What is amazing is how these things are taken as unquestionable facts after they have been repeated a few times. Some of these items were repeated in tonight’s “politically incorrect” with Bill Maher and no one questioned them.
(ahem)
Los Angeles snatched the crown for dirtiest air from Houston two weeks ago.
I don’t recall anyone jumping to badmouth Gray Davis.
Damn Gray Davis.
If all you’ve got to support someone is a list of atrocities “The Other Guy” committed, you’ve got a crappy reason to support. (No, I’m not pointing fingers at anyone here).
What I mean is this: Any other candidate, be it Gore, Nader, Brown, or Weird Al Yankovic (who I’d vote for, by the way), can have a list remarkably similar to the one in the OP brought up. Which is why I rarely pay much heed when someone says, “Gore’s better 'cuz Bush has done this, and this, and this, and this, too… and he tries to kill children, t’boot!” (The last being pure rubbish, of course).
astorian said:
Can’t stand what? Discussing things using logic?
Last I checked, Gore is neither the governor of Tennessee nor Arkansas, so your point (presuming there was one) is utterly invalid.
Doug Bowe said:
Ahem. From an AP article of two days ago:
“Houston recorded its ninth consecutive day with an ozone reading above the national health standard Wednesday, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday, giving Houston 37 high-ozone days for the year, compared with 34 for Los Angeles.”
You were saying?
Well “dirty air” doesn’t just relate to ozone David B. Perhaps lead, Co[sub]2[/sub] level, various particles of various stuff count too. Given that there isn’t an agreed “dirtiness index” with appropriate weights given to different components of air pollution, there won’t necessarily be agreement on which city is dirtiest.
picmr
Well, he was laughing so hard, it was hard to tell what the point was. But Clinton was <i>governor</i> of Arkansas for 12 years.
picmr said:
No doubt. However, ozone (smog) is often used as a standard because it is the one receiving the most attention currently. CO2 is not a component of “dirtiness” and is really global, not local. Lead is local but is not nearly the problem is used to be in this country. Particulates are indeed a component, but the new standards for small particulates (as opposed to the larger ones, which have been controlled for years) have been held up by the courts, so it’s hard to say much about it.
But without a doubt, we can say that Houston is the smoggiest.
RM Mentock said:
Yes, I realize that, but, again, last I checked, Bush isn’t running against Clinton. (Though he might like to.)
If I need lessons in “logic,” I know better than to look to David B.
EVERY state in the union ranks low in something. Politics being what it is, I can’t blame the Democrats for seizing on Texas’ inevitable problems and trying to makie hay of them. If I were in Al Gore’s shoes, I’d undoubtedly do the same thing. After all, Texas would NEVER vote for him in the first place. So, it’s smart politics to write off the state of Texas, and use it for target practice.
The problem is, every problem Texas faces has been around a loooong time. Which makes me wonder… if Texas’ problems disqualify Texas politicians from serving in high office…
-
What the hell was Lloyd Bentsen doing on the Democratic ticket in 1988, or in the Clinton Cabinet?
-
What was LBJ doing on the Democratic ticket in 1960? (Oh sure, his record as President shows him as a progressive, but nothing up to that point had.)
-
What was Ann Richards doing giving the Democrats’ keynote address?
The Democrats, apparently, didn’t notice Texas’ deficiencies until George W. became a Presidential contender.
astorian said:
Still smarting from that last lesson you bailed out of, eh? Poor baby.
What makes you “think” this e-mail had anything to do with Al Gore doing anything?
I can just see him sitting there thinking, “Gosh, how can I strike at Bush? Oh, I know, I can start an e-mail going around that attacks him! Yeah, what a great idea!”
As you’ve done before, you are arguing against something that I don’t think anybody here has said. Yes, we’ve discussed whether various statements in the e-mail are true or false, but as you did in the discussion where you ran away a few days ago, you’re arguing against phantoms here. I can only presume that’s because you can’t debate while staying in reality – you know, like answering what Tennessee or Arkansas have to do with anything in this election.
Incidentally – every problem has been around a looong time? Really? So he couldn’t do anything about any of them, eh? Well, then I guess we shouldn’t look to him to solve any problems in America – after all, they have been around a looong time.
And, as just one point to prove you wrong (as usual) :
Houston was not the smoggiest city in the U.S. when he took over. He actively opposed pollution control measures that would have helped, as has already been discussed here.
There are other points that similarly prove you wrong, but I’m sure you’ll have your hands full avoiding this one, and I don’t want to overtax your abilities.
