Is Cal Chamber Trying To Kill Us?
The Air Resources Board pegs the actual cost of California's air pollution at about $12B annually in lost productivity, hospitalization costs, absenteeism...ah, the list goes on.
Grandma and Grandpa don't have much of a shot around here because PM really gets to the elderly and the infirm -- it shortens their lives. And now we find that our mothers (and women in general) have an elevated risk of cardio-vascular disease due to PM.
Due to breathing their own pollution, diesel truckers themselves have a 50% higher chance of dying from a heart attack than the rest of the U.S. population. Harvard recently figured that one out (and no, it's not "just because" truckers sit on their butts and smoke cigarettes all day).
And now, California Air Resources Board (CARB) is considering a dirty diesel truck rule in October to clean up the dirty diesel with PM traps and engine retrofits by, uh, 2014. CARB's job is to save lives, save the state (and the state taxpayers) money, increase productivity and help a lot of us stay healthier a lot longer. This rule is important.
And what does our California Chamber of Commerce want to do?Weaken the rule, of course!
Here's an email sent to me just moments ago. Remember, the money you give to these commerce members goes right back into spending it on programs to kill you. Like this... they call it (don't laugh) "Driving Toward A Cleaner California." If you're short on time, I highlighted the JackHoffian part for your convenience.
"Dear Coalition Members,
As you know an impending regulatory action by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) threatens to have a profound, negative impact on the business community. CARB is proposing to adopt stringent new emissions regulations that could be the most costly and far reaching rule that business has yet to face.
Under the new proposed rule, any heavy-duty vehicle with a pre-1998 engine will need to be replaced or retrofitted with yet-to-be developed technologies by December 31, 2010. Additionally:
All vehicles with engines manufactured between 1998 and 2002 must be retrofitted or replaced by December 31, 2011;
All vehicles with 2003/04 engines must be retrofitted or replaced by December 31, 2012;
All 2005 and newer engines must be retrofitted or replaced by 2013; and
All trucks must meet 2007 emissions standards by the year 2114 and 2010 emission standards by the year 2022.
This rule applies to diesel engines and means you will be required to replace the most critical asset in your business in a few short years. And, if the rule goes into effect, the market will be flooded with “outdated” trucks greatly diminishing your ability to sell used equipment or recoup any resale value.
The good news is that we have the opportunity to make sure the business community’s voice is heard in this process and impact the final adopted rule. Currently, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors, the California Cattlemen’s Association, the California Trucking Association, the American Trucking Association, the California Independent Marketers Association, the California Grocers Association, and the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition have financially invested into the effort and are leading a coalition effort called “Driving toward a Cleaner California.” In order for the coalition to be successful we need your voice and financial help. We have finalized the coalition’s budget and have begun developing the strategy to ensure that CARB’s rule is not adopted as proposed.
Time is short, so I will be direct: We need your participation and your financial commitment now. The outcome of this proposed regulation could be devastating to business and to the fragile economy of our state.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call me at (916) 930-1228 or email me at Jeanne.Cain@calchamber.com.
If you are able to financially contribute please make the check out to the California Chamber of Commerce, attention Jeanne Cain. Our federal tax identification number is 94-0361980. Please let me know if you require an invoice.
Thank you for your commitment to the large task before us.
Jeanne Cain
Executive Vice President
CalChamber
916-444-6670
916-325-1272 (fax)
JH: Thanks, Jeanne. You're killing us.
Labels: Air Quality, California Chamber of Commerce, jack hoff
Posted by Anonymous @ 3/09/2008 05:04:00 PM
27 Comments:
This makes me think California needs to secede from the union. They won't let us regulate our own method of suicide. Bastards.
I live the smell of diesel in the morning.
The source and methodology for your statistics is...?
Jack a lot of what CARB pushes is based on junk science.
AQMD is a similar group of geniuses who just banned fireplaces - something we've had for centuries.
As well as the plan to give poor, mostly illegal alien truckers new trucks at the port under this whole pollution scam.
