Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

[kiwiman127]

I think we should all thank BriPat for starting this thread.
The fact of the matter is we still have issues with pollution. Now whether it's pollution for the sake of our health or Global Warming, these two do intertwine in specific areas.
I'm more concerned with pollution as a threat to human health. Global Warming is a concern, but for me I'm riding the fence. Both the pro and con sides of Global Warming are heavily financed by special interests, so I fear there isn't enough if any, objectivity.
However, there are many studies done by health organization dealing with pollution and these studies conclusions should be a concern to anyone including all parents. To ignore these studies is just poor ignorance and judgement.
As long as this country is addicted to fossil fuels we will see the rise of respiratory disease along with the pollution of our water and vegetation.. It's a fact that respiratory disease is on the rise and it correlates with the rise of fossil fuel usage. This effects all ages and ethnicities. For those who only think with their wallet, this increases the cost of healthcare.

 

[Camp]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

Perhaps you can explain OPA and NPDES. You seem to be an expert on EPA.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

Perhaps you can explain OPA and NPDES. You seem to be an expert on EPA.

But I never worked in the Office of Water.

 

[Camp]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

Perhaps you can explain OPA and NPDES. You seem to be an expert on EPA.

But I never worked in the Office of Water.

OPA is the Oil Pollution Act that gives oil leaks, including off shore leaks and accidents, authority over response efforts.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

Perhaps you can explain OPA and NPDES. You seem to be an expert on EPA.

But I never worked in the Office of Water.

OPA is the Oil Pollution Act that gives oil leaks, including off shore leaks and accidents, authority over response efforts.

I know what it is. I know what NPDES stands for, too (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards). However, having not ever worked with them in depth, I'm not about to venture.

I wasn't a regulator. I was a budget, policy and admin type.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

That's not so. What Republicans want is for EPA to concentrate on pollution, not climate change.

Oh really?

30 GOP senators sponsor bill to stop EPA s water rule TheHill

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

So in other words, the EPA is under-funded.
The new spending bill reduces funding even more.
"The agency gets $8.1 billion, down $60 million from the last fiscal year. The agency's budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion, or 21 percent, since fiscal 2010, according to GOP aides. The cuts mean that EPA will have to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989."
What 8217 s in the spending bill We skim it so you don 8217 t have to - The Washington Post
So, the EPA is getting positive results and the knuckleheads from the GOP and Dem Party including Obama have no problem cutting a successful department.
I hope with the cuts in monies and staff it doesn't hurt the EPA's initial purpose, which is where the EPA has shined.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

That's not so. What Republicans want is for EPA to concentrate on pollution, not climate change.

Oh really?

30 GOP senators sponsor bill to stop EPA s water rule TheHill

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

So in other words, the EPA is under-funded.
The new spending bill reduces funding even more.
"The agency gets $8.1 billion, down $60 million from the last fiscal year. The agency's budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion, or 21 percent, since fiscal 2010, according to GOP aides. The cuts mean that EPA will have to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989."
What 8217 s in the spending bill We skim it so you don 8217 t have to - The Washington Post
So, the EPA is getting positive results and the knuckleheads from the GOP and Dem Party including Obama have no problem cutting a successful department.
I hope with the cuts in monies and staff doesn't hurt the EPA's initial purpose, which is where the EPA has shined.

Well, they are.

The problem is threefold. First, all the across the board cuts to "discretionary domestic spending" to finance Obamacare and other entitlements means they were cut.

Secondly, and I admit this: Congress is punishing EPA by cutting their budget. They are punishing EPA because EPA is fixated on priorities that are not Congress's (global warming) AND because of the horrific management scandals (the guy who stole $900K by claiming he was also working for the CIA fraudulently, contract scandals, etc.

Thirdly, EPA itself is putting the money it gets into the wrong priorities.

 

[Nyvin]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

That's not so. What Republicans want is for EPA to concentrate on pollution, not climate change.

Oh really?

30 GOP senators sponsor bill to stop EPA s water rule TheHill

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

So in other words, the EPA is under-funded.
The new spending bill reduces funding even more.
"The agency gets $8.1 billion, down $60 million from the last fiscal year. The agency's budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion, or 21 percent, since fiscal 2010, according to GOP aides. The cuts mean that EPA will have to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989."
What 8217 s in the spending bill We skim it so you don 8217 t have to - The Washington Post
So, the EPA is getting positive results and the knuckleheads from the GOP and Dem Party including Obama have no problem cutting a successful department.
I hope with the cuts in monies and staff doesn't hurt the EPA's initial purpose, which is where the EPA has shined.

Well, they are.

