought -- and even more so with cigarettes), yet air quality lacks the same kind of stringency.
The thing is the traffic on I-5 and Hwy 99 is a fraction of the pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. If you eliminated the traffic on these two routes you aren't going to see an improvement worth mentioning. The biggest gains are to be found in reducing emissions within urban areas. Alternative fuels that don't produce emissions that will contribute to the problem is one way, but we are still quite some time before we see that.Tram/trolley/light-rail systems in cities would certainly help. They run on electricity and don't use rubber tires (your tires burn from friction, producing hydrocarbons). And while the idea behind Diamond and HOV lanes sounds logical in getting people out of their cars, it will never be enough to reduce freeway gridlock. Cars moving at a normal rate of speed produce a lot less pollution than cars sitting in traffic. More likely, we are going to see engine design which will improve efficiency. A more efficient engine can significantly reduce the amount of hydrocarbons and NOX, which is foundation of reducing air pollution from vehicles. Hybrids will help. It is easier to manage emissions from an engine designed to run at a narrow range of speeds (in rpms, not road speed) that only has to twist a generator or alternator than it does when it is coupled to a transmission and has to move the whole weight of the vehicle. The railroads took advantage of this 70 years ago because it is more efficient (look up diesel-electric locomotives if you want to read about it).
But punitive actions (fines, withholding Federal funds, etc) doesn't accomplish anything. You can fine an air district all you want, but it doesn't do a thing for reaching the goals of better air quality in the district if pollutants are blowing in from the metro area upwind. Tolls, fines, and fees at the individual level aren't going to accomplish anything other than making some government department wealthy. If someone in San Jose has to go to Bakersfield they will drive there, toll or no toll, in their in inefficient smog-producing car if there aren't any realistic alternatives. Realistic means the end-user cost has to be low enough that Larry the Cable Guy would do it.
Unfortunately most people don't see it as a statewide issue. It seems easier to talk about Global Warming than to talk about how coastal areas can help with air quality improvement for inland areas.
...
But much of the source problem is out of the control of locals.
Mobile sources like trucks, cars, etc are the overwhelming source of pollution in the San Joaquin Valley; on-road vehicles including cars and trucks generate 55-65% of Valley air pollution and other mobile vehicles (trains, planes, off-road vehicles for construction/recreation/farming, etc) add another 15-20%.
You mention vehicle emissions but on-road vehicle emission standards are set by the state and feds. A local air district cannot tell auto manufacturers to reduce emissions produced by their cars. We can't have different standards for inland and coastal California, only statewide.
Unfortunately, I would not expect the political power brokers to push for manufacturers to meet better standards. After all it isn't a problem for their coastal constituents and tougher smog controls would show up as a cost to voters in more expensive cars or smog checks.
Its much easier for California politicians to talk about "Cap and Trade" for business then to tell voters in all parts of the state that their next car will cost $1000 more in order to improve air quality inland.
As both KC6ZLV and I mentioned earlier, the inland air districts had to sue the Bay Area to force it to implement Smog Check II. But as I showed above once it went into effect in 2003 there was a corresponding decrease in inland pollution.
If coastal residents are concerned about the environment why does it have to be so difficult to get them to implement measures that help those of us who live inland??
Again it takes better vehicle emission controls on both cars and trucks. But as long as the coastal cities don't consider it also their problem nothing will happen in this state...
Ok,
I hear your frustrations. I guess I'm wondering what practical solutions are being suggested/attempted/implimented at the state wide level?
There are definately going to be battles over these things because of political and financial interests of residents, big business (agriculture, manufacturing, oil, transportation, auto, etc...) and politicians.
I hear you saying better vehicle emission control will have the largest impact. And yes, it is a hard sell. But I think California has to be a leader in this area. We lead the nation in other areas. And we definately produce too much pollution. Unfortunately I don't see these types of sweeping changes happening in the short term, possibly mid term and most likely longer term.
Again I think you are bringing out valid points. I'm just not sure how one speeds up such a process of change.