I'm not saying we can't work to improve the environment but it has to be based on science and not emotion.
Walter and Sam, I've got a group for you to join. It is very like minded to you guys. It is called Californians 4 More Smog, as there is nothing wrong with a lot more air pollution.
Many believe that our group, which is dedicated to protecting the rights of any Californian whose "pollution" is merely a by-product of their own personal enjoyment.
Our valued constituency has many different kinds of people from all walks of life including campers who inadvertently set forest fires, drunken weekend sailors and unspayed dogs.
C4MS (CoughMas) supports those rugged individualists who have the courage to say, "Legislate something that infringes on other people's pollution, not mine!"
Why would air pollution be a GOOD thing? Walter, It's the economy, stupid. Without air pollution, think of the inhalers that won't be purchased by asthmatic children during smog alerts. Physician visits will be down. The medical profession can't be too happy about that.
Without air pollution, kids will not be forced to stay inside classrooms on smoggy days. What happens to the local utilities that rely on the income from the energy used by air conditioners in all of those classrooms across the state? Yup, get your calculators out.
C4MS got started, when we heard that 90% of California air is out of compliance with state and federal law. We decided to go for 100%.
C4MS believes there's just too much government regulation. Especially when it comes to clean air. There's plenty of air. It's all around the world, right? We should be able to pollute it as we see fit. Plus the wind blows it to Arizona, anyway.
So, join with us who believe these air pollution issues are just a liberal fad.
Bart,
I can't speak for Walter but I am not advocating more smog.
Your whole post is ludicrous.
The point is that a LOT of the environmental debate is based on emotion. We don't always need a law and knee-jerk solutions to problems that have better answers.
When it comes to things like global warming, a lot of its open for debate and based on junk science and emotional arguments.
Just as much as we can't let greed kill us, we don't need to drive ourselves into the poor house based on untested theories and unneeded laws.
It seems that any scientific research will be called junk science. Any govt. study will not be trusted. Any person citing the studies will be an flaming liberal.
I know, let's consult someone we know knows the truth. Where's Zuma Dogg?
"The source and methodology for your statistics is...?"
A couple of fly-by-night groups called the American Lung Association and the California Air Resources Board.
Did you want me to Google them for you or can you take it from here?
Jack -
You've answered one of the two questions: the source. Thank you.
Can you tell me the methodology used? Or maybe a link to the specific studies? I would be very interested to learn how they came up with the numbers.
I'd also like to know what the numbers really are. For example, saying that x doubles your chance of dying by y doesn't really tell you what the underlying risk is. If you have a one in a billion chance of getting hit by a meteorite, and it doubles to two in a billion, does that mean it's time to start building bunkers?
FYI, did you know peanut butter is carcinogenic? The FDA says so.
You have to be a very careful consumer of "studies," because there are a lot of people, with a lot of agendas (e.g., increased funding for their agencies, or subsidies for their industry) who can figure out a way to massage numbers for their purpose.
As a business trial lawyer, and a public policy analyst before that, I've been dissecting experts' conclusions for decades. You'd be surprised how much of it is just plain old crap.
Walter, what shocks me right now is not whether or not peanut butter is carcinogenic...
but how you, of all people, seemed to have completely missed the hypocrisy of the California Chamber of Commerce's "Driving Toward A Cleaner California" campaign; a campaign which, by their own document, seeks to weaken (or eliminate altogether) a much-needed air quality rule.
Is this the same Walter Moore who rebutted Measure S where the city established a tax by "lowering it"?
11:21- Care to actually debate the issue?
Scientific fact. Peanuts are mutanagenic due to
a dangerous, poisonous mold. It's a fallacy that children who died after consuming peanuts were suffering from rare peanut allergy. It was most likely a reaction to the mold and there's no way of discerning who has the immune response to handle killer mold.
FDA finally responded to pressure by concerned mothers and informed MDs and NDs who had decades ago put peanuts on a permanent list of carcinegenic and must-avoid foods. Above Crisco because Crisco kills you slowly.
