EPA Limits Pollution From Chemical Plants (nytimes.com) 67
More than 200 chemical plants across the country will be required to curb the toxic pollutants they release into the air [non-paywalled link] under a regulation announced by the Biden administration on Tuesday. From a report: The regulation is aimed at reducing the risk of cancer for people living near industrial sites. This is the first time in nearly two decades that the government has tightened limits on pollution from chemical plants. The new rule, from the Environmental Protection Agency, specifically targets ethylene oxide, which is used to sterilize medical devices, and chloroprene, which is used to make rubber in footwear.
The E.P.A. has classified the two chemicals as likely carcinogens. They are considered a top health concern in an area of Louisiana so dense with petrochemical and refinery plants that it is known as Cancer Alley. Most of the facilities affected by the rule are in Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast as well as in the Ohio River Valley and West Virginia. Communities in proximity to the plants are often disproportionately Black or Latino and have elevated rates of cancer, respiratory problems and premature deaths.
The E.P.A. has classified the two chemicals as likely carcinogens. They are considered a top health concern in an area of Louisiana so dense with petrochemical and refinery plants that it is known as Cancer Alley. Most of the facilities affected by the rule are in Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast as well as in the Ohio River Valley and West Virginia. Communities in proximity to the plants are often disproportionately Black or Latino and have elevated rates of cancer, respiratory problems and premature deaths.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
it's ok to admit you cannot read or didn't make it past 4th grade vocab
disproportionately
in a way that is too large or too small in relation to something else:
The burden of price increases is borne disproportionately by the poor.
The disease disproportionately affects women.
Their insurance is disproportionately expensive.
Re:Making this about race, really?? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Companies locate their plants in cost-efficient locations, where they have access to (a) rail and/or pipelines and/or shipping, (b) an excess supply of low wage labor, (c) cheap land, and (d) low community push-back. In other words, they naturally locate the plants where they have a captive supply of workers who are desperate enough for work that they won't push back against pollution. Ironically, it turns out that many such people are what professors call "historically disadvantaged", and what normal people just call "poor". While these people are not all minorities, it turns out that minorities are the most likely (statistically) to be in this category. As West Virginia and the hill country in Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky shows, you can also be poor and white.
2. Americans are no longer a mobile society. Poor people are often unable (in real terms) to pick up and move. Generally, their health care (if any) is tied to their job, and their support structures (family and other) are tightly tied to a locality. Almost a third of Americans live in the same town that they were born in, and 57% still live in the same state [pewresearch.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Making this about race, really?? (Score:4)
The way these regulations often work is that industry improves a process and then lobbies to make it a requirement to lock out competition.
Regulations like these don't happen without industry input, and often, the regulated industries write the regulation.
Regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I mean that's sorta true but also unavoidable, industry input on industry regulation is part of the process of regulation and if there are ways to mitigate bad outcomes to society that a particular industry causes then it's probably a good thing to mitigate those things.
Now where this can get tricky is like you said, if said company has an advantage in the marketplace to mitigate that bad outcome then it can be a government function to regulate that aspect but also do so in a way that still maintains a comp
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying they are "the same" only that safety regulations of industry is going to be advantaged by and pretty much require some input from the industry in question, it can't be done in a vacuum.
However it can and should be done with
could opt to not use it.
I know this is something of a guiding principle with regulations but it is just a guideline. If something is optional or carries "obvious" risks that doesn't mean it should be exempt from regulations. Some people absolutely require a table saw to do their jobs and there
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What part of "Poor people are often unable (in real terms) to pick up and move" do you not understand?
Or is it that you don't want to understand?
Divisiveness and envy politics are tools of the left only
Your statement gives me the impression that you don't want to understand and that your world view boils down to "I got mine, sucks to be you."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I SAID was 'why should the administrative state be able to make regulations that have the force of law?'
Because a law passed by Congress actually *requires* what you are calling "the administrative state" to draft those regulations. The executive branch can't regulate something just because it thinks doing that would be a good idea. There has to be a law directing the executive branch to draft such a regulation.
