One of the main reasons why Executive Lamont McClure opposes tax breaks for warehouses is because the resulting truck traffic leads both to gridlock and air pollution. But U.S. Senate thinks a little air pollution from big rigs is no cause for concern. They voted 50-49 (with Joe Manchin joining Republicans) to rescind rules that limit how much smog (nitrogen oxide) can be emitted by diesel trucks. The trucking industry persuaded Senators that these new limits would simply cost too much to implement. Money trumped the health of people suffering from respiratory illness.
Last year, Council Democrats and Republican John Cusick voted to fund the installation of air monitors throughout the county. These monitors determine where truck traffic, particularly diesel, have a detrimental impact on air quality. The data collected could then be used by municipalities to amend zoning and planning ordinances to make air quality part of a required traffic impact study for proposed warehouses, leading to a possible reduction in size of of truck numbers.
Council member John Goffredo, joined by Tom Giovanni and John Brown, voted against thee monitors. John Goffredo made the same argument that Senate Republicans made, perhaps even better. "I understand the big, hot topic is warehousing and truck traffic," said Goffredo. "If you're not somebody who relies on that - if you're not a truck driver or operator and you don't work in those warehouses - these might seem like inconveniences to a lot of people."
The League of Conservation Voters counters, "“Pollution from heavy-duty vehicles harms everyone but is especially hazardous to low-wealth communities and communities of color who live closest to major highways, freight hubs and high-traffic areas.”
Both points of view have merit. Limits on emissions will make things more expensive when we are still getting a handle on inflation. But I'd hope that human lives would matter a lot more.
41 comments:
Its fascinating that the GOP are so warped they actually do nothing beneficial for the regular people. (The Poors). There are no bills that help, just twisted shit that benefits the wealthy.
I hate pro-business Republican types. Pro-business is not capitalism. Now do vaccines and Big Pharma donations to Big Dems. They put profits before health on a much larger scale than already clean diesels.
It's not the government's job to make sure that you aren't poor.
Don't let the public health get in the way of bad Republican policy. Wrong on Social Security, wrong on the retirement age, wrong on Medicare, wrong on public health, and wrong on the environment. Remember, these are the same people that opposed better fuel economy for cars in the 1980's. We would still be driving cars like Boss Hogg and emitting black soot. Some men see it as a sign on masculinity.
Science and ingenuity do not seem to be a conservative value.
12:56 spoken like a true asshole
Not sure why you are saying Senate GOP. A democrat voted for it so shouldn't the headline say Bipartisan Senate vote?
But it sure seems the government does a great job at keeping the wealthy rich and corporate profits at an all time high despite destroying the environment that “poor” people have to live in.
The government is definitely busy working, but not for you and I…
"Not sure why you are saying Senate GOP. A democrat voted for it so shouldn't the headline say Bipartisan Senate vote?"
Try again. One Democratic vote does not make this bipartisan. Republicans have a point. These limits are bad for business, but our health should trump that concern.
YAAY!! At 9:07, Bernie got to type the word trump1 Small, but sure positive step to recovery.
1) One or two Republican turncoats is ALWAYS called bipartisan. Bernie still thinks the J6 House Committee was bipartisan, with its two, hand-picked by Democrats, Republicans. By this well-established standard, this was absolutely bipartisan.
2) Today's diesel engines already emit cleaner exhaust than their intake air in most cases. They're certainly cleaner than any of Bernie's bodily emissions. Visit a truck maintenance facility and look for those overhead exhaust snakes. They're long gone since SCR and EGR in the 2010s.
I know you're a purty smart, book-edjumakated lawyering type, and your emissions engineering chops are probably untouchable. But I think you have this wrong.
Capitalism over community health, all day every day! The Republican way!
1) The J6 select committee had 2 Rs of 9 members. I would not call it bipartisan but 22% of its members were Rs. The Senate vote to kill the smog rules was 50-49, with 49 of those 50 votes coming from Rs. That is 98% R and not bipartisan.
