Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasatch_One
Guys, I am also disappointed about the CC hotel, the Zion Curtain (I don't drink) but about the air pollution, I am telling you, there isn't much we can do at this point short of eliminating most modern conveniences from Dec 1 - Feb 15, every year.
As you'll notice, we haven't had a bad air day since around Valentines day. It's just the time of the year in relation to the length of the day that translates to warmer temps that kill an inversion.
From here on out, the same weather patterns that create inversions (high pressure settling in over the state) actually now create the great weather like what we've have had this week.
Air was bad here during that time of year even when there was 1/4 the population back in the 50's.
As much as you want to believe we can change it, we can't. It's the physical characteristics of where we live.
|
Sorry Wasatch One, but I have to call you this, Dude with the red hot rod as your avatar, in regards to this issue.
I understand what you're saying about the natural geography as it pertains to the inversion affect. No offense, but, you're wrong when you say that the amount of inversion pollution is the same as it was before. And, there is definitely some things Utah can do to change it.
There is a ton of stuff that Utah can improve on to clean up the air and to prevent it from getting worse or, to at least, make it less worse with the ever increasing population. Reducing refinery emissions is a big one, but the biggest issue that can be remedied is sprawl! Try reading Peter Calthorpe's book, Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. The best solution is to curb inefficient land use development. Here are some
statistics:
The average American emits 4 times the global average and over twice that of a European. 23 metric tons of greenhouse gas per person in 2005. Europeans averaged 10. Chinese averaged 4.
In the past 50 years, the total miles driven annually in the U.S. increased from 718 bilion to over 3 trillion.
More than half the U.S. population lives in counties with air concentrations exceeding healthy levels established by the EPA.
Vehicle Miles Traveled per 'Household' in 1960 was 11,100 mi/year. In 2005 it was 24,300. That's not all. On top of that the size of the household has diminished. 44% of household had couples with kids in 1950. In 2005 only 23%.
On average, urban dwellers travel less than 8,000 miles/year, versus 30,000 for those who live in the suburbs.
In 1950 23% of the population lived in the suburbs vs. 50% in 2005.
Cars per household in 1960 was 1. In 2005 there are 2.
In 1960, ther were 430,000miles of roads. Federal subsidizing of freeway construction supported suburban expansion to a now 1,009,000 miles of road in 2005.
Between 1977 and 1995, the average amount that we walked per day fell 42 percent while our auto usage increased at three times population growth.
The CDC now directly relates walkable neighborhoods to lower obesity rates. The CDC(center for disease control) now qualifies the U.S. as experiencing an obesity epidemic. Estimates are around 200,000 to 300,000 deaths per year as a result of obesity.
repeat: The average American emits 4 times the global average and over twice that of a European. 23 metric tons of greenhouse gas per person in 2005. Europeans averaged 10. Chinese averaged 4.
If we are to arrest climate change at about 2d Celsius, developed countries must reduce carbon 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Meanwhile, in the U.S. alone, population is projected to increase 140 million by 2050. That means that by 2050 per capita emissions must be reduced from our current 23 metric tons to [U]2.7 tons[U]. To acheive this each person in 2050 must on average emit only 12% of their current rate.
The typical suburb with 3 cars and an average 21mpg driving 31,000 miles = 237 MBTU's(Million British Thermal units or the energy consumed). The suburb home that has an energy efficient home with three cars = 158. An energy efficient townhome with two cares averaging 30mpg = 79. An energy efficient urban condo with a 30mpg car=47.
A sprawl development emits 21 metric tons of carbon emissions per 'household'. An urban household emits 6 metric tons.
So, to summarize, the trend in the last 50 years has been smaller household size, yet larger home size, and more cars per household, and increased commute travel distance. The result is more pollution, health risks, and more.
One of the biggest reason why I am against sprawl is because it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 the life out of our urban cores. I would rather see more infill, and denser mixed-use residential development. I would love to see downtown Salt Lake City be much more vibrant, but when I see and hear about all the new companies and residential developments srawling out away from downtown, it frustrates me. I would love to see some of these new high-tech companies build in downtown SLC. Many tech comapnies hire young urban professionals, and many of them prefer living in urban areas.
Prev
Linear Mode