Now if you actually look in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), you will see that each and every regulation in the CFR cites a *statutory authority* -- that is to say a law passed by Congress whi
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:1)
Except there is a range of lawsuits where EPA, OSHA. FDA, ATF and various other agencies simply make up rules, enforce them and get slapped down by the SCOTUS which is a reason Chevron deference is once again being reviewed.
So what you say WAS true before the 80s but hasnâ(TM)t been true for half a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Divisiveness and envy politics are tools of the left only.
Pffff. Spend 5 minutes listening to Trump talk. The guy doesnt even pretend he wants a united America, he's all division and "us versus them".
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's after 7pm, then you can't really tell what he's on about because he's sundowning so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strawman argument because nobody actually said it's wonderful that people move away when they don't want to.
You're like the rich person who says money isn't everything. They do this to mainta
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia are long known as bastions of Democrats.
They were always going to vote for Trump regardless of any regulatory action. At least this way they get a chance at having cleaner air, and not getting cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that poor folks are the backbone of Trump's base is a myth. In 2016 Clinton won the under $50k income vote by 12% and tied with Trump in the over $100k income group. Trump notched a modest 3% margin of victory in the $50k-$100k group.
The actual backbone of Trump's base is white people without a college degree who are nonetheless doing fairly well for themselves. This is particularly influential demographic in rural states, which have outsize representation in the Electoral College.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also the history of "redlining", literally marking areas on maps where white people are allowed to buy property under favourable terms (e.g. the GI Act) but minorities are not. Guess which parts they reserved for white people - it wasn't the ones with chemical factories and pollutants.
It wasn't always explicit redlining either, sometimes it was just developers and sellers unwilling to sell to non-white people.
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:1)
Which was a policy signed into law by FDR as part of the New Deal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is funny, when you think about it, because that is exactly what the Christian religion tells its adherents to do yet he was killed by a Christian for speaking the gospel.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like the portion of Christianity that is very vocal about being Christian, also are incredibly hypocritical about following the teachings of Jesus Christ...
Re: (Score:1)
No longer a mobile society? (Score:2)
Got any actual evidence for that? Has mobility actually declined over the past 80 years?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you didn't read the link that I provided, so you probably won't read this one [rice.edu] either, so here's a hint: The title is "As time goes on, Americans are moving less often", and the sub-title is "Research by Rice expert shows migration rate has plummeted over last 60 years".
So to answer your question: Yes, I have "actual evidence for that", and so would you if you bothered to look for five seconds, like I did.
Thank you (Score:2)
I ignored your previous link because it seemed to merely reflect the current situation rather than a shift over time. By contrast the Rice University one gives what I was looking for.
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:1)
The US has the highest income and living mobility. The numbers of people moving you quoted are relatively high, in the EU it hovers around 70%.
Given the summary points out the race as being the prime indicator of whether or not you get cancer is indicative that it is not related to environment, since black/hispanics are still a relative minority even in those states.
We know for a fact that you can predict cancer controlling solely for race regardless of income level. Cancer is actually a combination of gene
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no it does not. Not even close. I just linked in another answer to research at Rice [rice.edu] on the plummeting mobility of Americans, in terms of moving. We're now below 10% of Americans moving per year [brookings.edu], which is significantly down -- basically half what it used to be.
Economically, the US now ranks 27th in the Global Social Mobility Index [wikipedia.org], behind many of the countries (like Sweden and France) that American nut-case right-wingers make fun of for being economi
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, we're talking about income mobility which was claimed that 50-60% of Americans never moved in their lifetime. You're now claiming 10% "annually" is 'bad' and make claims to the WEF's social mobility score which has nothing to do with income mobility but is a handwaving of various aspects that rates Pakistan higher than most countries in the EU or US, because you know, Pakistan is a highly desirable place to live. Data shows the US economy is still extremely mobile: https://inequality.stanford. [stanford.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read it?