2) If today's diesel engines are cleaner, then why worry about these smog rules that are being phased in over time?
My guess is that Biden vetoes this measure and you lack the bipartisan votes to override.
I like how the same people who are 400lbs and sit in a chair for a living complain about tail pipe emissions negatively effecting their health.
This country has turned its back on what made it great: innovation and industry.
We make less and less here today and yet people still think we are polluting too much.
Our emissions have been steadily declining for decades and yet the anti-impact people still cry foul.
Not to mention, CO2 is .04% of our air....I think we will be ok. Maybe we stop promoting nuclear war with russia...THAT will definitely have negative impacts on our environment.
11:52, You seem to have trouble staying on topic. This post is not about Russia. Nor is it about CO2. It is about nitrous oxide, which is a major contributor to asthma. Also, our global CO2 emissions are increasing. I have a few suggestions for you. 1) Research what you say before you say it. 2) Stay on topic instead of drifting into other area. 3) Refrain from personally insulting people simply because their factually-based opinions differ from yours. 4) Maybe see a shrink since you seem to have anger issues.
https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-co2-emissions-from-global-fossil-fuel-combustion-are-set-to-grow-in-2022-by-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase
If you like your gas stove, you can keep your gas stove.
People in the valley have been complaining about the growing number of trucks and the pollutants from them and the impacts on their lives. But people do not seem to really have an opinion much less care enough to do anything. I find that interesting. It shows the apathetic state of many who live here.
These rules have been in place long enough that truck companies have already stared numerous redesigns and changes which will reduce emissions and improve air quality regardless. Once the designs have been implemented and changes started toward production it is virtually impossible to turn that ruck around. Many of these changes started over 15 years ago. They would have to reinvigorate and retool to go backwards. Going forward is the least resistant for the truck manufacturers.
In addition to that many organizations and places have already built in the restrictions which have recently been rescinded. The ports are a major place who has enhanced restrictions in place which impacts traveling to and through our region. Many of the worst trucks have already been taken out of commission.
On the reverse side this makes things simpler for the petroleum companies who can make crappier fuels.
So basically what I am saying is I believe this is smoke and mirrors as usual for the politicians. Passing something to make it appear that they are doing something but only paying lip service to their donor base. Many applaud without thinking it through that the politicians are blowing smoke up the exhaust hole.
7:28 I guess you got fed up with one topic so had to show your glowing admiration for the next.
Trickle down. I'm still waiting from Reagan. However the wealthy got theirs. Again. And again. And again.
Name one just one stand alone I'll by the Republicans that benefited the lower in one people. I'll wait.
7 :28 am
Hey Bernie ,are personal attacks allowed now? Because I'm loaded for bear.
I say talk to a small to medium size trucking outfit. I know two family owned hauling companies that currently have multiple trucks that are offline because of failures in the anti-smog equipment. These failures led to complete engine failures. They try like hell to keep the old pre smog/DEF units they have on the road.
Our company runs a fleet of F250 trucks. Pre emission trucks were averaging 20-22 mpg. The new anti-smog trucks we now use average 11-12 mpg. So, what have we really gained if we are using twice the amount of diesel? This presents a bigger question when you account for all upstream emissions from exploration, transport and refining of the newly required diesel. Not always a simple as Republicans are trying to kill the planet. There is always collateral damage that seems to be ignored.
We need trucks to deliver everything. Perhaps a long range plan
"7 :28 am
Hey Bernie ,are personal attacks allowed now? Because I'm loaded for bear."
You commented anonymously and another anonymous reader called you an asshole. So what? Who really cares? That's not the kind of comment that really helps this discussion so I'd appreciate it if you could just ignore it.
3:57, Good suggestion. There are several around here. I read that the changes will cost $2,500-$8,500 per vehicle. My understanding is that they would be phased in over time and seem reasonable. If the anti-smog installations are resulting in engine failures, that would be a good reason to delay implementation. If they are reducing fuel consumption by 50%, that would be a reason to pause the changes. I don't think it's a good reason to kill them.
