EPA Proposes New Rule To Crack Down on Deadly Air Pollution (cnn.com) 59
For the first time since 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing an update to the federal air quality standard for fine soot -- a long-awaited step to reduce deadly air pollution. From a report: The current standard, which has been in place for more than a decade, limits the average annual amount of fine particle pollution to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The EPA is proposing reducing that limit to 9 to 10 micrograms, though it will be taking public comment on a range as low as 8 and as high as 11 migrograms per cubic meter. The final standard will be a single digit somewhere in that range.
Fine particulate matter -- called PM2.5 -- pollutes outdoor air by the burning of fossil fuels like gasoline, diesel and oil, as well as wood. It is the tiniest pollutant yet among the most dangerous. When inhaled, it travels deep into lung tissue, where it can enter the bloodstream and can contribute to cardiovascular disease, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Exposure to this pollution has also been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Scientists recently found a possible mechanism for that increased risk -- some air pollution particles may promote mutations in cells in the airways.
Fine particulate matter -- called PM2.5 -- pollutes outdoor air by the burning of fossil fuels like gasoline, diesel and oil, as well as wood. It is the tiniest pollutant yet among the most dangerous. When inhaled, it travels deep into lung tissue, where it can enter the bloodstream and can contribute to cardiovascular disease, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Exposure to this pollution has also been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Scientists recently found a possible mechanism for that increased risk -- some air pollution particles may promote mutations in cells in the airways.
Another Tricky One (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If that asshole Gates gets his way, then whenever we work in space, we'll need special breathing equipment!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a problem, yes. Reducing air pollution a lot will likely give us another 0.5C global warming and that is not accounted for in all the fantasy goals of stopping things at 1.5C. On the other hand, keeping pollution up means people get sich and die from it and cause a lot of medical cost and effort to society which would be needed in other places. Also fossiles continue to need to be burned to keep dust up, which will contribute more than that 0.5C estimate.
Hence, yes, reducing dust is a real, bad pro
Re: (Score:1)
People like Bill Gates are proposing putting objects into space that block light from the sun. Don't these same particles already do the same?
but But BUT...my solar arrays will suffer reduced output and I will be unable to charge my Tesla cuz Governor Gruesome won't let me plug it into the grid!
Supreme Court to strike down in 3... 2... 1... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Oh who'm I kidding, I'm not making it to my 60s. At least CNN will write something about the lower life expectancies I contributed it.
Re: (Score:1)
It's kind of annoying how a packed court...
So, was the court 'packed' back when previous presidents were appointing justices? Or can it only be packed in one direction?
exercising Veto power over laws with at best questionable legal standing.
Um, isn't that the whole point of the Supreme Court? To strike down questionable laws?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's packed because Republicans vetoed any Dem nominee for spurious reasons, then forced through their own candidates on the basis of lies and deceit.
Not that I'm in favour of a political supreme court. I'd far prefer judges and SCOTUS to be required to be politically impartial at all times, but America far prefers rigged courts.
Re: Supreme Court to strike down in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So no this is a very very different Court and I get that you're trying to score points for your side but here's the thing. They
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. "Where the hell is your chin!?" I remember marveling about that when I saw a picture of Himmler.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
> Or can it only be packed in one direction?
well, there are 9 justices. So yes, it can only be packed in one direction.
The real problem is that your country has a fundamentally broken voting system. You need to first ditch the electoral college, and ditch first past the post voting for your president and legislatures. The GOP is also in desperate need of reform. They let the leopards in for their own selfish political desires, and now their faces are being eaten. Just look at the chaos being caused in th
"court packing" ia a term of art in the USA (Score:2)
The term "court packing" (and the associated "packed court" etc) are not just generic phrases within US law - they have a specific meaning.
"court packing" is NOT putting as many judges you like onto a particular court while obeying the Constitution - which is what Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all did (indeed all presidents do). Progressives have been outraged that Senator McConnell blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland (current Atty Gen) from the court, but McConnell acted strictly within the Constitutio
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Supreme Court to strike down in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Insightful)
So because China and the developing world are not taking the same steps or not as fast we should just sya fuck it and not try and advance technology and our own industries at all? Is this what American exceptinalism has become, always aim for right above the lowest common denominator?
To me at least while America can use it's influence as the global hegemon where it's possible we have to accept we can't force every nation to do what we want, especially developing ones where frankly it's a bit unfair to malign them for doing the same things we did decades ago to advance.
I want the US to be the leader, to set the example and to show whats possible because we have the means, the drive and the money to do it. We should be electrifying, cleaning our air and setting higher standards for ourselves because we want to show we should remain the leader. Thats being exceptional, sacrificing what we know it the best in the long term for pure economic profit is just letting China jump ahead (and for all their coal plants they are also installing quite a bit of solar, nuclear and wind at the same time, not to mention their rail and mass transit expansion makes us look downright incompetent sometimes)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How come you are not willing to give any credit for what we have already accomplished?
