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

[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?

Not at all, that should be the goal.

Even if it costs $100 trillion?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Awesome thread. Thanks!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Even if it costs $100 trillion?

It could be ten times that, the goal doesn't change. It's not hard to figure out infant, don't shit where you sleep and in what other people drink.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Britdude, this is what was talking about.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

None of that is true. What is true is that the public paid the cost of cleaning up after leaking underground storage tanks owned and operated by the petro-chemical industry. To the tune of 100 billion dollars. A cost the industry itself could easily have afforded but lobbied for John Q. Public to pay, and they got it. But hey, at least someone cleaned up their mess. We all know they would not have done it otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Even if it costs $100 trillion?

It could be ten times that, the goal doesn't change.

Once again, you proved you're a moron. The "cost is no object" theory of environmentalism is one that doesn't give a shit about human beings. Of course, we've already established the fact that you despise the human race.

It's not hard to figure out infant, don't shit where you sleep and in what other people drink.[/QUOTE]

 

[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?

None of that is true. What is true is that the public paid the cost of cleaning up after leaking underground storage tanks owned and operated by the petro-chemical industry. To the tune of 100 billion dollars. A cost the industry itself could easily have afforded but lobbied for John Q. Public to pay, and they got it. But hey, at least someone cleaned up their mess. We all know they would not have done it otherwise.

Only a certified imbecile believes that environment laws don't have a cost. By the "petro-chemical industry" you really mean local gas stations.

Do you have a source for this $100 billion figure? I find it hard to believe that oil companies weren't billed for the clean up costs of their service stations.

 

[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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

None of that is true. What is true is that the public paid the cost of cleaning up after leaking underground storage tanks owned and operated by the petro-chemical industry. To the tune of 100 billion dollars. A cost the industry itself could easily have afforded but lobbied for John Q. Public to pay, and they got it. But hey, at least someone cleaned up their mess. We all know they would not have done it otherwise.

Only a certified imbecile believes that environment laws don't have a cost. By the "petro-chemical industry" you really mean local gas stations.

Do you have a source for this $100 billion figure? I find it hard to believe that oil companies weren't billed for the clean up costs of their service stations.

Until the early 1990s, most local gasoline stations were franchises that paid to sell refinery products and use the names (e.g., Exxon, Chevron, Ashland, etc.). All of that changed with the promulgation of the UST regulations of 1988. The petroleum companies knew these regs were coming, and went to the mom and pop stores and offered to sell their tanks to them for a dollar. Yes, a dollar. But they were allowed to keep the franchises. What this did, in effect, was to transfer ownership of the tanks, and hence, the potential environmental risk, to the mom and pop stores. When the regulations took effect, the mom and pop stores has a choice - they could comply or go out of business. Most went out of business because they could not afford to pay for upgrades and/or remediation costs. So the states ended up taxing the sales of gasoline to pay for the compliance issues. This is why you don't see all those mom and pop stores today. What you do see are the gasoline stations are now owned and operated by the big guys and regional jobbers. They took over the retail market and got the tax payer to foot the bill for their environmental liabilities. This is all a matter of public record. Look it up.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

It wasn't isn't just the UST issue (which certainly is regulated by the EPA). I'm also talking about CERCLA and RCRA. Look it up.

 

[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?

None of that is true. What is true is that the public paid the cost of cleaning up after leaking underground storage tanks owned and operated by the petro-chemical industry. To the tune of 100 billion dollars. A cost the industry itself could easily have afforded but lobbied for John Q. Public to pay, and they got it. But hey, at least someone cleaned up their mess. We all know they would not have done it otherwise.

Only a certified imbecile believes that environment laws don't have a cost. By the "petro-chemical industry" you really mean local gas stations.

Do you have a source for this $100 billion figure? I find it hard to believe that oil companies weren't billed for the clean up costs of their service stations.

Until the early 1990s, most local gasoline stations were franchises that paid to sell refinery products and use the names (e.g., Exxon, Chevron, Ashland, etc.). All of that changed with the promulgation of the UST regulations of 1988. The petroleum companies knew these regs were coming, and went to the mom and pop stores and offered to sell their tanks to them for a dollar. Yes, a dollar. But they were allowed to keep the franchises. What this did, in effect, was to transfer ownership of the tanks, and hence, the potential environmental risk, to the mom and pop stores. When the regulations took effect, the mom and pop stores has a choice - they could comply or go out of business. Most went out of business because they could not afford to pay for upgrades and/or remediation costs. So the states ended up taxing the sales of gasoline to pay for the compliance issues. This is why you don't see all those mom and pop stores today. What you do see are the gasoline stations are now owned and operated by the big guys and regional jobbers. They took over the retail market and got the tax payer to foot the bill for their environmental liabilities. This is all a matter of public record. Look it up.

I'll take your word for it, but you haven't provided any supporting documentation. The consumers of gasoline are the ones who paid for it. One way or another, they were going to pay for it. Who do you think would pay for it? Did you imagine the oil companies could be made to pay for it without sticking it to the consumers?

If these matters were handled through the tort process rather than through regulation, then the major oil companies wouldn't have been off the hook for the contamination they caused. The people affected would have been compensated. However, the consumers would have still had to pay.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

It wasn't isn't just the UST issue (which certainly is regulated by the EPA). I'm also talking about CERCLA and RCRA. Look it up.

It's not important. The EPA does a lot more than regulated chemical spills.

You still haven't answered the question: how clean is clean enough?

 

[AmericanGirl05]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

It wasn't isn't just the UST issue (which certainly is regulated by the EPA). I'm also talking about CERCLA and RCRA. Look it up.

