4 ms·

What factor would geography play in this case? They only measured AQI

mint2 4y ago
Well I suppose it does depend on what’s being compared. If it’s the efficacy of government then yes it absolutely matters. If it’s comparing present stats because one is asthmatic and deciding where to live then government efficacy is irrelevant and what factors influencing the aqi aren’t to important compared to the actual number. Here they are comparing governments so it’s pretty important when judging how relatively effective they are. While not an expert on the geographic factors for TX, several major California cities have geographic factors that drastically worsen pollution. Going from pea soup smog to moderate aqi in a region that really wants to be a smog bowl is quite a feat and a damn good job by the government. In contrast, keeping good air quality in a region that is naturally prone to good air doesn’t say squat about how competent or effective the government is. (Note, I don’t know how the Texas geography effects air, but you see my point neither does the article). So yeah it’s extremely important to know and weigh major dissimilar external factors when comparing the effectiveness of different government in addressing an issue. Otherwise it’s like comparing California health outcomes in 2019 to Texas health in 2021. Two years can’t possibly make a big difference right?! Or it’s like judging Maine’s government vs Arizonas based on heat related illness without considering climate differences. It would be comic.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >In contrast, keeping good air quality in a region that is naturally prone to good air doesn’t say squat about how competent or effective the government is. Competent no, effective yes. Of course the magnitude of the challenge is different, but one is still meeting its goals and the other isn't. The government response be proportional to the need and problem. If there are geographic favoring one region, a minimal action is both appropriate and effective. If there are geographic features unfavorable to a region, but the government response isn't enough, you can't claim it is also effective.
  - mint2 4y ago
    What’s next, The Alaskan state government is more effective than California because there are more hours of daylight in June?

Well I suppose it does depend on what’s being compared. If it’s the efficacy of government then yes it absolutely matters. If it’s comparing present stats because one is asthmatic and deciding where to live then government efficacy is irrelevant and what factors influencing the aqi aren’t to important compared to the actual number. Here they are comparing governments so it’s pretty important when judging how relatively effective they are. While not an expert on the geographic factors for TX, several major California cities have geographic factors that drastically worsen pollution. Going from pea soup smog to moderate aqi in a region that really wants to be a smog bowl is quite a feat and a damn good job by the government. In contrast, keeping good air quality in a region that is naturally prone to good air doesn’t say squat about how competent or effective the government is. (Note, I don’t know how the Texas geography effects air, but you see my point neither does the article). So yeah it’s extremely important to know and weigh major dissimilar external factors when comparing the effectiveness of different government in addressing an issue. Otherwise it’s like comparing California health outcomes in 2019 to Texas health in 2021. Two years can’t possibly make a big difference right?! Or it’s like judging Maine’s government vs Arizonas based on heat related illness without considering climate differences. It would be comic.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>In contrast, keeping good air quality in a region that is naturally prone to good air doesn’t say squat about how competent or effective the government is. Competent no, effective yes. Of course the magnitude of the challenge is different, but one is still meeting its goals and the other isn't. The government response be proportional to the need and problem. If there are geographic favoring one region, a minimal action is both appropriate and effective. If there are geographic features unfavorable to a region, but the government response isn't enough, you can't claim it is also effective.
- mint2 4y ago
  What’s next, The Alaskan state government is more effective than California because there are more hours of daylight in June?