EPA Report: Air is Cleanest since 1970

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Yep. Most recent EPA report on Air Quality concludes aggregate emissions of 6 principle pollutants have declined 48% since the creation of the EPA in 1970.

Link

... Overall, the positive trends show no signs of reversing thus far in Bush’s first term.  By several measures, the air is already better now than at any time under clinton.

Bush can’t take credit for these improvements, which are due to provisions already in place or in the pipeline before he took office.  But he shouldn’t be blamed for making matters worse—as many critics have implied or said outright—because it simply is not so.

The air will continue to improve.  Many new measures are scheduled to take effect in the near future, such as the toughest-ever motor vehicle emissions standards beginning with model year 2004.  Indeed, your next new car or SUV may be as much as 90 percent cleaner than your current one.  As these vehicles penetrate the market over the next two decades, the pollution declines may even accelerate. 

We hear a lot about Bush “rolling back” or even “gutting” our nation’s clean air protections, and we’ll hear a lot more as the 2004 elections draw near.  But we rarely see actual air quality measurements used to back up these claims.  Now you know why.

Keep this recent EPA report in mind the next time you hear some ignorant boob like Al Gore or some other defender of the "environment" start blathering about how close we are to an environmental catastrophe. It just ain't so.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

this must be a mistake, logger. bush is the devil incarnate w.r.t. the environment. you know that. he wants dirty air, dirty water, sick people and all that.

here's one dem spin:

"what with all the factories shutting down due to bush's mismanagement of the economy, they aren't running to pollute anymore".

or this one:

"these improvements you are seeing now are a direct result of clinton's policies, and have nothing to do w/ bush". i especially like this one, because it illustrates a willingness to accept the fact that some policies have an effect that may cross over administrations....

at least al gore didn't hold a speech outside on a beautifully clear, fresh spring day in order to announce that pollution is our nation's biggest problem. :roll:

ct

[War Eagle 96 10]

at least al gore didn't hold a speech outside on a beautifully clear, fresh spring day in order to announce that pollution is our nation's biggest problem. :roll:

ct

But, yesterday he held a press conference on the coldest day in 100 years about how global warming has gotten worse during the GWB admin.

[Donutboy 0]

Yep.  Most recent EPA report on Air Quality concludes aggregate emissions of 6 principle pollutants have declined 48% since the creation of the EPA in 1970. 

Link

... Overall, the positive trends show no signs of reversing thus far in Bush’s first term.  By several measures, the air is already better now than at any time under clinton.

Bush can’t take credit for these improvements, which are due to provisions already in place or in the pipeline before he took office.  But he shouldn’t be blamed for making matters worse—as many critics have implied or said outright—because it simply is not so.

The air will continue to improve.  Many new measures are scheduled to take effect in the near future, such as the toughest-ever motor vehicle emissions standards beginning with model year 2004.  Indeed, your next new car or SUV may be as much as 90 percent cleaner than your current one.  As these vehicles penetrate the market over the next two decades, the pollution declines may even accelerate. 

We hear a lot about Bush “rolling back” or even “gutting” our nation’s clean air protections, and we’ll hear a lot more as the 2004 elections draw near.  But we rarely see actual air quality measurements used to back up these claims.  Now you know why.

Keep this recent EPA report in mind the next time you hear some ignorant boob like Al Gore or some other defender of the "environment" start blathering about how close we are to an environmental catastrophe. It just ain't so.

It usually takes several years for an environmental policy to have a positive impact, so I thank you for this post praising the former administration's sound environmental policies. Even with this good news, there's still problems with the ozone depletion and global warming. It could take decades of sound environmental policies to reverse the damage already done. This isn't a liberal or conservative problem. It's a problem that affects everyone. It remains to be seen what the future holds.

EPA report on effects of global warming

[CarolinaTiger 0]

It usually takes several years for an environmental policy to have a positive impact...

EPA report on effects of global warming

DB:

that link you provided may be the all-time least informative link you've ever posted, and that's saying quite a lot w.r.t. you.

there is not ONE DEFINITIVE statement in the entire thing...lots of 'is expected', 'could', and 'may', but not one single definitive statement. a professor of mine used to say, when one of us would say, "may", he'd chime in w/ "or may not"....

Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks may be permanently altered.

Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.

Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas.

is this a joke?

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

EPA report on effects of global warming

It usually takes several years for an environmental policy to have a positive impact, so I thank you for this post praising the former administration's sound environmental policies.

You didn't bother to read the link I provided. Too bad -- your loss.

Even with this good news, there's still problems with the ozone depletion and global warming.

Science & history aren't on your side with that statement.

It could take decades of sound environmental policies to reverse the damage already done. This isn't a liberal or conservative problem. It's a problem that affects everyone.

Admit it -- reading (& believing) sensationalistic headlines is fun for you, isn't it?

It remains to be seen what the future holds.

On that end note, we can all agree!