The problem is threefold. First, all the across the board cuts to "discretionary domestic spending" to finance Obamacare and other entitlements means they were cut.

Secondly, and I admit this: Congress is punishing EPA by cutting their budget. They are punishing EPA because EPA is fixated on priorities that are not Congress's (global warming) AND because of the horrific management scandals (the guy who stole $900K by claiming he was also working for the CIA fraudulently, contract scandals, etc.

Thirdly, EPA itself is putting the money it gets into the wrong priorities.

You can be a climate denier all you want...it doesn't change the fact that the GOP is against the EPA almost every step of the way regardless of what the EPA does toward climate change.

Edit- The Bush administration pressed congress to cut the EPA's budget by 5.6% in 2005, you know...back before Obama was in the White House messing up the EPA's priorities? So much for failed argument #4 of yours...

 

[Camp]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

Perhaps you can explain OPA and NPDES. You seem to be an expert on EPA.

But I never worked in the Office of Water.

OPA is the Oil Pollution Act that gives oil leaks, including off shore leaks and accidents, authority over response efforts.

I know what it is. I know what NPDES stands for, too (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards). However, having not ever worked with them in depth, I'm not about to venture.

I wasn't a regulator. I was a budget, policy and admin type.

OPA , the Oil Pollution Act includes the requirement that when an offshore oil spill occurs a regulation titled ESF #10 kicks in. That is the Oil and Hazardous Response delegated to FEMA with the primary agencies being the EPA, listed first, followed by Homeland Security and Coast Guard.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

That's not so. What Republicans want is for EPA to concentrate on pollution, not climate change.

Oh really?

30 GOP senators sponsor bill to stop EPA s water rule TheHill

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

So in other words, the EPA is under-funded.
The new spending bill reduces funding even more.
"The agency gets $8.1 billion, down $60 million from the last fiscal year. The agency's budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion, or 21 percent, since fiscal 2010, according to GOP aides. The cuts mean that EPA will have to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989."
What 8217 s in the spending bill We skim it so you don 8217 t have to - The Washington Post
So, the EPA is getting positive results and the knuckleheads from the GOP and Dem Party including Obama have no problem cutting a successful department.
I hope with the cuts in monies and staff doesn't hurt the EPA's initial purpose, which is where the EPA has shined.

Well, they are.

The problem is threefold. First, all the across the board cuts to "discretionary domestic spending" to finance Obamacare and other entitlements means they were cut.

Secondly, and I admit this: Congress is punishing EPA by cutting their budget. They are punishing EPA because EPA is fixated on priorities that are not Congress's (global warming) AND because of the horrific management scandals (the guy who stole $900K by claiming he was also working for the CIA fraudulently, contract scandals, etc.

Thirdly, EPA itself is putting the money it gets into the wrong priorities.

You can be a climate denier all you want...it doesn't change the fact that the GOP is against the EPA almost every step of the way regardless of what the EPA does toward climate change.

Edit- The Bush administration pressed congress to cut the EPA's budget by 5.6% in 2005, you know...back before Obama was in the White House messing up the EPA's priorities? So much for failed argument #4 of yours...

I'm not a climate denier. I just don't think it's something that can be affected by more EPA grant money.

And I'm not saying the W Administration didn't reduce EPA's budget. Where did they reduce it and why is the question?

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

Perhaps you can explain OPA and NPDES. You seem to be an expert on EPA.

But I never worked in the Office of Water.

OPA is the Oil Pollution Act that gives oil leaks, including off shore leaks and accidents, authority over response efforts.

I know what it is. I know what NPDES stands for, too (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards). However, having not ever worked with them in depth, I'm not about to venture.

I wasn't a regulator. I was a budget, policy and admin type.

OPA , the Oil Pollution Act includes the requirement that when an offshore oil spill occurs a regulation titled ESF #10 kicks in. That is the Oil and Hazardous Response delegated to FEMA with the primary agencies being the EPA, listed first, followed by Homeland Security and Coast Guard.

If it's delegated to FEMA, EPA is not no. 1.

 

[bripat9643]

Under Bush, every government agency was enlarged, except two. The EPA and the SEC were shrunk. How'd that turn out? Deepwater Horizon and the economic crash.

Plus he created an entirely new and massive cabinet level department. How's that police state working out for ya?

You're trying to blame Bush for Deepwater Horizon? Really? Are you also going to blame him for the collapse of the Rubel?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Under Bush, every government agency was enlarged, except two. The EPA and the SEC were shrunk. How'd that turn out? Deepwater Horizon and the economic crash.

Plus he created an entirely new and massive cabinet level department. How's that police state working out for ya?