The thing is the traffic on I-5 and Hwy 99 is a fraction of the pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. If you eliminated the traffic on these two routes you aren't going to see an improvement worth mentioning. The biggest gains are to be found in reducing emissions within urban areas. Alternative fuels that don't produce emissions that will contribute to the problem is one way, but we are still quite some time before we see that.Tram/trolley/light-rail systems in cities would certainly help. They run on electricity and don't use rubber tires (your tires burn from friction, producing hydrocarbons). And while the idea behind Diamond and HOV lanes sounds logical in getting people out of their cars, it will never be enough to reduce freeway gridlock. Cars moving at a normal rate of speed produce a lot less pollution than cars sitting in traffic. More likely, we are going to see engine design which will improve efficiency. A more efficient engine can significantly reduce the amount of hydrocarbons and NOX, which is foundation of reducing air pollution from vehicles. Hybrids will help. It is easier to manage emissions from an engine designed to run at a narrow range of speeds (in rpms, not road speed) that only has to twist a generator or alternator than it does when it is coupled to a transmission and has to move the whole weight of the vehicle. The railroads took advantage of this 70 years ago because it is more efficient (look up diesel-electric locomotives if you want to read about it).
But punitive actions (fines, withholding Federal funds, etc) doesn't accomplish anything. You can fine an air district all you want, but it doesn't do a thing for reaching the goals of better air quality in the district if pollutants are blowing in from the metro area upwind. Tolls, fines, and fees at the individual level aren't going to accomplish anything other than making some government department wealthy. If someone in San Jose has to go to Bakersfield they will drive there, toll or no toll, in their in inefficient smog-producing car if there aren't any realistic alternatives. Realistic means the end-user cost has to be low enough that Larry the Cable Guy would do it.
The thing I hear you saying the loudest is T-I-M-E and money. It's not going to happen over night unfortunately. That's not to say we shouldn't continue to strive for all these things as Californians. But some of them may only become a reality in our children's lifetimes vs. our own.
I remember when Arnold was really big on alternative fuels and the new BMW hydrogen cars. I actually really like the concept. But how long will it be until Joe Plumber is driving a hydrogen (or any other alternative fuel) truck from jobsite to jobsite? This stuff will take time to become affordable and practical for the common citizen, family, school, business to adopt.
It is tough to push stricter emission controls on the common citizen when alterntive vehicle offerings are very limited and much more expensive at the current time. They tend to be more of a boutique item for those who can afford to go out and buy them and/or don't need another type of vehicle.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 05-05-2011 at 11:15 PM..
Well, I'll just say that I've witnessed many, many low-income homes (usually Mexican) burning crap in their backyards. I'm not sure what they're burning but often times it has a rancid smell.
Cars out here in the CV tend to be bigger too.
Here's an interesting read, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition of California - Who's Responsible (http://www.calcleanair.org/research/whos-responsible.html - broken link)
Another article from the same site, http://www.calcleanair.org/2008/files/Health%20Impacts%20English.pdf (broken link)
Another problem is that business owners are willing to drive to Los Angeles just to get a few things cheaper, I'm talking .50$-1.00$, it's absurd considering they have to make the trek down there, wasting gas, time, and adding to the air pollution -- another reason to add tolls. It's amazing how strict and regulated tobacco is in California (if you don't know, the State Board will come into any place selling tobacco and check every single tobacco item bought -- and even more so with cigarettes), yet air quality lacks the same kind of stringency.
I'm sure the business owners don't drive there unless it is both cheaper in time and money. Quite often they do it because they don't have a choice. Many wholesalers have huge minimum order amounts in dollars, or quantities if you want the items shipped to your business. However, many of them will sell items on your terms if you come and pick them up. So, the only option is to drive there.
And shipping charges are high too. You may not think $40.00 is much, but if it is on a case of items that bring in the customers, but the item only brings in 50 cents profit, that shipping amount makes selling the item at a loss.
