California's clean air rules

I really like your writing style. Well done. However, after reading this I am still unsure exactly what the point was.

I would love to see more specifics that support your argument. A reference to Iron Mountain is useful, but in the time that I have remaining for lunch I am afraid that I will not get a chance to understand the crux of your argument.

I guess if you could pinpoint some examples of the issues and what/where/why they are at fault, then you could build a compelling case about something (what, I am not exactly sure) that is going on in California. I am just not sure what your claim is.

Sorry, this was meant to be a constructive reply and I hope you take it as such.

As I have been investigating, reading, occasionally writing, always critiquing, there seems to be a never-ending series of layers of problems. The effort reminds me of peeling an onion, with repeated layers ad infinitum.

Perhaps you remember Clinton setting aside large tracts of land that was for (U.N.) "biosphere preserves", or farmers being told that they can't modify a field that has a spot that stays a bit marshy (now it's a "wetland").

Environmental preservation is a noble aspect that deserves consideration, but not at the extreme levels that some might choose to dictate. Population reduction seems to be the prize that will allow the equilibrium, if you read between the lines about environmental treaties. The start is to make our lives more primitive by making environmentally conscious devices all that are available, and making them so efficient that the expense drives many away from ownership. Catalytic converters for mowers, MTBE additive for gasoline (thanks for the polluted and ruined groundwater, not to mention the oil companies wanting to be shielded from liability) to slightly change the level of tailpipe emissions, are just a couple of examples that come to mind. Any sane person would find the EPA regulations for gasoline regional blends to be a farce if not for the monumental fines that are possible for slight levels of contaminants.

I would not doubt that the MTBE contamination clean-up of water might make a desalinization project look attractive to coastal communities, if it weren't for the toxic sludge dumping that was done offshore. We have ETHANOL added to our gasoline, instead of MTBE, since we had heard of the problem of groundwater contamination. The addition of ethanol is functional, but lowers mileage, so we must burn more to pollute less. What irony! The MTBE menace was not a surprise, but was definitely downplayed, even though there were other options if you didn't have to consider EPA DICTATORS. They can arbitrarily set a standard, hold a few public meetings to guage citizen reaction, and then rule just whatever in the heck that they wanted in the first place. (I believe if the truth be known that there were orders in place given by the "liars-that-be", with the figureheads dutifully fulfilling the mission. Why else would negligent dunderheads be given promotions and bonuses? Some might consider that just as gov't as usual, as opposed to "treason by design").

The EPA does not move the boundary line by fractions, but by multiples. Notice the level of sulpher in diesel, for instance. Moving the level a small amount at a time might make sense, like reducing the particulate level in diesel exhaust. But then why for the longest time were the motive pollution controls just for consumers (no longer citizens, I guess). Trucks and huge off-road equipment don't have tailpipes a foot off the ground, so their exhaust must have been negligible, right?

By the way, when I blast the EPA, I mean the bureaucrats, mainly, with a bit of sympathy for the line scientists. If you haven't seen the report of the EPA scientists (through their D.C. union) taking a stand to oppose fluoridation of drinking water supplies, search for (rvi.net/~fluoride) and go through the subject menu to EPA scientists. That was a real shocker to me, and I'm sure that the scientist that found we have fluoride OVEREXPOSURE didn't like being pressured to assist raising the standard to 4 mg/liter. The Office of Drinking Water had the chief toxicologist fired for refusing to remain silent about the cancer risk. Who's side are those bastards on, anyway? The toxic waste of aluminum fluoride costs plenty for disposal, unless you can get communities to buy the stuff and inject it into the drinking water.

OK, so what exactly is the point? Why does the supposed benefit of cleaner air rate a news blurb, since the heaviest need is in the Californiac basin, but the rules (and the expense) may be applied to us all? Why do we get pressed about the Kyoto treaty to make us reduce our level of gweenhouse gwasses, but not apply the rules to other "developing nations"? Why did we have to phase out FREON but Mexico and other nations got a mulligan, just because it was considered a harsh expense (but just for them). I thought all this crap was about world survival, not national affordability.

Yet we still have the EPA pushing one way for one poison, and the opposite way for another. Fluoride is only a neurotoxin that has reduced IQ levels in children (8-13 yr.) by 5-10 I.Q. points, but the air pollution has already been reduced by multi-magnitudes compared to just 1970, much less to the early 1900's when almost everyone used coal to heat and cook. Daytime in the big city could be low on sunlight on account of the coal smoke. We have been at the point of greatly diminishing returns for excessively punitive expense. We foot a huge bill and China gets a "pass".

Is the EPA dual approach (in this simplified example) of pushing cleaner "something" while ignoring or promoting a poisoning "other" make sense? If the object is to cost fortunes while reducing the mental level to negate thoughtful protest, then I would admit that this could make sense.

Occam's razor- the simplest answer is probably the best.

I am a Canadian, so I might be seeing this a different way, but the world has gone to shit (in some part, thanks to G.W. Bush). This whole environmental thing will go nowhere while oil companies are still ruling the U. S. and the world. Until the american population gets into sync with the rest of the world, with a non-conservative government, nothing is going to change.

Look at Europe, most of their governments are very left wing compared to the U.S. ( and Canada, though Canadians voted for a consevative gvernment because we don't want to be invaded by the U.S.), sure there taxes are higher, and so are gas prices, but the average quality of living is quite higher. Taxes and buying hybrid vehicle that don't cost lots of money to drive, are worth the extra money to keep the Earth a liveable place to live.

I believe that I forgot the point I was getting at. However, after my "birthday celebrations", I will try and get to the point.

I assume you that you don't agree with anti pollution legislation?