2996 Shares

The air pollution in the Liberal city of Los Angeles is declining because of their emissions regulations, so?

The air pollution in the Liberal city of Los Angeles is declining because of their emissions regulations, so? Topic: Pro data research
July 20, 2019 / By Kirstine
Question: .....what do ant-regulation, Pro-big oil Republicans have to say about that? ===================== Los Angeles air pollution declining, losing its sting The cleanup of California’s tailpipe emissions over the last few decades has not only reduced ozone pollution in the Los Angeles area. The scientists analyzed new data from research aircraft along with archived data going back a half-century to produce a comprehensive examination of air pollution in the Los Angeles region. “This is good news: LA’s air has lost a lot of its ‘sting,’” said lead author Ilana Pollack, a scientist from NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Our study shows exactly how that happened, and confirms that California’s policies to control emissions have worked as intended.” Read more: http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/los_angeles_air_pollution_declining_losing_sting_215012.html
Best Answer

Best Answers: The air pollution in the Liberal city of Los Angeles is declining because of their emissions regulations, so?

Jannah Jannah | 2 days ago
Same thing with water. Rivers used to be so polluted they caught on fire. Liberals had to use government to force corporations to clean after themselves. Today's rivers are much cleaner thanks to liberal policies.
👍 112 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? The air pollution in the Liberal city of Los Angeles is declining because of their emissions regulations, so? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Pro data research


Jannah Originally Answered: Cars and lawn mowers pollution emissions question?
Not all lawn mowers are the same. Some mowers are 2 cycle which uses a mixture of gasoline and oil for fuel while others are 4 cycle which uses straight gasoline. Which one are you referring to? By the figures you show the lawn mower appears to be less polluting? As for why they are similar they run on the same basic principle and other then mentioned above use the same fuel.

Ethelfleda Ethelfleda
Nobody benefits when protection of our environment and promotion of public health is classified as "liberal" or "conservative." We all breathe the air. I have lived in L.A. for many (many) decades, and I can remember when my eyes would burn and my lungs ache from pollution. But cleaning the air works best when it is a cooperative effort involving both the "liberal" and "conservative" areas of Southern California. Nobody wants to go back to the old days of orange skies.
👍 40 | 👎 0

Claudette Claudette
According to literally all of the non-retarded: > Tripling the population requires deforestation - which dramatically reduces ozone. > Closing power plants MOVES pollution from California to where it now "imports" its power from.
👍 39 | 👎 -2

Becca Becca
I say more and more people will be killed on highways as cars get smaller, less heavy and more "efficient".... California has more highway fatalities than any other state.
👍 38 | 👎 -4

Becca Originally Answered: Can a liberal please explain wanting more regulations on businesses for me?
The BP explosion happened due to corruption and/or inattentiveness in the bureaucracy, not due to the regulations or lack thereof. Had the regulators been doing their job, the whole thing would likely not have happened. The egg fiasco is a problem of deregulation, where the FDA has been compromised due to the lack of funding driven by political cuts based on industry re-writing of legislation, allowing the industry to "self-inspect." Had the FDA been properly funded and had actual inspectors and laws based on good science to enforce, the whole fiasco would never have happened. Eggs are only the most recent and visible case. The food industry has so many politicians in their pockets and has re-written and diluted so much regulation that the FDA that we know today is barely a ghost of what it once was, in terms of funding, manpower, meaningful regulations, and ability to enforce what regulations there are, much less what there ought to be. Think of enforcing law in NYC with a police force of, say, 50 police officers -- and all they are allowed to enforce with is their uniforms, no laws, no guns, no billy clubs. The improvements in the coming years are a step in the right direction, but it is going to take a great deal of political will to keep that momentum up. I think the Bernie Madoff case could also be argued in the reduced workforce of the federal government, as well as relaxed regulations. But, to be honest, I think he would have done the same thing regardless of how tough the laws might have been. If anything, we might have stopped him sooner, at best. So, why more regulations for businesses? Because the profit motive in businesses seems to be stronger than the do-the-right-thing motive in businesses. As soon as we can instill a sense of basic decency and community in the impersonal, limited liability, publicly traded, corporate profit mindset (which could be done by the simple elimination of the concept of limited liability), I think regulations could be relaxed. Even Google, with its motto of "Don't be evil" seems to have a hard time of it, can you imagine companies and industries with less benevolent founders or patriarchal/matriarchal leadership being better at being good for the community, doing better for more than just the stockholders? It is possible to be profitable and responsible, but few corporate entities even try.

If you have your own answer to the question pro data research, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.