9 ms·
EPA photos show what US looked like before pollution regulation
- merpnderp 9y agoBut who regulates the regulators? Too bad the federal government is mostly protected from lawsuits. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-high-toxic-metal-levels-in-animas-river-after-mine-spill/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-high-toxic-metal-levels-in-...
- tomohawk 9y agoOr MTBE http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol28_2/mcgarity.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol28_2/mcgarit...
- thatfrenchguy 9y agoEh, after the Trump administration rolls back environmental protection, it will be just another of the many things that makes the US a third world country, like no universal health care, old people working, and people taking almost no vacation.
- whathaschanged 9y agoAnd yet all the third world people flock here by the millions.
- craftyguy 9y agoDon't worry, it takes time for outsider peoples' perception of a place to change. Right now it's still largely an idealized "great country, with opportunities for all" to them.
- katastic 9y agoOr, perhaps, the insiders are the ones with the skewed perceptions since the majority of all of our rights are still intact. I mean, do you guys ever actually follow the end result of your logic? If the USA was as tyrannical as you think, you'd have to be completely insane to stay. Why do you have a death wish? GET OUT! RUN! They're coming for you! Before they read your e-mails and put your family in jail! Oh wait, that's insane. If the USA was as bad as you guys here think, then you wouldn't be so unabashedly criticizing the state. You'd be in jail, or terrified to speak up. Take a trip to China and see how far criticism of the state gets you. And further, are you REALLY suggesting that EVERY immigrant to the USA is too stupid or too uninformed to understand the state of our government? Has nobody here ever talked to someone who lived under a real tyrannical state? Or even... God forbid... googled for a video of an interview with one? Don't worry though. I'm sure this comment will be downvoted into oblivion to protect people's absurd notion that they're under constant threat. It's okay to believe the sky is falling, but it's not okay to suggest people's wild speculation and phobia might be just that... an irrational phobia. In four years, if Trump is voted out of the office, people will entirely forget all their panic and doom-and-gloom and move on to the next moral outrage. They won't sit there and think "Hmm, maybe I was wrong." They'll just move on to the next threat. They're addicted to fear.
- alsetmusic 9y ago> If the USA was as tyrannical as you think, you'd have to be completely insane to stay. I wanted to leave the US during the Bush administration. It’s not easy to do. I would have to gain work in a foreign land in which I possessed valued trade skills, adapt to cultural changes, and build a new network in place of existing ties both socially and professionally. I might have give up my pets, acquire new furniture and amenities, and restart my career from a lower tier. I might have to consider regions with harsher climates than I would prefer. I might not be able to relocate with my spouse if she doesn’t want to, or can’t, do the same. In addition to all of this, there are actually only a handful of countries that would appeal to me (in terms of government and rights afforded to the people). I certainly wouldn't endure all of the above for a system that I found equally corrupt or with fewer protections for its citizens. > Don't worry though. I'm sure this comment will be downvoted into oblivion to protect people's absurd notion that they're under constant threat. Condescension does not bolster your arguments.
- noja 9y agoand everyone else is leaving or what?
- evolve2k 9y agoAnd every other rich first world nation.
- refurb 9y agoNuh uh. About 13% of the world's adults -- or about 630 million people -- say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. -- the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants. The U.K. is a distant second at ~40M.[1] [1]http://news.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dre...
- rahkiin 9y agoThat is an article from 2013. Would anything have changed since, say, 20th of january 2017?
- refurb 9y agoMaybe the number got bigger? We don't have data so who knows?
- orf 9y agoAwesome, the country that built itself on the idea of being open to all the masses no matter their origin, attracts the masses. Who would have thought.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoIt doesn't even though. 78% of people who want to move, want to move somewhere other than the USA.
- adventured 9y agoThe US is a mere 4.x% of the world's population. The fact that 22% of those people want to move to the US, is extraordinary.
- Retric 9y agoOn net more people have moved from US to Mexico than Mexico to US over the last decade. So, YMMV.
- KGIII 9y agoThat seems off. Do you have a citation? Is that counting only lawful immigration and how many of those where undocumented workers moving back and how many are counted that were legally forced to return to their country? It's actually not easy to get permanent resident visas in Mexico, which makes me think there is something amiss. They also really, really don't like immigration violations in Mexico. I'd be very interested in seeing the sources for this statistic.
- Clubber 9y agoIt's true. It's a result of the 2008 crash. Here's an article from 2009-2014. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-... Apparently it's still happening: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-18/more-mexicans-are-crossing-border-leave-us-here-s-one-family-s-story https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-18/more-mexicans-are-cro...