Who said I didn't but this is not the type of thing where we can just lean back in our recliners, have a cigar and say "we did it!" for the time being it's always advancing, always changing and there's more to be done.
taking things to the extreme and hobbling our economy
This is subjective, using "extreme" is emotional and there is no sign of our economy having been hobbled or will hobble. If anything the massive undertaking in wind, solar and electric cehichles is a gigantic growth center for the US, one I would like to see us expand and continue to be the w
Re: (Score:2)
It's cool. All the EPA has to do is point to specific Congressional authorization for their actions. The SCOTUS probably will strike this down anyway saying, dollar burden too high on those having dollar. Extraordinary! Praise dollar. They just made up a new doctrine to do just that.
Maybe the EPA is dropping old school to avoid lawsuits that point to rules that may indicate novel approaches to rulemaking.
Re:Supreme Court to strike down in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Other countries not doing enough to reduce global warming does not absolve us from the responsibility of doing what we can to try to combat it ourselves. All you're basically doing is engaging in whataboutism. Nothing that you've said means the United States shouldnt take action to reduce its own emissions.
Also, I'm sure you think you're "owning the Libs" with the "racism" thing but it just makes you look like a nutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Destroying our economy in the US will only empower China, resulting in a net increase in pollution.
A small and incremental decrease to large particle emissions is not "destroying our economy" any more than the last decrease in 2012 when it was dropped to 12 micrograms was.
Your response, however, shows that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If we really cared about reducing pollution, we would be building new nuclear power-plants...
"Part of the problem", give me a fucking break. "Part of the problem" is claiming minor emission changes are going to destroy our economy. "Part of the problem" is citing foreign countries misbehaviour as a reason to not take responsibility for our own contribution to the problem.
And what the hell is this long tirade about nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
> China is still building Coal power-plants as fast as they can
Maybe not as fast as they can but they are. Still, and I'm focusing on per capita, they aren't really much worse than the US : https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
> small gas scooters are becoming so popular across Asia that many cities over there now have worse pollution than anything ever seen in the United States
Not sure it's a question of it now becoming so popular or that the some places in the US have never had as serious PM issues in t
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to step back and look at this on the global level instead of pretending like the United States is the sole cause of pollution and that it is racist somehow.
You're so concerned about an anti-China rant that you showed truly mindboggling ignorance. PM2.5 is a local issue. China can kill it's entire population with it for all anyone cares, it doesn't affect the world or the USA.
Re: (Score:1)
yes heat in the winter is for snobbish fops who can afford huge increases in the price of nat-gas, have the capital invest in expensive solar and geothermal solutions, and of course inner-city welfare queens like rsilvergun. The guy just trying to use his wood-lot to stay warm he can freeze to death.
Re: Supreme Court to strike down in 3... 2... 1... (Score:1)
Now if you'll excuse me I'll be dying of heart disease...
How shockingly refreshing. Yes; yes, you will - either that, a stroke or hyper-accelerated cancer.
No mention of Asia? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone's never actually been to China. Everyone rides electric scooters in China because they're treated as bicycles legally. It's very rare to see petrol scooters there any more.
What does it matter if it's not enforced? (Score:2)
It's also illegal in my entire state, at level of state law, to make ANY modification to the exhaust system of any car OR MOTORCYCLE that increases the noise level. I have people driving loud ricers, Harleys, and coal-rollers past my house on a regular basis because there's zero enforcement.
I don't know what the true solutio
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody ever gets arrested."
EPA has been cracking down on the the people who provide the diesel delete kits. In like 10 seconds of google searching you can find the EPA talk about it:
https://www.epa.gov/enforcemen... [epa.gov] $1.1 million dollar settlement.
You can find the shops that "install" the kits being sued as well:
https://www.desmoinesregister.... [desmoinesregister.com]
$75,000 settlement from some random on the street corner car repair shop.
Getting the parts to do deletes are getting HARD, the EPA has been putting them out of bus
Re: What does it matter if it's not enforced? (Score:2)
Re: What does it matter if it's not enforced? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah there's a disconnect alright, but it is nuanced.
It's true that localized particulate emissions are of less consequence to the wider population. As a farmer, though, they are of consequence to me. Diesel smoke gives me quite a headache. I'm glad the newer engines are so much cleaner in that regard. I can open the shop door and start up a tier 4 engine in my shop and run it for quite a while and never smell diesel smoke.
NOx emissions, on the other hand, travel much farther and are of general concern, hence catalytic systems for diesels (which fail all the time). That said, the amount of NOx emitted by ag diesel engines is pretty much negligible on a national scale and an exemption should have been carved out. If only there were a way to help all the politicians and people in general feel the pain inflicted by all these regulations. Since it's for the greater good, the greater population should help directly feel the pain and bear the cost. After all it feeds them and brings them their amazon packages and makes an enjoyable lifestyle possible.
