Southern California smog worsens for second straight year despite reduced emissions (how much, to buy)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Regulations have dropped auto emissions significantly more than 2%. And I have no idea where you got that figure. Emission reductions are measured according to the type of emission. If you think back, I posted a link with those emission reductions and every category was way more than 2%.

They dropped the to 2% of what they were. A 98% reduction. Now they are fighting over that last 2%.

The regional issue in the LA Basin is the temperatures aloft are often warmer than at the surface due to the marine inversion, or in the case of most of the western part of the country, air with pollutants rises and cools faster than the lapse rate which sets up a situation where the polluted air reaches the same temperature as air surrounding it, thus the polluted air no longer rises and is trapped near the ground. Also called environmental lapse rate in a stable atmosphere. Pollutants from Asia are in the upper atmosphere by the time they reach here and don't contribute much at all to the air quality on the ground.

The winds/flow of air backs up against the mountains, which is why LA is called a basin. The coastal range does a similar thing all the way down. There are multiple issues.

Los Angeles has at least one additional day each year that exceeds federal ozone standards because of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emitted by Chinese factories. And as much as a quarter of the sulfate pollution on the West Coast can be tied to Chinese exports, the report says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b68e968bfa39

While it speaks of one day of Ozone the sulfur issue is far worse because of their pollution.

Then:

The findings, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, show the ozone levels in the troposphere – the lowest level of the atmosphere – rose by about 7 percent over China from 2005 to 2010. The study also said that the Chinese pollution has offset 43 percent of all efforts to reduce ozone in the Western U.S.

https://weather.com/science/environm...-reach-america

Reasonable steps here will help, But the US is already doing a good job, so more efforts will just cost more money and be offset by the air from China.It has become such apolitical issue that reality is being ignored.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

He said 2% of what they had been, not 2% in drop. This would imply that he was saying a 98% or so reduction which is pretty good though it seems high.

I think people should thank their lucky stars that emissions standards were as progressive as they were. People probably would have piled into the city anyways and mass transit probably wouldn’t have been any better. Without the stringent emission standards, LA would be choking in smog almost daily.

Thank you.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by expatCA

They dropped the to 2% of what they were. A 98% reduction. Now they are fighting over that last 2%.


The winds/flow of air backs up against the mountains, which is why LA is called a basin. The coastal range does a similar thing all the way down. There are multiple issues.

Los Angeles has at least one additional day each year that exceeds federal ozone standards because of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emitted by Chinese factories. And as much as a quarter of the sulfate pollution on the West Coast can be tied to Chinese exports, the report says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b68e968bfa39

While it speaks of one day of Ozone the sulfur issue is far worse because of their pollution.

Then:

The findings, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, show the ozone levels in the troposphere – the lowest level of the atmosphere – rose by about 7 percent over China from 2005 to 2010. The study also said that the Chinese pollution has offset 43 percent of all efforts to reduce ozone in the Western U.S.

https://weather.com/science/environm...-reach-america

Reasonable steps here will help, But the US is already doing a good job, so more efforts will just cost more money and be offset by the air from China.It has become such apolitical issue that reality is being ignored.

This is also something that could have been a win-win situation for the world overall, and the US in general but our politicians and our ridiculous campaign finance system blew it. We could have gone to our free trade negotiations, especially during times of great economic relative to other counteies, and pushed terms on emissions and pollutants as an integral part of any free trade. The more stringent the environmental regulations, which would be more in line with what the EPA touted as guidelines, would have made the cost of exporting to the US higher in order to be in concordance with such regulations. This would have given US industries more time to adjust to the influx of goods that can come from a massive country with a large technically skilled workforce, meanwhile it would have trended emissions downwards worldwide. It was an incredible missed opportunity.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

This is also something that could have been a win-win situation for the world overall, and the US in general but our politicians and our ridiculous campaign finance system blew it. We could have gone to our free trade negotiations, especially during times of great economic relative to other counteies, and pushed terms on emissions and pollutants as an integral part of any free trade. The more stringent the environmental regulations, which would be more in line with what the EPA touted as guidelines, would have made the cost of exporting to the US higher in order to be in concordance with such regulations. This would have given US industries more time to adjust to the influx of goods that can come from a massive country with a large technically skilled workforce, meanwhile it would have trended emissions downwards worldwide. It was an incredible missed opportunity.

True, but to politicians money is more important than air quality.

Except when they can use it as an issue to gain votes.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by expatCA

True, but to politicians money is more important than air quality.

Except when they can use it as an issue to gain votes.

It’s still possible for us to push it as we have a massive market. The unfortunate thing is that it’s doubtful that we will under this current administration and the likely full four years of it will be enough to have eroded our economic power differential in regards to other countries substantially. The worst, and unfortunately not so unlikely, case is this administration engages in a race to the bottom by cutting our own environmental standards rather than try to encourage higher standards elsewhere with trade regulation. This should have been a no-brainer—the US keeps its position of championing free trade and its benefits, but effectively keeps a strong hometown advantage via touting a hardline on environmental regulations. It would/can be a winning situation.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Why did L.A. need to be planned to grow infinitely? Why not just make a new city elsewhere? When the Spaniards settled CA, they'd say, "Hey, look, that's a good place for a city." and so they made one. Why are so many people enthusiastic about growing L.A.? What's the result we ultimately desire, and why is that a worthy pursuit?

I didn't realize you were a Green.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

I can agree that the immigration can add a certain level of contribution to congestion. But your talking about an old show. Before L.A. became what it is now. At a time that proved my point that it was a delusion that it was gonna stay such as what you described. The thing is, L.A. had potential for the best of both worlds to grow together. Instead we neglected one and put all our money in one basket which lead to our traffic woes that we have now.

Truth is that we loved our cars so much we became slaves to them and treated them as the only way to get around. Now what do we deal with. Gas, maintenance, parking, traffic. It's because of the way we built our city.

See, the problem is right under your nose but for the previous generations, people kept opting for the one thing that kept the problem going. It's like refusing to stop smoking and wondering why your lungs hurt.

Los Angeles is a horribly planned city. No foresight, no future planning for the inevitable population rise. For a time, L.A. was a nice desirable suburban style area. But like feeding a kid too much cake, it's time to hit the gym and tone up. Because the amount your taking in just cant be sustained with the current form. your arteries are clogged and your all sprawled out on the couch. Time to build up create new ways for that blood to flow.. Time for Los Angeles to hit the gym because it's been wearing the same clothes that done fit for the past 20 or 30 something years.

Immigrants are just a small issue to this. You blame them but I bet half would take a different option than being forced to get a car.

Exactly.

One thing I might add: pre-WW2 Los Angeles, which had very lenient zoning, wound up being planned much, much better than post-WW2 Los Angeles. Prior to the late 1940s zoning laws things were not so strict and the city was on much more of a human scale.

[skeddy]

they need a smog tax to clean that up.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by majoun

I didn't realize you were a Green.

I'm just trying to be practical -- I don't see what the point is in growing the city without any limits. Do people really want a trillion people living here and the sun never hits the ground due to tall buildings everywhere? I really think there's a harmony we need to achieve with our living environment, and it's just not healthy to grow L.A. without any limits to building height and density.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I'm just trying to be practical -- I don't see what the point is in growing the city without any limits. Do people really want a trillion people living here and the sun never hits the ground due to tall buildings everywhere? I really think there's a harmony we need to achieve with our living environment, and it's just not healthy to grow L.A. without any limits to building height and density.

It already isn't healthy. Not all L.A. is gonna be so tall that we can't see the sun. But it's inevitable. You cant tell people where to go.