You're trying to blame Bush for Deepwater Horizon? Really? Are you also going to blame him for the collapse of the Rubel?

Ruble, idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Gee, a rag from a right wing political blog saying that the former automobile manufacturing capital of the world is now cleaner than it has been in 100 years. Big surprise. Assuming that that claim even has any merit, did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason is because much of the manufacturing sector in Michigan is no longer in Michigan? And yes, the environment there is likely better than it used to be, thanks largely to efforts by the EPA and State environmental officials to identify and mitigate the industrial waste streams that caused the contamination in the first place.

What does it matter who authored the article. Either his facts are correct or they aren't. You seem to be admitting that his facts are correct.

The question here is "how clean is clean enough?" Keep in mind that there were almost no cars or coal fired power plants in 1914. That really isn't clean enough for you turds? Do we need the environment to be cleaner than it was in 1814?

 

[zeke]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

You know that you are celebrating the accomplishments of a bunch of left wing whacko groups. Right? The EPA, The National Wildlife Federation, Tree Huggers United, Save the Whales. All those people you hate that have been fighting to clean up the environment.

And you are celebrating their accomplishments. That's funny as hell. And I don't think you know you did it. LMAO.

 

[bripat9643]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

So it's about awareness then it;s about regulation!

Fucking LOLberals.

All the "awareness" in the world doesn't reduce pollution.

In fact, I read somewhere that recycling actually costs more in time and money than it saves. So much for awareness.

Right...these regulations just come up out of nowhere...there's never any public pressure to improve the environment.

There's been no public pressure since the Clinton Administration. The only pressure comes from leftwing environmental agitators. The general public thinks the environment is clean enough.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Gee, a rag from a right wing political blog saying that the former automobile manufacturing capital of the world is now cleaner than it has been in 100 years. Big surprise. Assuming that that claim even has any merit, did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason is because much of the manufacturing sector in Michigan is no longer in Michigan? And yes, the environment there is likely better than it used to be, thanks largely to efforts by the EPA and State environmental officials to identify and mitigate the industrial waste streams that caused the contamination in the first place.

What does it matter who authored the article. Either his facts are correct or they aren't. You seem to be admitting that his facts are correct.

The question here is "how clean is clean enough?" Keep in mind that there were almost no cars or coal fired power plants in 1914. That really isn't clean enough for you turds? Do we need the environment to be cleaner than it was in 1814?

Let's go with 1514 and you're on the way.

 

[bripat9643]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

You know that you are celebrating the accomplishments of a bunch of left wing whacko groups. Right? The EPA, The National Wildlife Federation, Tree Huggers United, Save the Whales. All those people you hate that have been fighting to clean up the environment.

And you are celebrating their accomplishments. That's funny as hell. And I don't think you know you did it. LMAO.

Yeah, at the cost of $trillions of dollars. The question here is "how clean is clean enough?" When are you industrial terrorists going to be satisfied?

 

[bripat9643]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Gee, a rag from a right wing political blog saying that the former automobile manufacturing capital of the world is now cleaner than it has been in 100 years. Big surprise. Assuming that that claim even has any merit, did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason is because much of the manufacturing sector in Michigan is no longer in Michigan? And yes, the environment there is likely better than it used to be, thanks largely to efforts by the EPA and State environmental officials to identify and mitigate the industrial waste streams that caused the contamination in the first place.

What does it matter who authored the article. Either his facts are correct or they aren't. You seem to be admitting that his facts are correct.

The question here is "how clean is clean enough?" Keep in mind that there were almost no cars or coal fired power plants in 1914. That really isn't clean enough for you turds? Do we need the environment to be cleaner than it was in 1814?

Let's go with 1514 and you're on the way.

ROFL! You just proved you're a moron, don't you know?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Gee, a rag from a right wing political blog saying that the former automobile manufacturing capital of the world is now cleaner than it has been in 100 years. Big surprise. Assuming that that claim even has any merit, did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason is because much of the manufacturing sector in Michigan is no longer in Michigan? And yes, the environment there is likely better than it used to be, thanks largely to efforts by the EPA and State environmental officials to identify and mitigate the industrial waste streams that caused the contamination in the first place.

What does it matter who authored the article. Either his facts are correct or they aren't. You seem to be admitting that his facts are correct.

The question here is "how clean is clean enough?" Keep in mind that there were almost no cars or coal fired power plants in 1914. That really isn't clean enough for you turds? Do we need the environment to be cleaner than it was in 1814?

Let's go with 1514 and you're on the way.

ROFL! You just proved you're a moron, don't you know?

Not at all, that should be the goal.