A series of B&W photos of Pittsburgh air pollution in the 1940's

[newbury]

We really should have some sort of "training" at the high school level where we put EVERYONE thru a day or two of thick noxious air pollution.

For those of you who have been thru the CS gas chambers you might know what I mean. My first trip thru we had a drill trying to get promoted. We spent a long time before we were allowed to put our masks on. My second trip (late '90's) I only got a wiff.

Also we need some flaming rivers like

the Cuyahoga River to show how we used to let pollution flow.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

The EPA was created by Pres. Nixon on Dec. 2, 1970. Not that long after the 1940's.

Due to the corruption present in many state governments, then and now, without federal involvement there would be very little effective control of pollution. The states would play 'bargain to the bottom' in competition with each other for business and jobs--as they are doing now. Dirtiest state wins when you bargain away clean air and water.

Air pollution control laws, at the federal level, go back as far as 1955:

History | Clean Air Act | US EPA

The early statutes were not very effective, but subsequent enactments eventually strengthened the law until we are where we are today. Prior to legislation, about the only remedy was private/public nuisance laws, but taking on a steel mill or a refinery in court with nuisance laws is a tough thing for an individual, or even a municipality.

In my experience, the industry in this state and this country, while no pushovers, are willing and able to comply with reasonable pollution control laws...but they do want to be treated rationally and fairly. If GM has to comply, then they expect Ford and Chrysler to have to comply to the same extent.

 

[dave1949]

Air pollution control laws, at the federal level, go back as far as 1955:

History | Clean Air Act | US EPA

The early statutes were not very effective, but subsequent enactments eventually strengthened the law until we are where we are today. Prior to legislation, about the only remedy was private/public nuisance laws, but taking on a steel mill or a refinery in court with nuisance laws is a tough thing for an individual, or even a municipality.

In my experience, the industry in this state and this country, while no pushovers, are willing and able to comply with reasonable pollution control laws...but they do want to be treated rationally and fairly. If GM has to comply, then they expect Ford and Chrysler to have to comply to the same extent.

I think that is generally true, they sort of stay within the rules. They also spend a lot of time, money and effort to bend the rules in their favor. When they find a soft target, such as a governor who has no concept of environmentalism except to hate it, and loves their campaign donations, they really go to work to take advantage of that. Given that, it isn't the values of environmentalism that they embrace; it's pain avoidance in the form of fines, legal entanglements and bad publicity that keeps them mostly honest.

Our current governor has muzzled state employees in the EPA-DNR areas, deleted most of the information in the state's web sites dealing with EPA and DNR-type issues, and appointed industry lawyer-lobbyists to head those departments.

To tell a state biologist they cannot speak in public, even after business hours, without the venue being pre-approved, and their speech content must be also pre-approved, is un-American IMO. The political agenda supersedes fact and truth.

Who rewards such behavior by a governor? It is simply a strategy to control information that the public should be allowed to hear, comment upon, and sort out for themselves.

What do you think about that, given your years of experience? How common is that around the country?

 

[MossRoad]

Anyone ever remember driving through Gary, Indiana in the 60's? Holy cow that was bad. Everything, and I mean EVERTYTHING was orange. The steel mill building, electric towers, guard rails, houses, power lines, everything was orange from the pollution. Sometimes you couldn't see the road very well had had to slow down, the smoke was so thick.

 

[newbury]

<snip?
Our current governor has muzzled state employees in the EPA-DNR areas, deleted most of the information in the state's web sites dealing with EPA and DNR-type issues, and appointed industry lawyer-lobbyists to head those departments.

To tell a state biologist they cannot speak in public, even after business hours, without the venue being pre-approved, and their speech content must be also pre-approved, is un-American IMO. The political agenda supersedes fact and truth.

Who rewards such behavior by a governor? It is simply a strategy to control information that the public should be allowed to hear, comment upon, and sort out for themselves.

What do you think about that, given your years of experience? How common is that around the country?

Bush did that with climate scientists and anything against oil production.
The Bush Environmental Record: More than 300 Crimes against Nature

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I think that is generally true, they sort of stay within the rules. They also spend a lot of time, money and effort to bend the rules in their favor. When they find a soft target, such as a governor who has no concept of environmentalism except to hate it, and loves their campaign donations, they really go to work to take advantage of that. Given that, it isn't the values of environmentalism that they embrace; it's pain avoidance in the form of fines, legal entanglements and bad publicity that keeps them mostly honest.