Personally I don't mind putting DEF in a machine, but what bugs me is that often times the system fails because of something simple like a failed diaphram pump inside the dosing controller. But I can't open that up and fix it---there are no parts available because it's not user-serviceable. And this is because of all the EPA regs, they are paranoid of me opening this box, lest I might defeat it. Faced with a $4000 bill every year or two to replace dosing modules, the delete looks mighty attractive.
Laws should be mandating very long warranties on these systems.
It bugs me generally how politicians and the wider population think that the answer is always just to legislate solutions and expect someone else will figure out. They have no interest in finding or funding solutions themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha see what I did there? Touche.
This kind of thing will do in the ICEV (Score:2)
And good riddance, really. They can continue to exist in the back country where EVs won't suit, but fossil fuel vehicles of all kinds [slashdot.org] are a major source of PM2.5. One way to help mitigate this without any exotic technology for the remaining ICEVs is to use gaseous fuels and bio-based crankcase lube. CNG, LNG, and LPG are all immediately viable, LPG probably being the smartest of the batch. The bio-based oil doesn't last quite as long, but gaseous fuels also don't pollute it as much, so it evens out. Since a
Re: (Score:1)
Specifically, this idiocy: "... bio-based crankcase lube." Essentially, your fellow green nutters proposing to run engines on olive oil. This is exactly how you guarantee premature bearing failure, so congratulations you reduced some operational emissions while drastically increasing both constant failure rates and wear out failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, this idiocy: "... bio-based crankcase lube." Essentially, your fellow green nutters proposing to run engines on olive oil.
It already exists. It actually extends service life on vehicles running biofuels because it's more compatible with the blow-by. Don't let facts get in the way of riding my dick, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, this idiocy: "... bio-based crankcase lube." Essentially, your fellow green nutters proposing to run engines on olive oil.
Don't let facts get in the way of riding my dick, though.
It wasn't clear that you were using crankcase lube as a euphemism. As to actual engine oils, having a lubricant congeal at even mildly cold temperatures is an outright disqualifier, even for use in desert climate that can still get cold at night.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not still veg oil, it's just derived from veg oil, like green diesel (not transesterified, but fractionally distilled) is just exactly like real diesel, but it's made from veg oil. You can tell the difference, but it's irrelevant to function.
Campfires, etc (Score:2)
I haven't been able to find any quick sources for this, and the article didn't mention, what a typical generation rate of PM2.5 is for things like charcoal grills, or a campfire, etc.
It would be sad to be restricted from these "primitive" luxuries. How do you measure it anyway cubic meters of air in my entire yard? Right over the grill?
Re: (Score:2)
I found this difficult to understand as well. It is not a measure of the emissions from a source but a measure of the air quality in an area.
Perhaps this quote will help 'An area will meet the standard if the three-year average of its annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0 g/m3'
See my post later on 'annual average not average annual'.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been able to find any quick sources for this, and the article didn't mention, what a typical generation rate of PM2.5 is for things like charcoal grills, or a campfire, etc.
my third google result for "campfire emissions PM2.5" [mn.gov]
It would be sad to be restricted from these "primitive" luxuries.
Here's how it works: EPA kind of casually attempts to regulate PM2.5 (and other things) by region. What you actually wind up having from this kind of decision is rules prohibiting new installations of wood stoves in densely populated areas, and the like. They really don't prohibit stuff like charcoal grills or campfires because they are a small percentage of the impact, and also because they tend to occur mostly in places which have less emissions to be
Funny Since they said it is already decided! (Score:2)
annual average not average annual (Score:2)
I was having a great deal of difficulty in understanding what 'average annual amount of fine particle pollution to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air' meant.
I found this 'An area will meet the standard if the three-year average of its annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0 g/m3'.
So assuming average is the arithmetic mean.
I think it works something like:
annual average=(add up all sensor readings for the year)/(number of sensor r
Let's apply this to the entire chain (Score:2)
Start with Cobalt and rare earths from the Congo [youtube.com] and China.
Similar to prohibiting conflict diamonds, the government should block the importation of anything that uses slave labor.
Or...measure everywhere! (Score:2)
I'd rather know what the value is everywhere. Meaning instead of setting "new arbitrary limit we think will help someone/somehow".
Air the fact someone nearby is polluting, then tie local polluters to the likely causes. It does little good to enforce a limit if you can't find everyone contributing to it. And air pollution is "hard" to track. Or harder than lots of other things.
I guess that's another tick mark for global surveillance (of one sort or another).
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of PM2.5 is good for you, period. A lot of PM2.5 is carcinogenic because any persistent irritant can cause cancer, a lot of the particulates are very stable, and they are smaller than cilia so they are hard to expel from the lungs. Reducing the allowable limits to as close as you can practically get to zero is a positive step. They probably have specific areas in mind when they set these numbers.
Diesel particulate has been a longstanding problem (Score:1)