GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 557]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

 a future projection, sorry that does not count.

 

Your post before this had "trending down" in a large font. You should see the humour in that.

Edited Saturday at 08:25 PM by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 557]

Come on now E-charger. Tell us what pollution you would allow to be regulated.

You clearly showed us that PM levels are not going down in recent history so you can stop with that nonsense.  Anyone here know a child eleven years old or less? By e-charger logic you can tell them that their increasing PM 2.5 exposure is okay because it was worse before they were conceived.

"Back in my day we walked uphill to school in a blizzard carrying a bag of coal for the schoolhouse stove!"

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

19 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Come on now E-charger. Tell us what pollution you would allow to be regulated.

You clearly showed us that PM levels are not going down in recent history so you can stop with that nonsense.  Anyone here know a child eleven years old or less? By e-charger logic you can tell them that their increasing PM 2.5 exposure is okay because it was worse before they were conceived.

"Back in my day we walked uphill to school in a blizzard carrying a bag of coal for the schoolhouse stove!"

What is your point? The charts clearly show a drastic decline in pollutants. 

Now the onus is on you to show that there was a commensurate decline in health issues related to pollution.

Show us.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

On 6/29/2024 at 4:17 PM, TailingsPond said:

Try harder, fail harder. 

PM 2.5 is the same as a decade ago.

  On 6/29/2024 at 7:22 AM, TailingsPond said:

This guy really can't understand that emissions are not the same as environmental levels. 

Someone should take gross craps in E-chargers toilet without flushing for a week and then stop.  By Eco logic the toilet will be clean after a few days because the emissions stopped.  Clearly if you stop crapping in the toilet for a few days that means it's clean, right?

Try doing the math bud.

 

Expand  

No, I gave you the data, here it is again, read and learn.

Particulate levels are closely related to emissions, as seen here.

I have emphasized the key phrase which you apparently skipped over.

It is not hard to get numbers on the reduction of air borne pollutants and particulates.

There has been a major decline since 1980. This is despite the fact that use of fossil fuels has greatly increased over that time period.

Now if your suggestion is correct that illnesses are related to pollution levels, we should expect to see a marked decline in those illnesses since 1980 in the U.S.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary#:~:text=Air Quality Trends,-EPA creates air&text=The table below show that,has improved nationally since 1980.

"EPA creates air quality trends using measurements from monitors located across the country. The table below shows that air quality based on concentrations of the common pollutants has improved nationally since 1980.

Percent Change in Air Quality

	1980 vs 2022	1990 vs 2022	2000 vs 2022	2010 vs 2022
Carbon Monoxide	-88	-81	-67	-27
Lead	---	---	---	-88
Nitrogen Dioxide (annual)	-66	-60	-52	-27
Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hour)	-65	-54	-38	-21
Ozone (8-hour)	-29	-22	-17	-7
PM10 (24-hour)	---	-34	-30	+21
PM2.5 (annual)	---	---	-42	-21
PM2.5 (24-hour)	---	---	-42	-16
Sulfur Dioxide (1-hour)	-94	-90	-85	-75

---

 

[Rob Plant + 2,694]

22 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Come on now E-charger. Tell us what pollution you would allow to be regulated.

You clearly showed us that PM levels are not going down in recent history so you can stop with that nonsense.  Anyone here know a child eleven years old or less? By e-charger logic you can tell them that their increasing PM 2.5 exposure is okay because it was worse before they were conceived.

"Back in my day we walked uphill to school in a blizzard carrying a bag of coal for the schoolhouse stove!"

You're wasting your time arguing with him, he refuses to believe anything other than his own propaganda.

[TailingsPond + 557]

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 

Now the onus is on you to show that there was a commensurate decline in health issues related to pollution.

 

 

That is just not true. 

Also, I can not show evidence of something that has not occurred.  You also can't placebo control air.

I could easily show you that breathing smoke is bad for your health and that smoking cessation is better for your health than continued smoking.  Just look up data on cigarette smoking bud.  The toxins are very similar to exhaust.

Less smoke, less cancer, simple.   Common sense should tell you that anything that makes you cough is bad.  You don't need a longitudinal study to know this.

Why are you still dodging questions?  What forms of pollution would you regulate?  You seem to defend all forms of pollution.

How is that math going?  Need some help?

