California again leads list with 6 of the top 10 most polluted

>"While most of the nation has much cleaner air quality than even a decade ago, many cities reported their highest number of unhealthy days since the report began" 18 years ago, it found.

>Some 125 million Americans nationwide live with unhealthful levels of air pollution, the report said, placing them at risk for premature death and other serious health effects such as lung cancer, asthma attacks, cardiovascular damage and developmental and reproductive harm.

>"Even with continued improvement, too many people in the United States live where the air is unhealthy for them to breathe," the report said.

>Only six metro areas recorded no days when pollution reached unhealthy levels, according to the report: Burlington, Vt.; Honolulu; Wilmington, N.C.; Fort Myers / Naples, Fla.; Melbourne, Fla., and Elmira, N.Y.

>Billings said he's concerned about Trump's plans to slash the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. "We have to keep the environmental cop on the beat," he said.

>Trump's budget proposal contains a 31% cut to the agency, including weakening or eliminating the Clean Air Act, which the report says has been the most important tool in the fight for healthy air by driving emission reductions for more than 47 years.

>“Everyone has a fundamental right to breathe healthy air," said Harold P. Wimmer, the president and CEO of the American Lung Association said.

Pollution is a meme. "Climate change" isn't real. The Ozone is just a theory.

It benefits our economic growth, I say tear down all the fucking trees and nature bullshit. Liberal hippies be damned. It's nothing but a waste of valuable land otherwise.

>>133494
To be fair, most of those are because big city smog collects in the valley and never leaves. We're a big ol' bowl for it.

>>133520
Are you the /pol/ false flagger? I admire your work.

>>133547
Nah, that's just a contrarian troll.

>>133520

'I'm a conservative except when it comes to resources'

Get the fuck out of my party you stupid faggot

>>133584
this. Climate change is a meme.

>>133494
>bakersfield
>fresno
>visalia
>modesto
>sfo
>la

So, where all the liberals live?

>>133592
That's very nice, but an inaccurate assessment of our climate.

>>133595
No? Bakersfield

>>133740
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

You also have to take into account that while the climate always changes, to the best of our knowledge it has never been warming as quickly as it does now.

>>133743
>to the best of our limited knowledge
>anyone who denies it or points out flaws in it is an insane racist Christian red neck retard
>if you point out this out, the left will resort to violence against you

>>133878
lol
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=scientific+consensus+on+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2tuHS0bPTAhWIhVQKHTgGDwQQgQMIIjAA

>>133740
>>133939
You already mucked up the other thread do you need to do this one too?

>>133940
You're nothing without me.

>>133494
What did those people do?

>>133878

What you and your sort don't seem to appreciate is that scientific theory cannot be convincingly proven or disproven in a forum like YouTube, 4chan, Twitter. Of course if you can point out flaws in established theory, then do your own research or at least data analysis and get yourself published and convince experts of your point of view.

If you're not a climate scientist, if you haven't been doing research and collecting data all your life, spending long hours getting a degree in the subject matter, then chances are, what seems obvious to you is worth horseshit to people who best have the knowledge and skills to be addressing the matters.

Of course there are exceptions, but exceptions tend by nature to be exceptional. Your ability to poke holes in expert consensus on this topic is going to be as or more limited than your ability to poke holes in established medical science. You come across like all those alternative healing websites and if that's what you want to believe, fine, but don't pretend your ideas have sustained the least bit of scientific rigor.

Of course a liberal cesspool would be more polluted than the rest of the country, Colorado should just stop giving them water and let the droughts do the rest.

>>133494
>...

I can explain it
>Shit public trans
>Everyone has a car because shit public trans
>If you're poor instead of relying on shit public trans you get shitty car
>shitty cars make more pollution
>they don't like building upwards because earthquake regulations make doing so expensive
>so they build suburbs
>lots and lots of urban sprawl
>so you have to drive your shitty pollution making car longer and farther
>even if you have a regular car you still drive it longer and farther
>and remember everyone has a car
>even when having a car is a pain in the ass like LA or SF
>because shitty public trans

Okay everyone shut up about California and left/right politics, I want to know how the fuck FAIRBANKS ALASKA made this list.

>Above LA
>Above all the other major US cities that aren't in the top 10 like NYC, Chicago, Austin, Houston, etc

>>133494
As a long time (maybe on again off again a bit) Commiefornia resident, I must say I am amazed how far we've come in this regard.

We used to have Stage 3 smog alerts every damned week in the summer in the LA area. We haven't had one in years.

Granted, pollution has been cleaning up in the rest of the nation at a similar rate, so yeah, we're still bad... But it's nothing like it once was (nor are we China.)

Once upon a time you could leave a window open, your cat would sit up there, and within 10 minutes, be practically buried in soot - which the damn thing would shake off and all over your house after it hopped down. ...Now, shit like this is unheard of, save maybe in the hoods right next to the refineries.

LA is in a basin, so it's gonna get crap air no matter what you do - but so much of the industry has moved out that things have improved dramatically.

On the other hand, the cities #1 production has gone from rocketry to textiles...

Still, Modesto? HTF does Modesto have air pollution problems!? THERE IS NOTHING THERE! (What, are we counting methane from cows?)