Yet another reason to vote for W. Here in Ohio, the feds forced us to submit to these moronic tests. But they’re only for NEWER cars – the older cars with black smoke billowing out their tail pipes are exempt. After 5 or so years of these emissions tests, MARTA (the agency responsible for doing the tests) has been under investigation because a few enterprising drivers have discovered that if their car fails at one testing location they can drive to another and pass. In other words, the testing equipment is faulty. Besides that, there has been NO measurable increase in the quality of air since the tail pipe testing began. None. Zilch. Oh yeah, and the cost of having the test done has tripled.
A far more cost and environmentally effective solution, IMNSHO, is to pass legislation requiring automobile engineers to devise more energy efficient and environmentally friendly cars. In ten years, as more people replace their old clunkers with the newer, enviro-friendly cars, the air will have been improved without the population having to submit to long lines, senseless tests, and more bureaucratic paperwork.
I was thinking of the August 24 numbers.
HOUSTON (AP) - A series of sweltering days and soaring ozone levels pushed Houston ahead of Los Angeles for the title of the nation’s smoggiest city, just as southern California’s smog season is likely to wind down.
Houston recorded its ninth consecutive day with an ozone reading above the national health standard Wednesday, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday, giving Houston 37 high-ozone days for the year, compared with 34 for Los Angeles.
A potent high pressure ridge over Texas is to blame.
Houston hit 107 degrees on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, and on Monday, the city hit a record-high 109.
Los Angeles regained the dubious title on Aug. 24, but days of blistering temperatures and windless, cloudless days nudged Houston ahead again.
However, David B also writes:
RM Mentock said:
quote:
Well, he was laughing so hard, it was hard to tell what the point was. But Clinton was governor of Arkansas for 12 years.
Yes, I realize that, but, again, last I checked, Bush isn’t running against Clinton. (Though he might like to.)
–You really think Bush might like to run against Clinton?
I know this board is peopled by folks who, for the most part, admire logic. I don’t believe this logic is shared by the majority of the voting public.
BTW, back to the OP…the children’s health insurance problem is being addressed by a massive state campaign to register all kids in sponsored insurance programs.
David…
You really haven’t got a clue, have you? The reasons for increased pollution in Texas have nothing to do with George W. Bush’s actions as governor, just as the great DECREASES in pollution in Pennsylvania over the past 30 years had nothing to do with anything Milton SHapp or RObert Casey did.
In Texas AND in Pennsylvania, pollution has risen or falling according to demographics and (to use Slick Willie’s phrase) THE ECONOMY, STUPID!
When I moved to Texas in 1986, the Texas economy was in the doldrums. Oil prices had fallen so low that the Texas oil industry was virtually forced to shut down. For the first time in decades, the Texas population levelled off, and even declined in many regions. Not surprisingly, pollution began to fall.
It was the same in Pennsylvania- pollution didn’t drop because of anything the EPA or state regulators did. It dropped because the smokestack industries that caused most of the pollution (and provided most people’s livelihoods) were dying, and the people who used to work in those industries were leaving the state. As a result, the air in Pennsylvania is a lot cleaner… meaning it would be a great place to live, if there were any jobs.
Well, today, the economy in Texas is booming. The population is soaring. That means lots more people and lots more cars since George W. took office. Moreover, the rising price of oil has made it profitable to drill for oil here in Texas again. Wells and refineries that shut down in the 80s are working around the clock again.
THAT is why pollution is on the rise. More people and more oil drilling will do that.
They are not drilling more oil, they are shipping more oil from OPEC countries.
David B…
Just to clarify… “ozone” is “smog”? I thought ozone was just a collection of three ozygen atoms, and smog was usually referring to carbon monoxide. Is there another use of “ozone” to just make things easier? (After all, if ozone were bad for the atmosphere, why are people so hung up about protecting it? :D) Like I said, not an attack, just insanely curious about this now.
PunditLisa said:
That’s not the feds, that’s your local government. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required vehicle emissions tests, but there are different types that the states can choose from. And, yes, some types are only for newer cars (not brand new, but within the past 5-15 years or so) because the older cars either cannot be modified successfully or it would be too expensive to do so. Besides, they are being replaced through turnover on the roads.
I can’t speak to what MARTA may or may not be doing, but as far as an increase in air quality, the problem is that auto emissions are just one piece of the puzzle – you still have to deal with point and area source emissions as well (large industrial sources and small sources like dry cleaners and gas stations). Also, I’m willing to bet that you’re wrong – I bet there has been an increase in air quality as far as ozone goes.
Great idea! Which is why they’ve already done it! 
