A banner day for the EPA

Brian H. says: Greenness and knowledge are incompatible.
MarkW says: But that is the way to bet.

I’m not sure how anyone who lived in Los Angeles in the 50’s through the early 80’s can possibly have a problem with the Clean Air Act (as originally implemented).
Likewise, the Cuyahoga river comes to mine.
Adding CO2 as a pollutant is silly, of course, but as someone who personally experienced several second stage smog alerts[*] in Pasadena in the late 70’s and
early 80’s, I find the idea of controlling certain pollutants very attractive.
[*] Couldn’t even make it from the batter’s box to first base without needing to stop to catch ones breath.

DonS says:
March 2, 2011 at 8:21 am
@Dave ward.
I remember Barbara Castle. Didn’t she require a lorry for personal transport?
—————————————
No, she was quite skinny; the giant of the time was Cyril Smith, Liberal MP for Rochdale:
“Smith’s larger-than-life personality (and stature — he is believed to have been the heaviest British MP ever, having had a peak reported weight of 29 stone 12 pounds, about 190 kilograms) and popular television appearances made him one of the most recognisable British MPs of the 1970s. His nickname, “Big Cyril”, was also the title of his autobiography. A common joke on the size of the Parliamentary Liberal Party in the early 1970s was that only one taxi would be needed to transport the entire party; after Smith’s election, the party could fill two taxis.”
see Wikipedia

(sarcasm)
Now the problem with improving air quality and thus reducing health costs in the USA, is that it is just bad for the GDP. Think for a moment that the “health” of the US economy is, generally speaking, measured via the “GDP”, as it is with most modern democractic Corporatocracies.
Because health care in the Unites States is a “for profit” industry, it actually contributes to the overall GDP of the United States. So if a person were to do reduce the amount of sick people, you would also be reducing the GDP of the overall country. More sick people = more profits = healthier economy (GDP)
Making people healthy and depriving an important sector of the US economy makes about as much sense as fighting the true causes of crime, thus depriving the private “for profit” prison system from valuable bottom line assets, like murderer’s, thieves and junkies.
But aside from all that, yeah the EPA has some pretty hair-brained ideas on how to waste your tax dollars.
Being a Canadian though, it is all neither here nor there for me. Unless of course I was concerned about how my country makes decisions via our Prime Minister pointing his finger at your President and saying “Uh, whatever he said….that sounds about right.” Then this EPA stuff might give me real pause……
(end sarcasm)

hstad.
You’ve hit the problem with government departments. If they actually solve a problem people ask why are they still in existence. So a dept. is required for their very survival to continue to find more and “worse” problems to justify themselves. It’s how the system works so don’t blame the EPA for working the system. Get rid of the EPA and I guarantee you that air and water quality will go down.
With the big problems basically solved it might be better to try to shift the focus of the EPA from a regulatory body to a monitoring and advisory one. You’ve got a system of monitors across the nation that require upkeep and new monitors will be needed in the future.
But change the focus to the EPA using the best open science available to advise Congress as to the needed laws and to collecting information needed for the courts to prosecute those who then flout those laws.
With a little bit of retraining those who currently write the mutinae of regulations can become basic field officers collecting water and air samples for the labs. A win/win situation. Less time spent on regulation means more available man hours for testing and prosecution (if needed).
The argument that since the air and water are now reasonably clean and therefore the EPA is no longer needed is the same one that killed NASA funding after Apollo. NASA were given huge funds to “put a man on the moon before the end of this decade”. Of course once they actually did it, the funding stopped.

The economy that the EPA will cost us is inversely proportional to the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
It’s like someone, who after spending a Wall Street fortune in a casino, finally wins a hand of 21 with $2 on the line.
Lisa Jackson’s EPA is like that, transfixed on the $2.

From over on Junkscience:

L Nettles Says:
March 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm
http://energycommerce.edgeboss.net/wmedia/energycommerce/energy/ep030111.wvx
Barton’s questions are is 3 hours in ( you can jump to that) the money quote is at 3:04

For Dave @ur momisugly March 2, 2011 at 3:44 am
On further inquiry with a local air quality expert, I found other sources for the Air Quality data that may be helpful to you. See the following EPA sites for a more complete listing of available EPA Air Quality databases:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/datafinder.html?pType=2&pLevel=2&pItem=1006
My best guess is you probably want access to the: “Air Now”, “Air Data”, “AQS Data Mart”, “Clean Air Status and Trends Network”, or the “Air Quality System (AQS)” databases. Use of the “Air Quality System” will require registration.
As Fred indicated; above the “current” EPA isn’t exactly playing by the rules & is more than a little out of control. Never-the-less I hope this helps
Regards, D.A. Kelly (Kforestcat)

In 2010 alone, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than:
 160,000 cases of premature mortality
 130,000 heart attacks
 13 million lost work days
 1.7 million asthma attacks
Now quantify them.