(Also Salt Lake City in Utah is clean as fuck... IDK how they are gauging this shit.)

>>134245
>Shit public trans
Frisco has fantastic public trans.

And it's in a bay that constantly has wind passing through it.

Granted it's also highly industrialized and concentrated. (Once upon a time being the most densely populated city in the nation - though I think that's no longer the case.)

>>133595
>Fairbanks, Alaska
>Logan, utah
>Salt Lake City, Utah
>Reno, Navada
Yes, those die-hard liberal strongholds.

Also both Modesto and Visalia are both among Cali's rural "red" districts - I believe both were among the few who voted against Obama both times. Maybe for Trump too, not sure off hand.

In any case, where the oil refineries and factories get placed is fairly non-partisan.

The obvious solution is to put more cars on the road and divest from public transportation.

>>134272
Weird that public transportation in America (outside places like NYC) is for poor people.

>>134388

Full of shit but not lying how

>>134400
It's commonly used in most of the larger east board cities that are old and tightly packed (Boston, for instance, has been awarded more than once for having some of the best public transportation in the world, and most heavily used by percentage of the yocals.)

Commiefornia has the problem that, with few exceptions (like Frisco, which is similarly lauded for its public trans), the cities are sprawled far too wide for public transportation to be very effective - particularly in Southern California.

>>134398
In places like Greater LA, if they put more money into roads than the pipedream that public transportation is there, that'd actually help.

I suppose, eventually, we'll all be using public automated cars, and that'll smooth out traffic and thus cut down on pollution (and a bunch of them will probably be electric). But busses and subways just don't put a dent in things when the average commute is over 50 miles and everyone is going in different directions.

Though even that won't change the fact that LA is in a basin, and that half the state is on fire for half the year.

>>134424
You may need to be more specific.

Mind you, I'm old, so I'm thinking back to the mid-70's to 80's, when things were much, much, MUCH worse. It's night and day really. I suppose it's good that folks are trying to make things better still, but for us who have lived here for a long time, it's really hard to complain.

Granted, if you were immortal, and lived in London during the Industrial Revolution (back when chimney sweeps were a thing, and it would literally rain feet of soot per day to the point where it would collapse roofs if you didn't regularly sweep it off), I suppose you'd be saying much the same thing...

...Which is why I never understood Raesh Al'Gul.

>>133878
>>to the best of our limited knowledge
This is not them saying they have no idea of what they are doing and are just covering their asses. It is them saying they are not omniscient and even though they have made their determinations to the best of their ability there still may be something that comes up latter and changes their view of the situation. They are trying to be humble, but I guess it is a mistake to act in good faith around right-wingers.

>if you point out this out, the left will resort to violence against you
What the hell are you smoking?

Honestly, I hate how the scientific community insists that the whole world follow their wishes. This is, as the OP pointed out, a city level problem. The problems that Cali faces are not the same ones that Montana or the Dakotas face, and vice versa.

>>134852
You either follow science or you don't. There are no wishes, only data that shows an outcome, or not. Both California and Montana have the same problem scientifically.

>>133494
There is an interview with Milton Friedman in his views of libertarianism. He said of a fact that even the Indians reported the territory of California to be smoggy, and back then there was no Industrial Revolution.

>>134859
How in the hell would Milton Friedman know? You might as well ask Bozo the Clown for how much both of them know about climate science.

Would still rather be in San Diego than some shit flyover state lol.

>>134811
heres the problem: they said "to the best of our limited knowledge." Not "to the best of our knowledge".

If you only have a century or so of data on something as ever present as weather, then you have a good understanding of Day to day patterns and understanding of weather.

However when you're talking about climate shifts, it's been shown those are massive and we know nothing about them except for the evidence left behind in geologic layers. Those are best case guesses from educated people.

Now, when they say we are this huge impact with such minuscule data and they imply huge changes in climate is, the majority, humanities fault I am skeptical. I am skeptical because they have no fucking clue what the weather patterns were in the 1600s, 1700s or even 1800s. Let alone 1000 years ago. And the earth is billions of years old. To assume similar changes/seasons/temp spikes etc have never happened before is ludicrous.

So they are judging a possibly normal climate shift they have no understanding of and correlating it to the wrong things.

Because Limited knowledge is right. A centuries worth of data is nothing on this subject.

>>134939
This is why the anti climate change position people looks utterly retarded. So I guess since we only got 100 years of climate data we better not do anything cause we can't be sure right? Like why wouldn't you want to protect the environment against pollution and turning into a barren wasteland in some parts? To defend coal jobs? Guess what! Coal is dying because it's a shitty source of energy. The smart thing to do is invest into renewable energy and slowly ween ourselves off fossil fuels so we're not some backwards ass country in 50 years. But go ahead keep denying climate change because you're too fucking stupid to think on your own you mouth breather

>>134859
I doubt the indians even had a word for smog.

>>133494
>>133495
>>133523
Could they require giant charcoal air filters be built on top of all buildings in these to brute force cleaner air? Maybe something like what they're doing in China?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/01/technology/smog-free-tower-china/

>>133523
These are short-term particle pollution rankings, though.

Can anybody else find the American Lung Associations rankings for average particle pollution? Their state of the air report doesn't seem to list it.