The FDA mercifully caught up on a few human health points in their long refusal to accept the real causes of cancer. They usually come up a day late and a dollar short. And here's Walter Moore on the attack like it's 1955. What's next, Walter? Sugar gives you energy?
Jack Hoff,
Walter answered you. Let them eat peanuts!
I'm posting this despite the near-probability of Walter Moore or (Captain Jack Sparrow) coming back and calling me The Third Floor Spinner.
Anyone believing George Bush or John McCain are upside-down politicians on liberal and conservative positions, please say "hello" to candidate Walter Moore. He stands solidly against government regulation of known carcinogens but, if elected mayor, will force every Los Angeles landlord (property owners mind you) to house pit bulls that could harm children and allergy causing cats.
1:09p, Walter Moore has his spin. Captain Jack certainly has his. You are allowed yours. Fear not.
Right now, I'd love to hear some spin from the California Chamber. Anybody out there? Can you explain your thought process?
Can you explain, at a time when so many of your gargantuan corporate members are spending huge amounts of money on "going green," (and, likewise, huge amounts of money on promoting their "greeniness") how your "Driving Toward A Cleaner California" fits into the Chamber's ethical landscape?
Jack --
You've done everything but answer the question.
I asked for the methodology.
You tried what's called "changing the subject."
Do you know the methodology for the numbers you stated as fact, or not?
If so, please just tell us, or provide a link to the study.
If not, just say so.
But please don't expect to dodge the question by changing the subject.
What's the methodology?
I'm not Hoff but I'll field this, since Walter Moore stands out as one of the most backward Ivy League graduates in recent memory, IMO. Pay special attention to the benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde and nickel, Waldo. You're the one who chose to dodge the issue, not Hoff, by implying you doubted that diesel fuel causes cancer. I doubt you'll get OEHHA specimins in a test tube for the "methodology" you "require" but have a look at the carcinogens in this particular "junk science" report.
http://www.oehha.org/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html
Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. In fact, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated by OEHHA. ARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles.
Ooh.
Somebody just got served on this thread...
Memories of George W. Bush
Science
Walter says, "You have to be a very careful consumer of "studies,"
***********
Scientists say, You have to be a very careful consumer of peanuts.
Okay, final entry summing up:
Jack makes assertions about what public policy should be, based on numbers he posits as facts. Those "facts" were:
1. Diesel kills 1415 people in the South Coast area annually.
2. Almost every one in ten kids in the LAUSD has asthma.
3. Air pollution "costs" society $12 billion per year in California.
4. Diesel truckers have a 50% greater chance of dying from heart disease than the general population.
When asked the methodology for these specific numbers, Jack attacks the person who poses the question (moi), and is unable to set forth the methodology, and unwilling to admit his inability to do so.
Others chime in with banalities about pollution being unhealthful -- duh -- but likewise cannot explain the basis for the particular numbers trotted out as fact.
Great basis for public policy decisions. Who needs facts, after all? Why actually weight costs and benefits? Instead, just make up stuff. Pollution is bad, ergo pollution causes $12 billion per year.
P.S. To the scholar who posted the link to the government agency "fact sheet," you may want to look up the word "methodology." You will then understand that the "fact sheet" on which you rely fails to identify the methodology.
1. Diesel kills 1415 people in the South Coast area annually.
In March 2000, the South Coast Air Quality Management District published results of the second Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study, indicating an overall average cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin of about 1,400 per 1 million due to diesel emissions.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1440801
2. . Almost every one in ten kids in the LAUSD has asthma.
Close. It's 1 in 13
http://www.asthmala.com/home.html
Asthma in schools
http://www.epa.gov/region09/annualreport/02/completereport.pdf
3. Air pollution "costs" society $12 billion per year in California.
The economic impacts of indoor pollution - including health care costs, lost productivity, legal costs, and human welfare impacts - have been estimated at billions of dollars each year.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/rediap.htm
4. Diesel truckers have a 50% greater chance of dying from heart disease than the general population.
Harvard Medical School study
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/672742.html
Well, you're getting closer, anonymous, but still no cigar. You have at least cited sources. However, you have not provided the methodology, and you have misquoted the sources you cite.