Edited 11 hours ago by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

So the Biden & Co. (actually it is difficult to see how anything but "& Co." is running the White House these days) attempt to use a backdoor regulation to shut down the fossil fuel auto industry looks doomed to fail.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Bidens-De-Facto-EV-Mandate-At-Risk-after-Supreme-Court-Chevron-Ruling.htm

“There have been longstanding debates about whether and to what extent the (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has the authority to regulate emissions from mobile sources,” Sherry Jackman, an environmental litigator and compliance counselor at Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles, told Reuters.

Even before the Supreme Court ruling last week, the American Petroleum Institute (API) challenged the new tailpipe emissions rules in court.

API sued the EPA over the vehicle emission standards, with Senior Vice President and General Counsel Ryan Meyers saying that “EPA has exceeded its congressional authority with this regulation that will eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

4 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That is just not true. 

Also, I can not show evidence of something that has not occurred.  You also can't placebo control air.

I could easily show you that breathing smoke is bad for your health and that smoking cessation is better for your health than continued smoking.  Just look up data on cigarette smoking bud.  The toxins are very similar to exhaust.

Less smoke, less cancer, simple.   Common sense should tell you that anything that makes you cough is bad.  You don't need a longitudinal study to know this.

Why are you still dodging questions?  What forms of pollution would you regulate?  You seem to defend all forms of pollution.

How is that math going?  Need some help?

You are the one dodging the issue, I showed you above the rapid decline of pollutants since 1980, which no one disputes. Having trouble reading again, like old Joe?

There has been a major decline since 1980. This is despite the fact that use of fossil fuels has greatly increased over that time period.

Now if your suggestion is correct that illnesses are related to pollution levels, we should expect to see a marked decline in those illnesses since 1980 in the U.S.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary#:~:text=Air Quality Trends,-EPA creates air&text=The table below show that,has improved nationally since 1980.

"EPA creates air quality trends using measurements from monitors located across the country. The table below shows that air quality based on concentrations of the common pollutants has improved nationally since 1980.

Percent Change in Air Quality

	1980 vs 2022	1990 vs 2022	2000 vs 2022	2010 vs 2022
Carbon Monoxide	-88	-81	-67	-27
Lead	---	---	---	-88
Nitrogen Dioxide (annual)	-66	-60	-52	-27
Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hour)	-65	-54	-38	-21
Ozone (8-hour)	-29	-22	-17	-7
PM10 (24-hour)	---	-34	-30	+21
PM2.5 (annual)	---	---	-42	-21
PM2.5 (24-hour)	---	---	-42	-16
Sulfur Dioxide (1-hour)	-94	-90	-85	-75

Now time for you to show that reducing pollution has also reduced health problems. I am still waiting for you to get moving on this. Lazybones.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

5 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That is just not true. 

Also, I can not show evidence of something that has not occurred.  You also can't placebo control air.

I could easily show you that breathing smoke is bad for your health and that smoking cessation is better for your health than continued smoking.  Just look up data on cigarette smoking bud.  The toxins are very similar to exhaust.

Less smoke, less cancer, simple.   Common sense should tell you that anything that makes you cough is bad.  You don't need a longitudinal study to know this.

Why are you still dodging questions?  What forms of pollution would you regulate?  You seem to defend all forms of pollution.

How is that math going?  Need some help?

Here, I have done your work for you, lazy guy.

It shows that deaths attributable to pollutants have drastically declined since 1970.

However, despite the reduction of outdoor particulates, mortality rates appear relatively non-responsive to such particulate changes. It appears that outdoor particulates are not a major factor.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0314

."Europe and North America dominated emissions and suffered the majority of adverse effects until the latter decades of the twentieth century, by which time the transboundary issues of acid rain, forest decline and ground-level ozone became the main environmental and political air quality issues. As controls on emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides (SO₂ and NO_x) began to take effect in Europe and North America, emissions in East and South Asia grew strongly and dominated global emissions by the early years of the twenty-first century. The effects of air quality on human health had also returned to the top of the priorities by 2000 as new epidemiological evidence emerged. By this time, extensive networks of surface measurements and satellite remote sensing provided global measurements of both primary and secondary pollutants. Global emissions of SO₂ and NO_x peaked, respectively, in ca 1990 and 2018 and have since declined to 2020 as a result of widespread emission controls. "

" Ambient concentrations of smoke and SO₂ declined by 60% between 1962 and 1975 in London, nearly a quarter of a century after the event that tipped the scales in favour of effective action on urban air quality (figure 2).

Figure 2. The decline in SO₂ and smoke in London following the Clean Air Act (1956), including data from the ‘bubbler method’ sampling air through a peroxide solution in water and ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy. (M. L. Williams, personal communication, 2017). (Online version in colour.)"