It isn't that those of us who care don't want to be stringent. By flat out banning things you can create a lot of problems. Adding a fee or toll on the business owner who drives into town makes don't business prohibitively expensive. Transportation is synonymous with commerce today. There is no way to separate the two. Many businesses in outlying areas can't get items they need at affordable terms unless they drive into town.
And there is some really weird politics too. I think leaf blowers should be banned. Not only do they stink up the neighborhood with exhaust fumes, they also blow particulates, pollen and anything else up off of the pavement where it is suspended into the air for hours. In a state where construction sites have to use watering trucks to reduce the amount of dust you would think leaf blowers would have been banned decades ago. However, the mow & blow gardening lobby made such a huge stink about doing anything regarding the limiting the use of leaf blowers that nothing much has changed since they came on the market. And where there are ordinances, they aren't enforced because the people using them are usually Mexican gardeners, so they get a free pass.
...
And there is some really weird politics too. I think leaf blowers should be banned. Not only do they stink up the neighborhood with exhaust fumes, they also blow particulates, pollen and anything else up off of the pavement where it is suspended into the air for hours. In a state where construction sites have to use watering trucks to reduce the amount of dust you would think leaf blowers would have been banned decades ago. However, the mow & blow gardening lobby made such a huge stink about doing anything regarding the limiting the use of leaf blowers that nothing much has changed since they came on the market. And where there are ordinances, they aren't enforced because the people using them are usually Mexican gardeners, so they get a free pass.
It's funny that you mention banning leaf blowers because Pacific Grove actually has such a ban. However it's primary purpose is noise pollution levels vs. air pollution.
Today, in a followup to the original rankings, the American Lung Association (ALA) issued "The Road to Clean Air" about California.
The ALA says ""Ninety percent of Californians live in areas with unhealthy air according to the American Lung Association State of the Air report," said Jane Warner, President and CEO of the American Lung Association in California. "Pollution from passenger cars and trucks is largely responsible for our dirty air and its huge health toll." http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...121624823.html
Car and truck emissions are regulated by the state and federal govt, not local agencies. They require statewide standards/regulations.
The ALA calls for California by Dec 2011 to pass new proposed standards: lower vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (aka the Pavley II standards), along with new Low-Emission and Zero-Emission vehicle programs increasing the number of LEVs/ZEVs sold. The standards would raise the required miles/gallon and lower the allowed emissions that car manufacturers must meet.
As I noted last week, "Researchers with the lung association acknowledge that cleaner-burning cars will cost a thousand dollars more than traditional gas-guzzlers, but they insist consumers will see almost immediate payback in less expensive trips to the pump." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAUG1JEE99.DTL
There will be statewide complaints about added costs. But I am waiting to see how loud complaints are from Bay Area and other coastal area residents. The Bay Area delayed implementing Smog Check II for many years, so I am not optimistic coastal politicians are willing to hit coast areas with that higher cost.
If coast residents care about the environment, they need to join in by contacting their representatives to support these new vehicle emission standards. These are statewide regulations we all need to support.
We will soon see if Coastal California with its political power cares enough to spend another $1,000/year on cars to clean the air or do they just see pollution as a problem for "these cities". (sorry Derek , but the phrase sums up the attitude the inland gets so often )
I'm sure the business owners don't drive there unless it is both cheaper in time and money. Quite often they do it because they don't have a choice.
Nope, most are that stupid. I call them penny chasers.
Quote:
Many wholesalers have huge minimum order amounts in dollars, or quantities if you want the items shipped to your business. However, many of them will sell items on your terms if you come and pick them up. So, the only option is to drive there.
And shipping charges are high too. You may not think $40.00 is much, but if it is on a case of items that bring in the customers, but the item only brings in 50 cents profit, that shipping amount makes selling the item at a loss.
No, distribution shipping charges on a retail level is not high from most wholesalers.
Underlined scenario, that is an unlikely scenario -- at worse they'll break even. The only reason they'll sell something at a loss is if the item is expired or damaged. And certainly this doesn't taken into account certain items that are marked up over 100%, which some consumers don't ever realize.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but the phrase sums up the attitude the inland gets so often )