Our current governor has muzzled state employees in the EPA-DNR areas, deleted most of the information in the state's web sites dealing with EPA and DNR-type issues, and appointed industry lawyer-lobbyists to head those departments.

To tell a state biologist they cannot speak in public, even after business hours, without the venue being pre-approved, and their speech content must be also pre-approved, is un-American IMO. The political agenda supersedes fact and truth.

Who rewards such behavior by a governor? It is simply a strategy to control information that the public should be allowed to hear, comment upon, and sort out for themselves.

What do you think about that, given your years of experience? How common is that around the country?

I'm not quite sure what the situation is in Maine, so it's difficult to comment. I will say that industry has been known to fight tooth and nail against certain rules, but that's their right. It is also their right to garner as much political influence as they can, at least during the legislative and rule making phase. I have never experienced (at least knowingly) where industry deliberately bribed local authorities to escape compliance with the law. Environmental laws are for the most part a federal/state effort. EPA writes the rules, and states, under their own programs, implement them. It's possible for a state to refuse to implement the rules or to even be very lax in doing so, but EPA also has primary jurisdiction, and if the state doesn't do the job, EPA will know, and can, and will eventually step in...and the results are generally much harsher than dealing with the state. So I guess my point is that there is little incentive for the state to not enforce the law, so I'm curious as to what's going on in your state. It's not uncommon for states and EPA to sue each other, but EPA really does not want a knock down drag out with a state...Congress may have to settle it. The state does have enough latitude to affect the general over all approach to enforcement such that it can result in them being fairly lenient.

As for state employees and public speaking, most states have a public information division that will exert some control over public statements. If the subject is controversial or politically sensitive, they will often micro manage what is said and what information is given to the press. I have seen the press crucify state employees by twisting their statements and taking them out of context. I have never experienced a problem with censorship, and have made quite a few presentations to colleges and at Environmental Seminars. Press conferences were usually pretty well regimented however, and statements to the press as well.

I am curious as to what is going on in your state; do you have a link or reference?

 

[dave1949]

<snip>
I am curious as to what is going on in your state; do you have a link or reference?

This series of articles, "Lobbyist In the Henhouse" is a good overview. Now, I will tell you the current governor and this newspaper are sworn enemies from two different tribes. But, there has been very little if any rebuttal offered on the content of these reports.
'The Lobbyist in the henhouse' DEP series | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Purposely "missed" state input into dam operations:
Maine legislators try to end missed dam deadlines | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram


DEP calls for weakening of Maine smog regulations | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
Easing of Maine smog rules backed by paper mills | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

 

[dave1949]

Bush did that with climate scientists and anything against oil production.
The Bush Environmental Record: More than 300 Crimes against Nature

Yep, he was known for muzzling too, and giving political appointee hacks editorial censorship over anything published whether they understood the contents or not.

I know politics is a contact sport, but we (the public) paid the salaries, built the labs, bought the equipment and everything else needed by those folks to do their jobs and produce their work output. As long as no military secrets are given away, I think we basically "own" the results. If I own something and someone prevents me from using or accessing it, that is theft--in theory at least.

It really doesn't matter to me what political stripes are worn by people who try to subvert facts and basic truths. It's wrong and corrupt.

I understand to a point 2Lane's comment about the press mutilating people who aren't prepared to handle them. After some point of reasonableness though, it becomes foolish to practice censorship due to fearing the free press. What is in the press can be countered, what isn't known at all due to censorship cannot be acted upon in any way.

 

[houstonscott]

EPA, clean air Act, clean water act, endangered species act, all created by President Nixon. HS

 

[2LaneCruzer]

This series of articles, "Lobbyist In the Henhouse" is a good overview. Now, I will tell you the current governor and this newspaper are sworn enemies from two different tribes. But, there has been very little if any rebuttal offered on the content of these reports.
'The Lobbyist in the henhouse' DEP series | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Purposely "missed" state input into dam operations:
Maine legislators try to end missed dam deadlines | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram


DEP calls for weakening of Maine smog regulations | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
Easing of Maine smog rules backed by paper mills | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Check your PM.