 

"...data from the global burden of disease project (figure 8) indicate that globally the world may now be on a downward trend of death rates from outdoor PM_2.5 and from ground-level ozone.

Figure 8. Annual death rates attributed to outdoor PM_2.5, outdoor ground-level ozone and indoor pollution from solid fuels 1990–2017. Source: www.ourworldindata.org/air-pollution/ based on data from the Global Burden of Disease project. (Online version in colour.)

Given the current scale of effects of air pollution on human health and ecosystems and uncertainties in measurements and modelling, it is premature to celebrate the downturn in global emissions of two of the most important air pollutants (SO₂ and NO_x). However, the temporal pattern in emissions of pollutants displayed in the Environmental Kuznets Curve [120], with increasing efforts to control emissions as economies mature, continues to be consistent with observations as parts of Asia now show substantial reductions in emissions, at least for pollution arising from combustion sources."

Edited 6 hours ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

On 6/30/2024 at 7:22 AM, TailingsPond said:

Come on now E-charger. Tell us what pollution you would allow to be regulated.

You clearly showed us that PM levels are not going down in recent history so you can stop with that nonsense.  Anyone here know a child eleven years old or less? By e-charger logic you can tell them that their increasing PM 2.5 exposure is okay because it was worse before they were conceived.

"Back in my day we walked uphill to school in a blizzard carrying a bag of coal for the schoolhouse stove!"

I guess you just skipped the real research on this.

Here is another study showing that reduction in PM may help to reduce mortality and morbidity results, at least in the US.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP507

"Between 1980 and 2010, population-weighted PM2.5 exposures fell by about half, and the estimated number of excess deaths declined by about a third. The States of California, Virginia, New Jersey, and Georgia had some of the largest estimated reductions in PM2.5−attributable deaths. Relative to a counterfactual population with exposures held constant at 1980 levels, we estimated that people born in 2050 would experience an ∼1−y increase in life expectancy at birth, and that there would be a cumulative gain of 4.4 million life years among adults ≥30y of age.

Conclusions:

Our estimates suggest that declines in PM2.5 exposures between 1980 and 2010 have benefitted public health. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP507"

Edited 6 hours ago by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,401]

5 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That is just not true. 

Also, I can not show evidence of something that has not occurred.  You also can't placebo control air.

I could easily show you that breathing smoke is bad for your health and that smoking cessation is better for your health than continued smoking.  Just look up data on cigarette smoking bud.  The toxins are very similar to exhaust.

Less smoke, less cancer, simple.   Common sense should tell you that anything that makes you cough is bad.  You don't need a longitudinal study to know this.

Why are you still dodging questions?  What forms of pollution would you regulate?  You seem to defend all forms of pollution.

How is that math going?  Need some help?

Okay, slow one, here is more recent data on PM2.5.

Close your eyes, plug your ears...pretend the data is not there.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/particulate-matter-pm25-trends

"National Trends

Starting in  2000 | 2010

View the chart data in Microsoft Excel
View the chart data in HTML  (New window opens)
 

Regional Trends

Region: Ohio Valley | Upper Midwest | Northeast | Northwest | South | Southeast | Southwest |  West | Northern Rockies and Plains

"

[notsonice + 1,171]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Here, I have done your work for you, lazy guy.

It shows that deaths attributable to pollutants have drastically declined since 1970.

However, despite the reduction of outdoor particulates, mortality rates appear relatively non-responsive to such particulate changes. It appears that outdoor particulates are not a major factor.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0314

."Europe and North America dominated emissions and suffered the majority of adverse effects until the latter decades of the twentieth century, by which time the transboundary issues of acid rain, forest decline and ground-level ozone became the main environmental and political air quality issues. As controls on emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides (SO₂ and NO_x) began to take effect in Europe and North America, emissions in East and South Asia grew strongly and dominated global emissions by the early years of the twenty-first century. The effects of air quality on human health had also returned to the top of the priorities by 2000 as new epidemiological evidence emerged. By this time, extensive networks of surface measurements and satellite remote sensing provided global measurements of both primary and secondary pollutants. Global emissions of SO₂ and NO_x peaked, respectively, in ca 1990 and 2018 and have since declined to 2020 as a result of widespread emission controls. "

" Ambient concentrations of smoke and SO₂ declined by 60% between 1962 and 1975 in London, nearly a quarter of a century after the event that tipped the scales in favour of effective action on urban air quality (figure 2).