- KGIII 9y agoI don't doubt that it is true, I doubt that it is telling the whole story. Your links seem to indicate that I am right to be reserved in judgement. Undocumented workers going home or being forced to go home really isn't indicative of any great trend. When American citizens are moving to Mexico at a greater rate than those coming here, that'd be significant.
- Clubber 9y agoHere's an article on legal immigration from 2013: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/americas/for-migrants-new-land-of-opportunity-is-mexico.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/americas/for-migrant... ...leading to a historic milestone: more Americans have been added to the population of Mexico over the past few years than Mexicans have been added to the population of the United States, according to government data in both nations. The numbers in the article don't line up, or it isn't clear. Americans now make up more than three-quarters of Mexico’s roughly one million documented foreigners Indicates ~750K, then goes on to state the number of Americans legally living and working in Mexico grew to more than 70,000 in 2012
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoPerhaps rather than complaining about $PRESIDENT, you can engage your lawmaker to get things you care about passed into law?
- Feniks 9y agoAh yes lets blame Trump! He was elected you know. I think it goes deeper than that. America never really embraced the dream of a utopian socialist welfare state. The government is weak, constantly being influenced by moneyed interests and chronically underfunded.
- DougWebb 9y agoAh yes lets blame Trump! He was elected you know. Mistakes happen. The mature thing to do is acknowledge them and work to repair the damage. No one needs to completely reverse everything they believe in to do that.
- at-fates-hands 9y agoI know a LOT of people who felt the same way after living under eight years of Obama. To them, they feel like they have corrected the mistake of the last president.
- michaelmrose 9y agoThese people are by and large the enemy and not because of a single election. Their aims are inimical to the interests of me and mine. I no longer regard them as any different than the residents of say Iran, China, or Russia. Like the russians and Iranians as human beings our interests may align and we may work towards the same ends but we are not now be fellow Americans in any meaningful sense.
- jacquesm 9y agoMakes you wonder how many people that voted for him now regret that.
- refurb 9y agoThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Based on that number, I'd say not that many regret it at all.
- gtcode 9y agoThis might be a grammatical error, but the USA is not currently a third world country by any stretch of the imagination.
- bobwaycott 9y agothatfrenchguy didn’t say it is. He said it will be, using makes to indicate the future. There’s no grammatical error here, just a grammatical misunderstanding.
- mirimir 9y agoIt's heading that way :( And OK, maybe "third world country" isn't really the best term. But what it's heading toward looks a lot like mexico, for example, with a small ultra-wealthy elite, and dysfunctionality for the rest.
- MichaelGG 9y agoFor it to head that way, in my experience, you need people to start being incompetent and not caring at all levels of society. A slant towards stupid bureaucracy and paperwork will help too. The US is so, so, incredibly far from remotely getting to that level.
- katastic 9y agoYep. ONE wrong president and the entire system comes crashing down. We'll all be dead before we can elect another guy. If the world is over, why are you still showing up to work?
- lghh 9y agoNobody suggested that we'd all be dead or that the world would be over. In fact, talking about the decline of a country probably means that they expect people to be alive in that country to experience it.
- thatfrenchguy 9y agoPeople still show up at work in developing countries.
- gozur88 9y agoExactly what environmental protection is Trump rolling back?
- RandVal30142 9y agoRestrictions on coal fired power plants is the first that comes to mind: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-epa-to-ease-emissions-restrictions/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-epa-to-ease-emissions-re... Would you like more? edit: No? One example was enough? But I had so much more. :(
- adventured 9y agoI'd like a lot more examples. I'd also like a concise description that indicates how the changes will roll the US back to the intense pollution problems that existed 30+ years ago. The example you reference is modifying rules put in place just a few years ago, so at best it's an obviously mediocre example.
- RandVal30142 9y ago>I'd also like a concise description that indicates how the changes will roll the US back to the intense pollution problems that existed 30+ years ago. Why would I alter my comment to be in tune with what you want when I was responding to this: >Exactly what environmental protection is Trump rolling back?
- adventured 9y agoYou said you had a lot more examples to provide, you pretended that nobody wanted them. I do. So let's have all those examples. I asked for a concise description, I didn't ask you to modify your comment. Surely the environmental protection roll-backs will cause pollution problems (even if it's not of the scale that existed 30+ years ago). If it's too much to ask that you explain how your examples will cause meaningful environmental damage, and you don't want to provide such an elaboration, I understand.
- refurb 9y agoThis does very little to contribute to the discussion.
