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.
I think it is best to return this thread to its original topic before it is consigned to the ignore list.
"NO ONE ought to HARM ANOTHER in his LIFE, HEALTH..."
The pollution is harming the HEALTH of a lot of people in the SL valley. And, the Government instituted among Men (as long as they are real estate developers), deriving their (un-)just powers from the consent of the governed - is more concerned about securing campaign contributions and real estate profits rather than securing these rights.
That's the current state of Utah.
Yup. The Enlightenment passed Utah by, no doubt about it.
At some point though one would hope that our business-boosting legislature would recognize that the pollution issues will put the brakes on their beloved plans for growth. Big companies really do look at local political culture as it plays a significant role in getting transferees to relocate. Is the new location aligned with the culture that the company and its employees hold dear? I submit that, at some point, it will get far harder to attract the HQ's or strategic/executive functions of national or international companies here for that reason (if it hasn't already). To make the point in a more pointed way, I don't see Patagonia locating any of their business operations in in Utah because of Utah's so-called pro-business policies. And the Goldman Sachs SLC operation here is a back office low- and middle-level worker bee set up, not the place that aspiring Managing Directors want to go to make their mark. That stuff is all in NYC (I get this from a friend that works there). And it has been widely reported that there was a lot of relief on capital hill that Amazon nixed SLC for their new HQ. Reason? The political impact of that many newcomers and their families would overwhelm the good-old-boys club up there by supporting more progressive representatives. I hope I live long enough to see Utah get dragged into the 21st century. I'm stocking up on popcorn.
But back to the CA emission standards. I've been randomly asking people I know about the concept. I've been amazed at how little practically anybody actually knows about the sources of the inversions, impact of cars, differences from region to region etc. I may have found a new hobby.
I hope I live long enough to see Utah get dragged into the 21st century. I'm stocking up on popcorn.
But back to the CA emission standards. I've been randomly asking people I know about the concept. I've been amazed at how little practically anybody actually knows about the sources of the inversions, impact of cars, differences from region to region etc. I may have found a new hobby.
I am not surprised at what you found but applaud your optimism. I am spending more of my time on researching air cleaners (my wife can't stand an idea of even the promised whisper quiet noise it might bring with it), pollution masks (we have ones from Raspro that seem work on the principle that you breathe less polluted air if you breathe less air altogether ) and buying a second winter residence to skip town during inversions (expensive and, more importantly, nothing seems to fit well because, much as we love the nature activities, we are city dwellers). So, this defensive thinking isn't producing a lot of results either. But, I am open to all ideas.
But back to the CA emission standards. I've been randomly asking people I know about the concept. I've been amazed at how little practically anybody actually knows about the sources of the inversions, impact of cars, differences from region to region etc. I may have found a new hobby.
Please post the sources of the inversions, the impact of cars, the differences from region to region, etc.
Regarding Los Angeles smog... back in the 1960s and before, it took about 1.5 to 2 hours for automobile tailpipe emissions to turn into photochemical smog. Much of the reformulation of fuel and concomitant internal combustion engine modifications and add-on controls resulted in an extension of that time to 8+ hours.
Los Angeles air quality improved -- 8+ hours is long enough for those tailpipe emissions to blow eastward before turning into photochemical smog. But air quality inland got much, much worse; 8+ hours was long enough for tailpipe emissions to blow from the LA Basin eastward to San Bernardino - where LA's emissions turned into smog.
Digression: Juan RodrÃguez Cabrillo was the first European explorer to visit the west coast of North America. In 1542, he rounded the tip of Long Beach to see what is now Los Angeles -- and yes, in 1542, Cabrillo discovered Smog. The indigenous people of LA called it "Valley of the Smokes." October 8, Cabrillo came to San Pedro Bay (the site of the modern Port of LA), which he named "Baya de los Fumos" (English: Smoke Bay).
Regarding SLC inversions, what must be done to achieve cleaner air? Put a restriction on the total number of cars that can be registered to run on the roads? Restrict automobile driving to every-other-day for odd-ending license plates? Dictate no household can own more than 1 car? Demolish freeways to discourage long commutes?
Please post the sources of the inversions, the impact of cars, the differences from region to region, etc.
Regarding Los Angeles smog... back in the 1960s and before, it took about 1.5 to 2 hours for automobile tailpipe emissions to turn into photochemical smog. Much of the reformulation of fuel and concomitant internal combustion engine modifications and add-on controls resulted in an extension of that time to 8+ hours.