Re: (Score:1)
in the highest-mobility
areas of the United States,
mobility rates are higher than
rates in most other developed
countries, and more than 1 in
10 children with parents in the
bottom quintile of the income
distribution reach the top
quintile by adulthood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Making this about race, really?? (Score:4, Informative)
I know where they are talking about in WV and it's a mostly white population. It's the Institute/Nitro area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:1)
Yes. But only blacks are at higher risk of getting cancer, which would indicate it has nothing to do with race but it is a great excuse to keep pushing an unrelated agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, there, racist ignorant slut.
How 'bout the Italian-Americans in South Philly, near the oil refineries? How 'bout the folks in northern New Jersey?
Re: Making this about race, really?? (Score:2)
I remember when slashdot was frequented by smart people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Let's see what the same party is up to today. Oh just defunding that pesky EPA. https://thehill.com/policy/ene... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Given some of their overreach,
So let me understand this. A regulatory body created by Richard Nixon is suddenly overreach? Why is it a problem 54 years later?
Things like CARB controls on locomotives are NOT what we need at the moment. The problem we have in the US - in every wealthy and relatively wealthy nation, probably - is scope creep to justify an organization's existence. Why is CDC dealing with recalls. Why is CDC dealing with recalls? Things are recalled due to violation of FDA regulations, except for meat, poultry and processed egg products, which are USDA. Why did CDC have a program about 'dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear detonation' - which they never aired the meeting publicly, which should be under FEMA? Lunacy. Food borne ILLNESSES, such as finding new ways of dealing with treatment of listeria, I can understand CDC having that one. Why did CDC declare a covid 'rent moratorium'? That's CLEARLY not in their scope. We live in a clown world now.
Instead of a license plate does your car have a "NOT FOR HIRE" sign?
Re: Until the republicans get back in office. (Score:1)
It wasnâ(TM)t created by Nixon, it was established under the Department of Public Health by Woodrow Wilson, it had suffered some major scandals and was reorganized into the EPA by Nixon (actually Reagan completed it as neither Ford nor Carter moved it forward).
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon was a Republican when the realignment was still happening so it was still a bit of different party. There's no way modern Republicans would create such a governmental department. If you hear anything from them nowadays about the EPA it's about severely limiting it or getting rid of it entirely https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u... [nbcnews.com] .
In other words it's not crazy to think modern Republicans might roll these back when they come back into power much as many environmental regulations were rolled back under Tr
Re: (Score:2)
And there's absolutely no chance that the Republican Party has changed their policy ideals and positions in the last 50 years?
Nixon and Reagan would have been derided as RINOs in today's GOP and you fucking know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe that's a good thing from our perspective, although arguably selfish. The third world is more likely to accept the birth of 3-eyed babies.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL I see you've never priced up how much it costs to build a plant before.
Why is it above zero? (Score:1)
Why allow -any- pollution instead of arguing over how much is ok?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because cratering the economy by forbidding transportation and manufacturing is generally seen as a terrible idea.
It'll never survive. (Score:3)
Choose your adjectives:
"Anti-business" ... and many more
"Anti-freedom"
"Government interference"
The very last thing on the priority list of the powers involved is the cancer risk of people in surrounding areas. It doesn't even register in their mental top ten. And While I think the landscape is more complicated than simple reductionism supports, there is one side of the political spectrum that is far less caring about the health of citizens, and far more willing to bend to the interests of industrial lobbyists.
And the cynic in me says that the proposers of this legislation know this perfectly well, and do not expect it to stand for long. And so it's nothing but a political talking point to be used in the fall. The whole lot of them should be put in a bag and beaten with sticks. (Apologies to Dara O'Briain )
glyphosates when? (Score:2)
Re: glyphosates when? (Score:1)
So does wine, coffee, the sun, grains, plants, meat, veganism and all those things reduce cancer too. In other words we donâ(TM)t really know what causes cancer.