- at-fates-hands 9y agoAnd in another few years, you can elect another Democrat and roll those back to where they were before he was elected and reverse this trend of your so-called nosedive into third world territory. Keep in mind both parties have culpability if you feel like this has been going on before he got into office. One man, even in two terms, can't put this country on a path to where it would be considered a "third world country". It's kind the cool thing about our country.
- microcolonel 9y agoI think you don't realize the difference between the core mission of the EPA, and their explosive growth and new found excess. The EPA (along with the ACE) regularly does ridiculous nonsense like classifying ruts in newly tilled farmland as "wetland" and restricting land use on that basis. Their policies on endangered species encourage land owners to kill and dispose of endangered species so that they are not seen on their land(shoot, shovel, and shut up); because if they do find out, you lose access to your land without compensation. There is a lot in the current EPA mission which could be cut with no negative impact on wildlife, the quality of waterways, that of air, or that of soil. And no, the U.S. is not a third world country in any of those ways. The U.S. is an excellent and successful country, it is the country I want to live in, especially as a dual-citizen with Canada.
- Clubber 9y agoJust being informative, but the during the Cold War (after WWII), the US and whomever were our allies were "first world," the USSR and her allies were the "second world," and anyone who wasn't allied with either was "third world." http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.... The spheres of influence don't really apply anymore, but that's the source of the term.
- samfriedman 9y agoInteresting etymology, but the term has definitely shifted in meaning from the original cold-war context. "Third world" is pretty much a synonym for "underdeveloped" these days.
- Clubber 9y agoYes, it's like hearing a malapropism: "statues of limitations," or "all intended purposes." I just sigh in my head and move on.
- norikki 9y agoWe just export all this pollution to China. Instead of a good unionized manufacturing job with a pension paying $25/hr, the average American now scrapes by makes minimum wage working odd hours at a Starbucks with no benefits. We need massive tariffs on dirty Chinese imports so clean Made in America products can compete. Otherwise we're just subsidizing the destruction of the environment in third world countries and making income inequality in the US worse by making working class Americans poorer.
- jszymborski 9y agoI agree with your point overall, but I can't help but point out that Starbucks offers its employees some decent benefits https://www.glassdoor.ca/Benefits/Starbucks-US-Benefits-EI_IE2202.0,9_IL.10,12_IN1.htm?countryRedirect=true https://www.glassdoor.ca/Benefits/Starbucks-US-Benefits-EI_I...
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoFactory people were once the heart of the labor movement. Now people on the city just can’t believe how ignorant folks in the country would vote for someone they hate so much.
- mjevans 9y agoAs one of those living 'in a city' my disbelief stems from: * Someone that votes against their own interests, seemingly because they're willing to believe sound bites instead of hard facts. (Voting based on emotion rather than logic.) * That we refuse to reform political funding. * That corporations can have more rights/power than individuals. * That the only real problems the working class has with 'Obamacare' is that they don't understand it and hate the name. Though I imagine if they were offered a healthcare plan where they could see (nearly) any doctor in the area, not have to shop for healthcare, keep their healthcare from job to job, and didn't have to worry about medical bills showing up months later... Yeah, I think they'd like the /features/ of a single payer system. * That we aren't willing to have a real talk about tax reform (based on returning to a tax structure more like in the 1950s where the lower 90th percentile paid much less, and those earning the most paid /far/ more (in line with how many workers worth of income they were hoarding)).
- depressedpanda 9y agoIs it wrong of me to find most of those pictures beautiful, in a post-apocalyptic way?
- lghh 9y agoI agree, they are cool to look at but not something I want to live in or through in any way.
- kibwen 9y agoPittsburgher here. My favorite building in the world is the Cathedral of Learning, a breathtaking 42-story Gothic Revival building at the heart of the University of Pittsburgh. It stood through Pittsburgh's industrial zenith, back when the air was so choked with soot that the streetlights burned all day and housewives swept the settled ash from their front porches every evening. You can imagine how that atmosphere took its toll on the building itself, staining the white limestone in great streaks of black and brown. A few years back they finally cleaned it; had to, apparently, as the clinging soot was eating away at the stone itself. It doubtlessly looks far prettier now, but I'm saddened at such a visible loss of the warning that my city's history represents, especially since humans seem to be so eager to repeat the past.
- selimthegrim 9y agoA more perfect CounterStrike map was never conceptualized (I've been there as a high school student). I particularly enjoyed the themed country rooms.
