6 ms·

I love clean air but I find the article's title and opener a little unrealistic. I probably missed the gist here of the article but it seems to me this number b

I love clean air but I find the article's title and opener a little unrealistic. I probably missed the gist here of the article but it seems to me this number being calculated by the EPA is being used to go after local governments and commercial polluters. They have no control over pollution from wildfires. Do we measure the number in the AM and decide its too high and tell everyone in the plant to go home for the day? Pollution is bad but this to be going after it the wrong way, should we not be focusing more on the past few years of insane wildfires?

dangus 3y ago
It also seems like the EPA has the power to accept or deny requests: > In total, local regulators made note of almost 700 exceptional events. The EPA agreed to adjust the data on 139 of them. So the EPA is only making adjustments for 20% of the events, and it seems like the EPA has the ultimate authority here. Doesn’t seem like there’s an issue. I think I’d take issue with the article calling this a loophole when it’s exactly how the law was designed to operate. If I had to take the opposite stance I would say that our lungs and bodies can’t tell the difference where the pollution comes from. Perhaps a state with more frequent wildfires does need to have more stringent human-made emissions standards than states that have few wildfires to keep the overall air quality at an acceptable level. As an analogy, a state with more snowfall might need to spend more money on snow removal and road resurfacing. We don’t just throw up our arms and say “sorry we aren’t doing anything about it because it isn’t the state’s fault.”
- giantg2 3y ago
  But everything is a loophole if you don't like it.
bombcar 3y ago
For the purposes of tracking direct man-made pollution ignoring wildfires and other “acts of God” is the way to go. You get absurd data otherwise - none of the EPA’s tools “work” against wildfire pollution so it makes sense to factor that out. However, later misuse of the data for other purposes may cause issues - if you were very sensitive to pollution you’d want to know where the wildfire areas are and avoid them, and the EPA data doesn’t show that.
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  Is there any evidence most wild fires are not direct consequence of human action? This "act of good" argument seems disingenuous as even if no direct human action caused the fire, there is evidence that human actions caused general higher risks for wild fires in certain areas.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Something can be the consequences of human action and still not under the purview of the particular agency. The EPA could likely require changes to certain things that might mitigate some possible causes of wildfires (like building clearances, smokestack spark arrestors, etc) - but other cases of "human caused" including direct arson aren't under it's jurisdiction. The problem comes when there's stuff that falls through the cracks as it is under nobody's jurisdiction.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Foresters have been complaining for years that they are not allowed to manage forests the way they should be. Every time they try to start a fire to burn of underbrush someone goes to court to get an injunction against it.
- mrpopo 3y ago
  > none of the EPA’s tools “work” against wildfire pollution so it makes sense to factor that out. Factor that out for part of the analysis on one hand, and include it and add some new tools to the EPA on the other. Wildfires are made worse by bad forest management and climate change, and the USA isn't a small player in the field. Claiming that it can't have an impact is preposterous.
jihiggins 3y ago
Why is a single day of productivity more important than the health of the country? Also, the last few years of insane wildfires are in part due to climate change. We're way past the point of both having and eating that particular cake, as it's long past its expiration date. That said, Covid has already seen us pick "productivity" over what was basically the health of the entire country, so...
- vuln 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I chose the CNN one at random, it doesn’t mention the motive of the arsonists. I don’t think you can just assume they are all due to climate activists.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      As far as I can tell, only one of them hints at even a potential political motive, and that was an animal rights activist burning down a slaughterhouse.
    - ejb999 3y ago
      doesn't really matter what the motives are - the news regularly tell us that the wildfires are a result of climate change (with no proof) - when in fact a lot of them are caused by arsonists - clearly not by climate change. Nothing wrong with calling out lies in the media.
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        The key metric of wildfires that climate change affects is their intensity - once the fire is lit, they'll cause far more destruction and burn much longer in a hot, dry environment than they will in a cold wet one.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Do we measure the number in the AM and decide its too high and tell everyone in the plant to go home for the day? In the places where air quality tends to be low, perhaps we just have regulations enforcing minimum air cycling and filtration levels. "Close everything" isn't the only available mitigation.
usrusr 3y ago
If there was some backroom conspiracy on a mission to erode pollution standards, this is how they would do it: "What about natural disasters! Why are counties getting a free pass when nature strikes, but not when industry operates!" I don't believe that the root cause of this article is anything like that (sibling comment points out an interesting subtlety, why are they allowed to hide the numbers, instead of granting a visible exception in terms of enforcement?), but it would look pretty much the same.
giantg2 3y ago
Not to mention that some of that smoke is coming from other jurisdictions (Canada) that we can't control.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I mean America could always liberate Canada…
  - drpgq 3y ago
    Well software job salaries would probably go up.
    - icepat 3y ago
      No, we'd get the Puerto Rico treatment.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Would that mean we'd get to have Freedom Bacon alongside the Freedom Fries?
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  USA can control half the World when they want to impose profit-making sanctions against Huawei, or to increase copyright terms; I can't see how they couldn't do something on air pollution if they wished to. Find a way to make it make absurd profits for USA business and it'll happen. Aside from that, is Canadian produced air pollution a problem in USA?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    The wildfire smoke affected air quality for much for the north eastern US for a few weeks this year. What is the solution to that? Forcing Canada to do more controlled burns?
    - kayodelycaon 3y ago