Figure 2. The decline in SO₂ and smoke in London following the Clean Air Act (1956), including data from the ‘bubbler method’ sampling air through a peroxide solution in water and ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy. (M. L. Williams, personal communication, 2017). (Online version in colour.)"

 

"...data from the global burden of disease project (figure 8) indicate that globally the world may now be on a downward trend of death rates from outdoor PM_2.5 and from ground-level ozone.

Figure 8. Annual death rates attributed to outdoor PM_2.5, outdoor ground-level ozone and indoor pollution from solid fuels 1990–2017. Source: www.ourworldindata.org/air-pollution/ based on data from the Global Burden of Disease project. (Online version in colour.)

Given the current scale of effects of air pollution on human health and ecosystems and uncertainties in measurements and modelling, it is premature to celebrate the downturn in global emissions of two of the most important air pollutants (SO₂ and NO_x). However, the temporal pattern in emissions of pollutants displayed in the Environmental Kuznets Curve [120], with increasing efforts to control emissions as economies mature, continues to be consistent with observations as parts of Asia now show substantial reductions in emissions, at least for pollution arising from combustion sources."

your chart does not show a  rate per 100,000 individuals decrease in deaths related to outdoor particulate matter...the world population has increased by 60 percent since 1990...so the total deaths related to outdoor particulate matter  PM 2.5 has increased from 2 million deaths a year globally to around 3.4 million annual deaths a year now

and you are okay with these numbers????????

 

One could argue this is small compared to the 10 Million deaths a year due to cancer globally ..........but 2.5 million deaths a year from cancer are due to smoking...self inflicted cancers...

 

so deaths due to particulates is around 40 percent due to cancers not self inflicted....

You do realize the world is fighting a war on Cancer........it is reasonable to fight a war on deaths due to particulates and that war would involve getting rid of pollution from burning coal and using dirty fuels such as diesel etc....

 

no shock that you ignored particulates in your discussions....

as it is more than obvious you defend the rights of a small majority to pollute the air breathed by everyone

guess low IQ people such as yourself, will babble BS no matter how wrong your argument is......

 

below is your chart ...notice the death rate for particulates is a flat line at 40 to 42 death per 100,000 for the past 30 years...or maybe you need your doctor to explain it to you......

 

[Ron Wagner + 669]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/three-out-four-ev-charging-developers-say-they-cant-get-enough-electricity

Billions of dollars have been allocated to build charging stations every fifty miles on the interstate highway system. Only eight have been built by this administration. This mandates a complete investigation into why such incompetence has been allowed. 

One simple solution would be to set up small natural gas plants at each charging station. The natural gas can be delivered easily and economically by trucks. Natural gas vehicles could also use the same locations. 

A growing problem has arisen by thieves stealing the copper from the thick wires that are used to fuel these EVs and outages for other reasons.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Ron Wagner

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,185]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

our chart does not show a  rate per 100,000 individuals decrease in deaths related to outdoor particulate matter...the world population has increased by 60 percent since 1990...so the total deaths related to outdoor particulate matter  PM 2.5 has increased from 2 million deaths a year globally to around 3.4 million annual deaths a year now

and you are okay with these numbers????????

We need to thin the herd, so yes, I am ok with those numbers.

[TailingsPond + 557]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

"Between 1980 and 2010, population-weighted PM2.5 exposures fell by about half, and the estimated number of excess deaths declined by about a third. The States of California, Virginia, New Jersey, and Georgia had some of the largest estimated reductions in PM2.5−attributable deaths. Relative to a counterfactual population with exposures held constant at 1980 levels, we estimated that people born in 2050 would experience an ∼1−y increase in life expectancy at birth, and that there would be a cumulative gain of 4.4 million life years among adults ≥30y of age.

Conclusions:

Our estimates suggest that declines in PM2.5 exposures between 1980 and 2010 have benefited public health. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP507"

 

Between 1980 and 2010? That is pretty old and those emission reductions were low hanging fruit.  Stop living in the past.

However, I am glad you are reading about all the fossil fuel related deaths. 

Now that we agree that PM2.5 exposure is bad for your health, and reduction of PM2.5 exposure improves health.  Combine that knowledge with that fact the primary source of PM2.5 is from fossil fuels; therefore, logically, fossil fuel usage is bad for your health and further reduction of fossil fuels will continue to improve health metrics.

This is all common sense. 

Edited 3 hours ago by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 557]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

We need to thin the herd, so yes, I am ok with those numbers.

If you are okay with that I suggest you move your personal "herd" closer to a source of pollution. Let your loved ones breath smoke.