- Bluestrike2 9y agoFellow Pittsburgher. The evidence is all around the city. Odd as it may seem, the soot-covered buildings are actually kind of beautiful in their own way. It marks the passage of time and the city's own evolution, which wasn't exactly a sure thing when the steel mills first started to close. But it has to be cleaned eventually lest we eventually lose the building facades instead. A few years back, I was walking past a church downtown that was in the middle of being cleaned. The difference between the side that had been pressure-washed, and what remained to be done, was striking. Far more than just seeing the finished product. You look at something like that, realize that people lived and breathed it in daily for years, and you're almost surprised that anyone survived long enough to clean up the city's air in the first place.
- tomkinstinch 9y agoThe Cathedral of Learning is such a beautiful building. I wonder though: did they leave any dirty patches as a small reminder? When they cleaned the ceiling of the great hall of Grand Central Terminal of the tobacco stains and train soot, a small patch was left dirty to show how filthy it was before the restoration [1]. As a kid, seeing that patch was a powerful argument to never smoke tobacco. 1. http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/grand-central-ceiling-dark-patch http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/grand-central-ceiling-dar...
- rrggrr 9y agoRumors of EPA decline are greatly exaggerated. Tier IV emissions standards are here to stay. Fuel economy rules are here to stay. Airborne dust standards haven't been relaxed. Criminal offenses for illegal dumping are still intact. The United States isn't returning the 1970's and claims to the contrary are political propaganda.
- Judgmentality 9y agoHow can you say definitively that things won't change? I'm genuinely asking - I don't know the specifics of what the head of the EPA can and cannot do to change existing laws (nor do I know all the specifics of which laws the president can change).
- rrggrr 9y agoThere's already been change and there will be more. Climate change regulations in particular have been rolled back. The real questions are: (a) will Pruitt roll back regulations that do more social harm (think decent paying jobs and investment) than good (think public health); and (b) does a four year rollback before a likely change in Presidents even matter?
- mmanfrin 9y agoclaims to the contrary are political propaganda ... despite the party in power in all three branches actively trying to defang and rollback EPA regulations?
- rrggrr 9y agoYou're buying into a false narrative. There are many thousands of regulations. They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary. And, some that do make sense and that are necessary may get rolled back... for 4 years until the next administration comes in.
- wavefunction 9y agoWhat about when the Trump administration hussles to de-National Monumentize public lands and start the brutal extraction they're looking to do on say Escalante or Bear Ears? You can't roll environmental damage back, necessarily.
- wnevets 9y agoregulations are bad for business, make america great again! /s
- icebraining 9y agoIt was also a source of humor, like by mathematician and satirist Tom Lehrer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_-KNNl-no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_-KNNl-no
- mirimir 9y ago> The EPA was founded in 1970 ... Under the Nixon administration :) Also, he was close to supporting national minimum income, as a reform of the welfare system. In many ways, Nixon was more liberal than any President since. But he was a paranoid drunkard, and that was his downfall.
- wavefunction 9y agoBasic income schemes have been supported by Hayek, Friedman and Keynes. That's not a marker of liberality imo. He hated black folks and hippies enough to start the War on Drugs which has absolutely destroyed black communities among others.
- mirimir 9y agoSure, but what other President has favored basic income schemes? And sure, Nixon hated blacks and hippies. And Mexicans. And the War on Drugs has indeed been a disaster. But, I gotta ask, what President since has backed off substantially on the War on Drugs? Not Carter, as I recall. Or Reagan or Bush Sr. Or even Clinton. And for sure, not Bush Jr. Maybe Obama, to the extent of relaxing federal enforcement re marijuana in states that had legalized.
- asveikau 9y ago> Sure, but what other President has favored basic income schemes? I thought FDR came close. I was trying to find evidence of this but most google searches along these lines yield something called the Roosevelt Institute advocating UBI quite recently. I thought I did see a video of him advocating it in a speech. Regarding the broader topic of Nixon and policies that are now considered left wing, ignoring for a moment that the country has shifted very far economically rightwards starting around the Reagan years, regarding things like the EPA, the way I always heard it from people of age in the Nixon years was that he was rather forced into some of these things by the way the will of the public was shifting.
- mirimir 9y ago
- fencepost 9y agoSomebody had best back those up before they disappear down the memory hole.
- ourmandave 9y agoIf you want a good EPA history, there's an interview with William Ruckelhaus (former EPA admin) on NPRs OnTheMedia (from 03/2017) http://www.wnyc.org/story/how-environment-got-political/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/how-environment-got-political/ With the help of Richard Andrews, professor emeritus of environmental policy at UNC Chapel Hill, and William Ruckelshaus, EPA administrator under presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Brooke considers the tumultuous history of the EPA, its evolving relationship with the public, and its uncertain future.
- ourmandave 9y agoAw, why can't we go back to the Good Old Days (tm) when Cleveland's Cuyahoga river was literally on fire? https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63 https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63 Bring the family on down and roast some marshmallows and shit.