Los Angeles air quality improved -- 8+ hours is long enough for those tailpipe emissions to blow eastward before turning into photochemical smog. But air quality inland got much, much worse; 8+ hours was long enough for tailpipe emissions to blow from the LA Basin eastward to San Bernardino - where LA's emissions turned into smog.
Digression: Juan RodrÃguez Cabrillo was the first European explorer to visit the west coast of North America. In 1542, he rounded the tip of Long Beach to see what is now Los Angeles -- and yes, in 1542, Cabrillo discovered Smog. The indigenous people of LA called it "Valley of the Smokes." October 8, Cabrillo came to San Pedro Bay (the site of the modern Port of LA), which he named "Baya de los Fumos" (English: Smoke Bay).
Regarding SLC inversions, what must be done to achieve cleaner air? Put a restriction on the total number of cars that can be registered to run on the roads? Restrict automobile driving to every-other-day for odd-ending license plates? Dictate no household can own more than 1 car? Demolish freeways to discourage long commutes?
I don't log information as I find it so I'm not providing you with a bibliography. The sources are numerous if you take the time to look. And your comments on what must be done is patently unserious reductio ad absurdum nonsense. What's your point exactly?
I don't log information as I find it so I'm not providing you with a bibliography.
You're the one who brought up your research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kletter1mann
But back to the CA emission standards. I've been randomly asking people I know about the concept. I've been amazed at how little practically anybody actually knows about the sources of the inversions, impact of cars, differences from region to region etc.
It sounds like you do not like behavioural or cultural modifications to reduce the effect of inversions.
That leaves science & engineering. What scientific/engineering solutions, then, do you recommend?
It sounds like you do not like behavioural or cultural modifications to reduce the effect of inversions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
That leaves science & engineering. What scientific/engineering solutions, then, do you recommend?
Well, well, well. Sportand Misty, do you live in Utah? Have you experienced an inversion? No? No? That's what I thought. But that is secondary.
Answers to both questions were addressed in the very first post. Your contribution to the conversation seems limited to weak polemics like a too-clever-by-half high school debater. I therefore continue to put your comments into the category of unserious.
Well, well, well. Sportand Misty, do you live in Utah?
Have you experienced an inversion? No? No?
I'm writing this post from my house in Park City. Yes, inversions are awful. Everyone agrees. And I grew up in SoCal where they were also awful. Cabrillo thought they were awful back in 1542 when he came to what is now the Port of Los Angeles, naming it Smoke Bay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kletter1mann
Answers to both questions were addressed in the very first post.
No, they were not.
From your very first post:
Quote:
In that vein I've also wondered at why there seems to be zero discussion of adopting the California emission standards. If this had been done 15 years ago the inversion problems now would be a fraction of what they are.
I would have thought with the scientific research you say you've done you would have discovered that the chemical nature of the Salt Lake City poor air quality during an atmospheric inversion of the thermal lapse rate is a fair bit different from, say, Los Angeles during their inversions.
What, chemically, do you hope to solve by using a California solution to a non-California problem?
Please, from the research you referenced, which specific California emission modifications do you think would have made a difference in today's air quality if Utah had implemented them 15 years ago?
You do realize, don't you, that the chemical formulation of gasoline sold in Utah in Salt Lake City is different from that sold in California?
It isn't just California vs. Utah. Actually, there are somewhere between 45 and 70 separate chemical formulations of gasoline across the country, depending how you count, according to the GAO. Each is mandated by the Federal EPA, each designed in a Hail Mary attempt to generate improvements in air quality at the local level. The EPA stubbornly maintains boutique formulations even though more modern testing shows some of them offer no measurable benefit. Take St. Louis. St. Louis MO uses one chemical formulation of gasoline; East St. Louis, Illinois, right across the Mississippi River, uses a different chemical formulation. Meanwhile, the surrounding suburbs use a third kind. All for the same air in the same metropolitan area, different gasolines, and they can’t be sold across jurisdictional lines, so refiners and distributors must maintain three separate systems for the three parts of the St. Louis metro area. All burned by automobiles with the same emissions systems with tailpipe emissions dumped into the same air mass.
Thanks, EPA.
The genesis of this, of course, is California's unique air pollution problem which is -- surprise -- largely a function of its unique climate and geography, and that's why the nation's air quality problems are so stubborn.
It appears you assume new automobiles sold in Utah are somehow dirtier than their new counterparts sold in California. After all, you're the one who said we should adopt California's emissions standards. I assert you are mistaken: mainstream passenger cars, SUVs and light trucks sold in Utah do indeed pass California Emissions standards whether they have the CA sticker or not. Moreover, they have for more than 2 decades. Actually, close to 3 decades.
