When in the course of human events certain idiots spew forth drivel about the need to enact cap and tax, it remains for people who actually know something to respond.
The dirty little secret these folks don't want you to know is how much cleaner the air has become since, well, pretty much when Ronald Reagan became president. Let's look at the facts provided by the EPA (not normally one of my go-to sites but for the sake of argument, probably the best place to find the raw data) regarding the difference in air pollutants in parts per million between, say, 1980 and the present.
- Carbon Monoxide, down 79% from 1980-2008 (US EPA figures, see http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/carbon.html ).
- Ground-level ozone, down 25% in the same period. (http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/ozone.html)
- Lead, down 92% in the same period. (http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/lead.html).
- Nitrogen dioxide, down 46% in the same period. (http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/nitrogen.html).
- Particulate matter: PM10 level down 31% from 1990-2008, PM2.5 down 19% from 2000-2008. (http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/pm.html)
- Sulfur dioxide, down 71% from 1980-2008. (http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/sulfur.html)
When the Luddite progressives want to argue from the facts, bring it on. If they are truly concerned about cleaner air, I'd suggest they try asking China to enact cap and tax. Otherwise they can take their plans to make the price of the energy I use skyrocket and stuff them up their ass sideways.
Tar. Feathers. Rails. Rope. Some assembly required.
Thanks, I suspected the air had gotten cleaner in that period of time. I was not aware the results were that good.
Now my biggest unanswered environmental question is, "how does ground level ozone in North America wind up in the higher atmosphere over the south pole?" Particularly given that last time I checked, ozone is heavier than air.
Rich, I think those are two different types of ozone (or, better, they are created in two different places by different processes and don't necessarily mix). Dad always thought that was the case, and he was a chemist/engineer with long experience in air pollution control.
As you say, O3 is heavier than air, so it really shouldn't be circulating up there from below. (I've said the same about chlorofluorocarbons, e.g. Freon, but nobody listens.)8/25: Wow, that part was just wrong. I really should not write when I have a sinus headache. Mea culpa; like Rich, I was thinking CFCs and wrote ozone.I always understood that in order for a chlorofluorocarbon molecule to destroy an ozone molecule, energy was required to be input. The claim was that ultraviolet light photons would impart that energy. But the whole role of ozone in the upper atmosphere is to block ultraviolet light, and that's exactly how it does it -- a photon of ultraviolet light strikes an ozone molecule and breaks the less-stable O3 into an O2 molecule and an atom of O, which we assume finds another free atom of O and combines to make O2.
So it has always sounded to me like the whole "ozone hole in the upper atmosphere is created by HVAC techs dumping air conditioner refrigerant into the troposphere" schtick was bullshit to start with. First, how did the heavier-than-air chlorofluorocarbon get up there in the first place, and second, if the whole point is to absorb and block ultraviolet light, isn't that happening anyway?
I meant to say, how does the heavier than air CFC molecule wind up in the higher atmosphere wind up in the ozone layer over the south pole.
Yep, I always wondered that, too...and why the SOUTH pole, when most CFCs prior to the ozone hole discovery were being used in the northern hemisphere.
(BTW I have edited my previous comment to say "chlorofluorocarbons" wherever it originally said "fluorocarbons". Brain not firing on all 8 today.)
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
(catches breath)
Just as their other statist schemes are truly "for the children."