They don’t do one thing and then wait to see what happens. There are numerous different programs going on. Some depend on the state or local authorities, while others are national.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly said:
No, carbon monoxide is just a collection of a carbon and an oxygen atom.
Seriously, ozone is the main component in smog, and is the one that burns your lungs when you inhale on a really smoggy day. So if the ozone is high, it’s a smoggy day, and vice versa.
Ground-level ozone is bad. Ozone in, well, the ozone layer, is good. Near the ground, ozone hurts people, animals, plants, rubber products, etc. Up high, it protects us from UV rays.
astorian said:
ROFL! Yeah, I know so little about air pollution. And why should I know anything about it? It’s just my job. ROFL!
As usual for you, wrong. I’ve already explained why, in fact, increased pollution in Texas did have a lot to do with him. Were you unable to understand what I wrote?
While I’m not as familiar with Pennsylvania, I rather doubt this. Each state with nonattainment areas had to implement rules. If a governor decided not to implement those rules, the pollution levels would not decrease as much (some rules are national, and so pollution levels would decrease a small amount without state action, but not nearly as much).
Nice quote, but it’s wrong. Sure, the economy needs to be accounted for in all pollution control programs (for example, when each state does their plans on how they plan to reduce ground-level ozone, they have to take into account estimated economic growth patterns by industry). But there is a world of difference between an uncontrolled oil refinery increasing its production and one that is controlled to remove 99% of its emissions. Similarly, there is a world of difference between a bunch of cars that are totally uncontrolled and unmonitored and cars that are both controlled and monitored for their emissions.
As I’ve explained, you’re just plain wrong.
Even presuming this is true, it still doesn’t mean that is the sole cause for a lack of smog decrease. As I’ve already explained (not that you’ll pay attention, if history is any guide), even with increased production and cars, programs should exist to take this into account. If they don’t, it is the governor who is to blame (unless the governor tried to get something through and failed because of the state House & Senate – which is not the case here, but could be in other states). The fact is that in Texas, under the leadership of George W. Bush, they did not implement methods to reduce pollution when and how they should have. And now the citizens are paying for it with their health.
Doug Bowe said:
Yes, actually, I do. Because then he could use all his pro-morality lines that he can’t really use against Gore (though he occasionally tries).
Houstonian Democrat checking in.
Other reasons we have smog in Houston (as I see it):
-
Our bus system is basically useless. There is no reasonable public transport, and any types of plans for improving this have been scuttled along the way. Recently, a light rail system was approved by the city government and Lee Brown (mayor, Democrat). The funding was delayed by Tom DeLay (House Majority Whip, Republican, West Houston, pun intended).
-
To the east and to the south we have numerous oil refineries, which have had their emission standards grandfathered in. Newer plants have tighter regulations, but all the Baytown/Beaumont/Texas City ones are older than the regulations, and thus are allowed to go about their business.
-
The Texas Love of the Car extends to Love of the Pickup and Love of the SUV. We have many gas-guzzling Chevy Suburbans, Ford Expeditions, Ford Explorers, Ford F350 Duelie pickups, and now the Ford Excursion Land Behemoth. This is coupled with some of the cheapest gas in the country (I bought regular unleaded today for $1.33/gallon). Coupled with no public transportation and huge traffic problems, I’m sure this contributes lots and lots more pollution per capita than in most other parts of the country.
It has gotten so bad that I have had some reactive airway disease for the first time in my life. It is making the already unbearable Houston summer truly miserable and dangerous. The pulmonologists I know are reporting spiralling asthma rates, and many schools are cancelling outdoor recess times in favor of indoor breaks. I live less than 10 miles from downtown, and many days this summer I have barely been able to make out the skyline on the way into work.
Thankfully we had a little system move through the area yesterday, and gave us a little bit of rain and cooled it down from 100-110F to 90-95F.
More info on Bush’s actions with the vehicle emissions testing (I found the article I had been using from memory).
The very first legislation that Bush signed as governor of Texas was a bill that put emissions testing on hold.
In fact, in early 1995, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and a few other cities in Texas had the beginnings of such testing programs in place. The full program was ready to go. Contracts with those who would do the testing were already signed and those contractors had already hired employees to do the work. Inspection stations were already set up.
Bush killed the program.
But he wasn’t done punishing the environment. Tejas Testing Technology, the contractor, sued the state for reneging on its contract. They won a $140 million settlement. Where did Bush get the money to pay? $130 million of it came from the state’s environmental programs! They took money to clean the air and the land and paid it out to somebody who should have been helping clean the air, but was stopped by Bush. He punished the environment twice.