That is to say, your entire question in your original post -- "why doesn't Utah adopt California's automobile emissions standards" is, well, based on a faulty assumption that Utah's fleet of vehicles are dirtier. They are not.
From your first post:
Quote:
The NE states did adopt the CA standards years ago and guess what? It made a huge difference.
There is a big difference between correlation and causation. What evidence is there to suggest causation? A cynic might say "despite adopting CA standards years ago, NE states air quality improved."
What evidence exists indicating causation?
Look, better air quality is a good thing - we should learn from the NE states - but is their improvement in AQ actually because of CA standards -- or something else?
From your first post:
Quote:
What is it about the culture and politics of Utah that resists easy and common sense fixes that have been proven to work elsewhere? To my total astonishment, until about a year ago there was a state law prohibiting the adoption of any environmental standards stronger than the EPA standards. Is hatred of regulations and government solutions so profound and ingrained that the body politic prefers to live with the problem instead of doing something about it?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't study thermodynamics in college, let alone grad school.
This appears to be your central thesis: The Culture and Politics of Utah are Things You Do Not Like.
If I could wave a magic wand and eliminate inversion layers forever, it appears that would not have an impact on your point of view, because, well, The Culture and Politics of Utah are Things You Just Do Not Like.
Atmospheric inversion of the thermal lapse rate appears to be an excuse for you to whine about Utah's Culture and Politics.
You make the same point in several other posts - it seems you're looking for affirmation that your view is held by others and that they will pat you on the back for your right-thinking. Or I guess I should say left-thinking.
From your post #6:
Quote:
... My take-away is that what I've described is an uncomfortable truth about Utah culture, and not a flattering one I'm afraid. The irony is that the Cali car standards don't even require taxes or much of anything else (inspection stations). Cost is borne by the car buyer/driver which is as it should be.
The larger irony is new mainstream automobiles, light trucks & SUVs sold in Utah pass California emission standards and they have for decades. (When you say "Cali car standards" I assume you are not talking about the city of Cali in Colombia.)
By the way, the goal of emissions inspections is to find gross polluting vehicles and then fix them. California's experience is that inspection stations are not a good way to find these gross polluters.
An unacceptable number of gross polluting vehicles on the road in California lack current registration and hence have not gone in for a smog test in recent times - but are driven as daily drivers anyway.
There is an unacceptable level of fraud in those inspection stations.
California's lawmakers and regulators decided to exempt the class of vehicles which disproportionately contains gross polluters (old cars - 1970s era and older). Why? Well that class of vehicle is disproportionately owned by poor people and poor people of a particular protected ethnic group, and lawmakers and regulators didn't want a disproportionate burden of fixing air quality to fall on the poor and that particular protected ethnic group.
A much better engineering solution is to put emission detection systems at freeway onramps (it takes less than a second -- sensors on both sides of the onramp). They would measure tailpipe emissions as the car accelerates up the ramp, logging the license plate and driver for follow-up. Gross polluters could easily then be identified, flagged, and cited.
But there is a downside to eliminating smog inspection stations in favor of superior emission measurement systems on freeway onramps: those emission inspection stations are quite profitable, and the owners donate mightily to the re-election campaigns of elected representatives.
Quote:
So that's it for me on this topic. I've drawn my conclusions. To be honest, I see this stuff getting far, far worse (bad air, no water, uncontrolled sprawl, etc)
Yes, you've drawn your conclusions. We get it. You don't want to be confused by facts or data or science.
From your post #21:
Quote:
IOW, "we" Utards don't actually care enough to install more forward-looking leaders. Or, that in the aggregate, the issue is trumped by others perceived to have greater importance, such as guns, blind hatred of the federal government and similar hatred of all things considered "liberal." The latter includes pretty much anything forward looking such as environmentalism, progressive (vs regressive) taxation and not legislating morality.
Yet more fact-free and science-free soapboxing. Your words certainly make clear where your mind is on this. You Don't Like Utah Culture and Politics. Environmentalism is not about the Church of Progressive Orthodoxy to which you appear to subscribe. How you manage to bring in progressive taxation vs. regressive taxation is mind boggling -- you don't even bother to go through any of the standard mental gymnastics. The legislation of morality? Morality has something to do with air pollution?
From your post #28:
Quote:
Many have said that the reason that the Republicans/conservatives have rejected man-made global warming is because the solutions demand broad governmental action. Much easier to deny that the problem is real than acknowledge that govt can be part of the solution.
Turning your guns to Republicans & conservatives? When you use the passive voice, saying "Many have said..." it begs the question who is doing this saying, and what are their qualifications to opine on the matter, and what data have the collected and/or analyzed that gives rise to their conclusion?