dangus 3y ago

It also seems like the EPA has the power to accept or deny requests: > In total, local regulators made note of almost 700 exceptional events. The EPA agreed to adjust the data on 139 of them. So the EPA is only making adjustments for 20% of the events, and it seems like the EPA has the ultimate authority here. Doesn’t seem like there’s an issue. I think I’d take issue with the article calling this a loophole when it’s exactly how the law was designed to operate. If I had to take the opposite stance I would say that our lungs and bodies can’t tell the difference where the pollution comes from. Perhaps a state with more frequent wildfires does need to have more stringent human-made emissions standards than states that have few wildfires to keep the overall air quality at an acceptable level. As an analogy, a state with more snowfall might need to spend more money on snow removal and road resurfacing. We don’t just throw up our arms and say “sorry we aren’t doing anything about it because it isn’t the state’s fault.”

giantg2 3y ago
But everything is a loophole if you don't like it.

bombcar 3y ago

For the purposes of tracking direct man-made pollution ignoring wildfires and other “acts of God” is the way to go. You get absurd data otherwise - none of the EPA’s tools “work” against wildfire pollution so it makes sense to factor that out. However, later misuse of the data for other purposes may cause issues - if you were very sensitive to pollution you’d want to know where the wildfire areas are and avoid them, and the EPA data doesn’t show that.

master-lincoln 3y ago
Is there any evidence most wild fires are not direct consequence of human action? This "act of good" argument seems disingenuous as even if no direct human action caused the fire, there is evidence that human actions caused general higher risks for wild fires in certain areas.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Something can be the consequences of human action and still not under the purview of the particular agency. The EPA could likely require changes to certain things that might mitigate some possible causes of wildfires (like building clearances, smokestack spark arrestors, etc) - but other cases of "human caused" including direct arson aren't under it's jurisdiction. The problem comes when there's stuff that falls through the cracks as it is under nobody's jurisdiction.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Foresters have been complaining for years that they are not allowed to manage forests the way they should be. Every time they try to start a fire to burn of underbrush someone goes to court to get an injunction against it.
mrpopo 3y ago
> none of the EPA’s tools “work” against wildfire pollution so it makes sense to factor that out. Factor that out for part of the analysis on one hand, and include it and add some new tools to the EPA on the other. Wildfires are made worse by bad forest management and climate change, and the USA isn't a small player in the field. Claiming that it can't have an impact is preposterous.

jihiggins 3y ago

Why is a single day of productivity more important than the health of the country? Also, the last few years of insane wildfires are in part due to climate change. We're way past the point of both having and eating that particular cake, as it's long past its expiration date. That said, Covid has already seen us pick "productivity" over what was basically the health of the entire country, so...

vuln 3y ago
[flagged]
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I chose the CNN one at random, it doesn’t mention the motive of the arsonists. I don’t think you can just assume they are all due to climate activists.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    As far as I can tell, only one of them hints at even a potential political motive, and that was an animal rights activist burning down a slaughterhouse.
  - ejb999 3y ago
    doesn't really matter what the motives are - the news regularly tell us that the wildfires are a result of climate change (with no proof) - when in fact a lot of them are caused by arsonists - clearly not by climate change. Nothing wrong with calling out lies in the media.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      The key metric of wildfires that climate change affects is their intensity - once the fire is lit, they'll cause far more destruction and burn much longer in a hot, dry environment than they will in a cold wet one.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Do we measure the number in the AM and decide its too high and tell everyone in the plant to go home for the day? In the places where air quality tends to be low, perhaps we just have regulations enforcing minimum air cycling and filtration levels. "Close everything" isn't the only available mitigation.

usrusr 3y ago

If there was some backroom conspiracy on a mission to erode pollution standards, this is how they would do it: "What about natural disasters! Why are counties getting a free pass when nature strikes, but not when industry operates!" I don't believe that the root cause of this article is anything like that (sibling comment points out an interesting subtlety, why are they allowed to hide the numbers, instead of granting a visible exception in terms of enforcement?), but it would look pretty much the same.

giantg2 3y ago

Not to mention that some of that smoke is coming from other jurisdictions (Canada) that we can't control.

faeriechangling 3y ago
I mean America could always liberate Canada…
- drpgq 3y ago
  Well software job salaries would probably go up.
  - icepat 3y ago
    No, we'd get the Puerto Rico treatment.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Would that mean we'd get to have Freedom Bacon alongside the Freedom Fries?
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
USA can control half the World when they want to impose profit-making sanctions against Huawei, or to increase copyright terms; I can't see how they couldn't do something on air pollution if they wished to. Find a way to make it make absurd profits for USA business and it'll happen. Aside from that, is Canadian produced air pollution a problem in USA?
- giantg2 3y ago
  The wildfire smoke affected air quality for much for the north eastern US for a few weeks this year. What is the solution to that? Forcing Canada to do more controlled burns?
  - kayodelycaon 3y ago