- DINKDINK 9y agoWhere's the data for what the US looks like after EPA? where's the control group? This is emotional, not rational.
- thearn4 9y agoI grew up right where the photo for Cleveland was taken. It was still dirty in the early 80s, but so much better than even 10 years before that. I can't imagine rolling back to the 60s. Then again, the steel industry is probably never coming back to Cleveland.
- KGIII 9y agoYup. I was brought into this world almost sixty years ago and spent my youth moving around as the military commanded my father to do. As such, I got to see the horrible way we treated the planet and can remember the differences in both results and behavior. It was not even remotely uncommon to just throw your trash out the car window. I don't mean a cigarette butt, but whole waste from a fast food meal, diapers, and any other refuse was simply thrown out of the window. The national parks were even full of trash. You'd go into the park and the drive in was littered with the refuse from years of campers and visitors. It wasn't hidden, but right there in the open. The bit about don't mess with Texas was actually a campaign to clean up Texas and stop the littering. The highways were littered more than one might expect at the enterences of today's landfills. The rivers were polluted beyond what some seem to imagine today - and this was not that long ago. For a while, it was even considered sound science that the solution to pollution is dilution. Technically, that's probably sound theory but there is a finite amount of dilution to be had. We've come a long ways and there are still things to complain about. However, we can now eat the fish from the rivers and probably not die. Probably...
- vacri 9y agoI still have a hard time hearing people complain about environmental regulations, when articles like this post say things like "The river caught fire a number of times". When your river is catching fire, surely that's a sign that perhaps some controls should be put in place?
- KGIII 9y agoI try to be understanding and say that I don't know if all regulation is beneficial. I have no problem with regulations being changed to reflect new information. I don't feel qualified to opine about specific regulations but I am not arbitrarily opposed to examining existing regulations. Laws should change with the times and I don't know enough about the specifics to unilaterally condemn efforts to examine the status quo. I try to be charitable, after all.
- mikestew 9y agoThe part that I don’t understand is that just about everyone involved with the current administration, as well as many of those who voted for it, are old enough to remember. I’m certainly old enough to remember a smoggy L. A., a dead Lake Erie with rotting, dead fish on the shore, and companies that just dumped their toxic shit wherever they liked. The pictures just don’t it justice, especially that it was just everywhere you went in comparison today. And yet despite being old enough to remember, those responsible for current policy, and those that vote for them, want to return to those times. I just...don’t...get it.
- ars 9y ago> want to return to those times Do they? Or do they want to reduce some of the more obscure, less clearly useful regulations? Have you heard any advocacy for say, removing catalytic converters from cars? The most common thing I've heard is states rights, and not having this be a Federal thing, which isn't really about pollution.
- RandVal30142 9y ago>Do they? Trump did run pandering to conservative wishes to defund the EPA. Trump won and is defunding the EPA. So yes. > Or do they want to reduce some of the more obscure, less clearly useful regulations? So obscure they involve the primary budget for the office and the main regulations enacted by them during Obama's time.
- Pulcinella 9y ago>Have you heard any advocacy for say, removing catalytic converters from cars? Yes. Spend time around car culture and you’ll see there are tons of people who advocate for the removal of catalytic converters and a drastic reduction in emission (and safety) standards. There are people proud to roll coal. Also “states’ rights” arguments are almost always code for something else. The SR argument is never about the finer points of federalism.
- korzun 9y ago
- kamaal 9y agoIndia/Bangalore is in a situation which is somewhat similar. Here are some photos of how polluted lakes look like. http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengaluru-lake-froth-on-streets-here-s-what-causes-the-toxic-foam-and-how-it-is-harmful-to-people/story-yuAhx2f4wIYlJYPReVxz7O.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengaluru-lake-frot... https://www.ndtv.com/karnataka-news/bengalurus-bellandur-lake-catches-fire-again-thick-smoke-engulfs-area-1690623 https://www.ndtv.com/karnataka-news/bengalurus-bellandur-lak...
- intrasight 9y agoNot saying things weren't much worse then, but a clever photographer could still find such shots in most cities today.
- monort 9y agoWhy environment pollution is not solved with suing polluters by those, whose property is affected? E.g. I don't understand why anyone can drive an internal combustion car and pollute the air of residents. Is there some legal protection for polluters?
- drallison 9y agoBefore the EPA in photos (scary). We were fowling out own nest big time; the EPA and regulations have begun to turn that around. Why would the Trump Administration want to return to the polluted past? What is the benefit of pollution? It's insane.