I will see if one or two local trucking companies will share their perspective. I think we're on the same page. I'm sure you recognize that these rules are actually protections designed to prevent asthma and other medical conditions, and I'd agree that any changes should be phased in slowly and in a way that has no impact on engine performance. It would be stupid to require these truckers to use twice as much fuel. I think it's always a good idea to listen to those who feel the impact of these changes and I appreciate your insight. The Rs look a little more reasonable now.
"Pollution from heavy-duty vehicles harms everyone but is especially hazardous to low-wealth communities and communities of color who live closest to major highways, freight hubs and high-traffic areas."
Well, maybe other parts of the country but not the Lehigh Valley. Williams Twp, Upper Saucon, Lower Saucon, Upper Macungie Twp., South Whitehall Twp. - the wealthiest communities in the L.V. - are all along the I-78 and/or US22 corridor.
And, of course, if you can't win, you throw in the 'trucking industry is racist' angle to trick people.
The war on trucking is in full swing. Let's destroy something that employs a lot of people and well-paying jobs.
Local pols are five years too late. Now they pretend to want to make a difference. Fact is now they are covering their tracks and playing for votes. Unfortunately, people are gullible.
4.26
try
https://www.car-engineer.com/we-review-all-the-best-ford-f-250-truck-engine-options-1999-2023/#fourth-generation
"The 6.7-liter V8 is expected to be the most fuel efficient of the bunch, with an estimated 32 mpg on the highway and 25 mpg in the city."---2023 year
"6.7L Power Stroke V8 Turbo Diesel engine gets an EPA-estimated 18 mpg combined.---2013 year
EPA estimates to be sure. Also depends on model years in fleet
The biggest increase is in extending the emission warranty which adds upfront costs yet long term expenses may be a lot lower for fleet owners.
try
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10194926/key-elements-of-epas-2027-low-nox-rule
4.27
"The war on trucking is in full swing. Let's destroy something that employs a lot of people and well-paying jobs."
The main attack will be with robotic trucking--no driver -24/7 operation--truck designed Not to have a driver.
No heater- no windshield or ac--more important to fleet haulers-- no overtime or vacations.
cleaner emissions benefit everyone.
We all breathe the same air. Why make this partisan?
All vehicles should be electric, they have 0 emissions. No pollution whatsoever. That includes farm machinery and airplanes.
Electric vehicles are certainly the future, but not yet. At this time, you have to drive an electric car about 300,000 miles before it actually results in less emissiona. This is bc of the emissions caused from manufacturing the battery. At this point, the one vehicle that truly is a Godsend for admissions is the hybrid.
CO2 is poison and is killing us all!
Not really. You'd need a pretty high dosage before you get sick, although it has happened. But this post is about nitric or nitrous oxide, not CO2.
If you're not being facetious, you're an idiot.
10.02
try
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries
"For illustration, the Tesla Model 3 holds an 80 kWh lithium-ion battery. CO2 emissions for manufacturing that battery would range between 2400 kg (almost two and a half metric tons) and 16,000 kg (16 metric tons).1 Just how much is one ton of CO2? As much as a typical gas-powered car emits in about 2,500 miles of driving"
With those figures you get approx 6500 miles(2.5 tons) and 40000 miles (16 tons)
Also
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
That was, in fact, sarcasm. But it doesn't mean I'm not an idiot.
400 pound guy in the basement, is that you Donald
Summer is coming, here in the warehouse capital of the state , we can all enjoy the smog and pollution alerts. Or sit in your wat hing tv commercials for cops and skyrizi, help you beeath.
"At this time, you have to drive an electric car about 300,000 miles before it actually results in less emissiona. "
If your lucky. And then when the battery wears out, the owener get to start their virtue signaling meter all over again.
Also, with regard to "lives over profits," what value does one place on slave and child labor used to mine materials necessary to build EVs and their batteries?
Sorry, but I decline to host a comment that attacks Dems over other issues. Stick to the topic and quite drifting.
Post a Comment