It's not important. The EPA does a lot more than regulated chemical spills.

That is very true.

 

[MaryL]

No, it isn't, were did you get that from? There is a massive plastic trash Island the size of Texas floating in the pacific called "Gilligan's Island". That isn't something to be proud of.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

None of that is true. What is true is that the public paid the cost of cleaning up after leaking underground storage tanks owned and operated by the petro-chemical industry. To the tune of 100 billion dollars. A cost the industry itself could easily have afforded but lobbied for John Q. Public to pay, and they got it. But hey, at least someone cleaned up their mess. We all know they would not have done it otherwise.

Only a certified imbecile believes that environment laws don't have a cost. By the "petro-chemical industry" you really mean local gas stations.

Do you have a source for this $100 billion figure? I find it hard to believe that oil companies weren't billed for the clean up costs of their service stations.

Until the early 1990s, most local gasoline stations were franchises that paid to sell refinery products and use the names (e.g., Exxon, Chevron, Ashland, etc.). All of that changed with the promulgation of the UST regulations of 1988. The petroleum companies knew these regs were coming, and went to the mom and pop stores and offered to sell their tanks to them for a dollar. Yes, a dollar. But they were allowed to keep the franchises. What this did, in effect, was to transfer ownership of the tanks, and hence, the potential environmental risk, to the mom and pop stores. When the regulations took effect, the mom and pop stores has a choice - they could comply or go out of business. Most went out of business because they could not afford to pay for upgrades and/or remediation costs. So the states ended up taxing the sales of gasoline to pay for the compliance issues. This is why you don't see all those mom and pop stores today. What you do see are the gasoline stations are now owned and operated by the big guys and regional jobbers. They took over the retail market and got the tax payer to foot the bill for their environmental liabilities. This is all a matter of public record. Look it up.

I'll take your word for it, but you haven't provided any supporting documentation. The consumers of gasoline are the ones who paid for it. One way or another, they were going to pay for it. Who do you think would pay for it? Did you imagine the oil companies could be made to pay for it without sticking it to the consumers?

If these matters were handled through the tort process rather than through regulation, then the major oil companies wouldn't have been off the hook for the contamination they caused. The people affected would have been compensated. However, the consumers would have still had to pay.

The problem was that most of the USTs that were used prior to 1988 were substandard. They had no leak detection, no cathotic protection, and no spill prevention. There was almost no regulations and so they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it. And it isn't like high technology was needed to address these issues. In many cases, there were more tanks in use than were reported to the states. Many were so old they should have been taken out of service long ago but were still in use. Still others were discovered that no one even knew existed.

The fact is that leaking underground storage tanks was one of the worst, most widespread environmental disasters in history. And it happened because the petro-chemical companies were irresponsible in the use, installation, and decommissioning of these facilities. As a result, tens of thousands of facilities across the country were out of compliance and heavily contaminated. It didn't have to happen, but it did because of greed. They knew there were problems and did nothing until they were made to by Congress and the EPA. Then they passed the buck, put most of the mom and pop shops out of business, took over the retail market, got Congress to make the states pay the costs, and made a proverbial killing. And by the way, there were real life consequences of their actions. Those consequences include cancer clusters in areas where the tanks leaked, resulting in deaths, and deaths due to the products of these leaking tanks entering the basements of nearby residences. In more than one case, a gas water heater ignited the fumes, causing explosions which killed the occupants. And other cases, the product ended up leaking into local sewers, causing environmental emergencies in those communities.

I know all this stuff because I am a geologist who worked as an environmental consultant for Chevron, Ashland, and Marathon for 20 years.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

It wasn't isn't just the UST issue (which certainly is regulated by the EPA). I'm also talking about CERCLA and RCRA. Look it up.

It's not important. The EPA does a lot more than regulated chemical spills.

You still haven't answered the question: how clean is clean enough?

I suggest you read our environmental laws. You can start with RCRA, which delineates when clean is clean enough for specific compounds.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

It wasn't isn't just the UST issue (which certainly is regulated by the EPA). I'm also talking about CERCLA and RCRA. Look it up.

It's not important. The EPA does a lot more than regulated chemical spills.

That is very true.

That is true, though regulation of point source and non-point source pollution is the bulk of what they do.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There has been plenty of public pressure - and from individuals directly affected by industrial waste streams that are illegally handled and spilled onto their properties. And from banks, who don't want to get stuck holding a mortgage on properties they cannot sell because of contamination. There is plenty of public pressure. You just don't see it because you don't have the field experience others (myself included) have.

That isn't "public pressure." That pressure from affected parties. I assume you're referring to this program to clean up leaky gas storage tanks. We're discussing the EPA, not just one environmental issue.

It wasn't isn't just the UST issue (which certainly is regulated by the EPA). I'm also talking about CERCLA and RCRA. Look it up.

It's not important. The EPA does a lot more than regulated chemical spills.

You still haven't answered the question: how clean is clean enough?

I suggest you read our environmental laws. You can start with RCRA, which delineates when clean is clean enough for specific compounds.

The law keeps changing because of numskulls like you. When are environmental regulations going to be tight enough to satisfy all the environmental wackos?

 

[initforme]

How clean is clean enough? The answer is simple. We as humans should be constantly striving to make it even cleaner. Clean air and drinking water are things that people are ENTITLED too and any industry that pollutes them should be taken down and replaced with a cleaner, obviously more efficient and better company. What BP got away with is criminal. Just imagine what the corporations would do if they had no regulations. It would be an awful terrible mess. I have no faith in them whatsoever to do the right thing.