If you're willing to examine a bit of dispassionate science on the matter (and we both recognize that is a BIG IF) I recommend you pick up this book on the science behind climate change & mankind's impact: The Inconvenient Skeptic: The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth's Climate https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984782915/. While the topic is complex, the author's treatment is readable by mere mortals.
From the jacket:
Quote:
The story of our Earth is one of constant change. Only by understanding why the Earth has changed in the past is it possible to predict how it will change in the future. Four years ago I considered the theory of global warming to be a real possibility, but I found that I could not wholly commit to it without understanding the science of the Earth's climate. With my background as an engineer in the private R&D field as my guide, I decided to understand the Earth's climate and the theory of global warming for myself. This book tells of my journey through the science and the controversy that surrounds the global warming debate...
There is an old saying that if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. One issue with governmental approach to environmental issues is that they have few tools, and the primary ones are regulatory. Sometimes the solution lies in science & engineering.
Government's current primary answer to global warming (hey - you brought it up) is through Carbon Taxes and perhaps a system of Cap and Trade which is in the early phases of implementation in California.
That is, Government's view is that taxation (to provide disincentives) and regulation are the answer.
Government ignores climate engineering, because, well, that stuff is hard to understand and most legislators and regulators were humanities and social science majors rather than hard science majors in college. Few atmospheric physicists who go in to politics.
Anyone who has ever visited Las Vegas in the summer knows it is hot in the sun, but if you step into the shade, it helps quite a bit. (The way the sun heats Earth is via infrared radiation which is blocked in the shade). Ditto for skiing on a cold-yet-sunny day. So... how about space sunshades or space parasols or a Fresnel lens at the L1 Lagrange Point between Earth and our Moon? Global warming solved, and this should be palatable to the Apostles of the Church of Progressive Orthodoxy as well as to Conservative Utahns
Or perhaps stratospheric injection of sulfate aerosols? Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption injected something like 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which "dimmed the sun" by reflecting enough sunlight back into outer space to reduce Earth's global temperatures by about 1 degree F for 3 years in a row before dissipating. Imagine a fleet of high altitude weather balloons tethered by something like "garden hoses" to the ground, and through those tubes we pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. We titrate the quantity so we don't have global warming. Problem solved.
While these are radical ideas, if indeed we will face the tipping point of no return in Global Warming, should we not engage in a moon-shot attempt to save mankind?
Let's take then-Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi. Nathan Myhrvold, CEO of Intellectual Ventures (which owns over 95,000 patents) is a brilliant technologists and polymath; he tells the story of meeting with then-Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi (D., CA) to describe various engineering and scientific solutions to global warming that do not involve carbon taxes and reshaping the economy. Speaker Pelosi and staff were not receptive. They wanted to focus on carbon taxes - a never-ending source of revenue for Governments to Do Good Deeds. Why solve the problem of Global Warming when you can generate incremental tax revenue from now 'till Kingdom Come?
You wrote about how conservatives seem more interested in "legislating morality" than solving Inversion. One of the moral issues that polarizes America is abortion. Ever since SCOTUS discovered an implied "right to privacy" in the US Constitution, and then used that newly discovered right to rule in Roe v. Wade, the issue of right-to-choose (abortion) vs. right-to-life (anti-abortion) has polarized the country. Every judicial confirmation hearing focuses on this issue: how would the would-be-jurist rule on Roe v. Wade and abortion rights? And of course, every would-be-jurist ducks the issue for good reason.
Why not just pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing right to choose?
Or, Why not pass a constitutional amendment banning (or severely restricting) abortions?
Our Politicians do not want to put this issue to bed. They have every incentive to talk about the problem because that leads to campaign contributions from those who care deeply about the issue on both sides. Why solve the problem when the existence of the problem generates campaign contributions?
To paraphrase Georges Clemenceau, the Air Quality is too important to be left to the politicians.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 05-24-2018 at 08:41 AM..
OMG. Quite the dissertation. At least there's some substance this time. I may return to it when I have time.
Actually I actually did study thermodynamics in college. And much more. I was a senior R&D executive for a global chemical company. But I view this as a technically "lay" forum, not a place where "you vill put ze data on ze table!!" as a German colleague of mine used to demand when presented with what he viewed as unsupported claims. You would have liked him. Maybe you are him?
Nope. But I like German Beer and many German cars.
And, just to be clear: I really do want an improvement in air quality. I've sometimes wondered why Salt Lake City doesn't go its own way when the state legislature is, as you point out, stuck in neutral.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 05-25-2018 at 08:05 PM..
Is there an area outside of the basin that has lesser inversions?
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.