1. This item does not say 1,400 DEATHS. It says "an overall average cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin of about 1,400 per 1 million due to diesel emissions." Nor does it provide a citation to the supposed study, much less the methodology. HOW DO THEY COME UP WITH THE 1,400 FIGURE? You don't know, and neither do I. I'd like to know. Wouldn't you?
2. Doesn't say 13% or 10% in the LAUSD has asthma. Instead, says "Research among school children in URBAN LOS ANGELES indicates that 14% are LIKELY to have asthma." Exactly what is "urban" Los Angeles, and WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY? What "research," and by whom? Plus, don't leave your common sense at the door: do you REALLY believe that two out of every 26 kids in a class has asthma? Come on!
3. Doesn't say $12 billion, doesn't say Southern California, and sure as hell doesn't provide any methodology. Instead, merely a vague statement that "The economic impacts of indoor pollution - including health care costs, lost productivity, legal costs, and human welfare impacts - have been estimated at billions of dollars each year."
Also, did you see the magic adjective? INDOOR. This source was about INDOOR pollution. Doesn't say jack about diesels. Do you have a diesel engine running in your living room? Me neither. The article talks about tobacco smoke, radon, carbon dioxide, asbestos, etc.
4. Faulty methodology. As the newspaper article you yourself quote says: "While the study singles out diesel soot and other breathable exhaust particles as suspect, it did not examine individual exposures to the exhaust or workers' lifestyles and diet, which also could explain the higher incidence of heart attacks and lung cancer."
If you don't control for other risk factors, your study is what we call in the trade, "crap."
Today's lesson, then, is don't let anyone get away with trotting out numbers as FACTS unless and until you know the METHODOLOGY, i.e., you know how they arrived at those numbers.
Homework: read and write a book report on "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Seriously, you need to arm yourself with some analytic tools to avoid being duped.
And another thing: When you read the actual study on the truckers, you find the following conclusion:
"As expected in a working population, there was
a deficit in overall and all-cancer mortality and
in most other causes of death, likely due to the
healthy worker effect."
Did you get that? The truckers, as a group, had LOWER rates of dying from cancer than the public in general! So maybe instead of trying to ban trucking, we should all switch to big rigs!
Here's the URL for the actual report:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10027/10027.pdf
(shakes head) Yeesh...and they call ME a Jack Hoff.....
Walter,
Re: "Don't leave your common sense at the door: do you REALLY believe that two out of every 26 kids in a class has asthma?"
Believe it! Walk into any LAUSD school's nurse's office and ask to see the BOXES of inhalers that they have to keep for all of the asthmatic children. Stand at the front of the school and ask how many parents have to give their children breathing treatments at home when the air is a little more polluted than normal.
Additionally, the California Department of Health Services stated in 2003 that:
"Asthma is a very common health problem in California children and adolescents, with 14.8 percent of all persons under age 18 having been diagnosed with asthma. In addition, more than one third of all children and adolescents with asthma (36.3 percent) experienced an asthma attack in 2003." Their methodology (as you can see below) was a Health Interview survey.
Sources: University of California at Los Angeles Center for
Health Policy Research and State of California, Department of
Health Services.
2003 California Health Interview Survey.
State of California, Department of Finance. Race/Ethnic
Population with Age and Sex Detail, 2003.
To discount childhood asthma facts and statistics because the methodology of study after study hasn't been stated to you, methodologies that we can be sure you will dismiss, is truly leaving your common sense at the door.
I don't have to walk into the nurse's office -- I've taught in L.A. high schools I had hundreds of students. Didn't see one inhaler.
And now here you go shifting position again. You can't defend the original number, can't identify the original methodology, so now you trot out ANOTHER "study" with no methodology.
I give up on you people. You just believe whatever you want to believe, facts be damned. I hope you're a bit more careful if anyone ever puts a promissory note in front of you!
Peace out. Word to your mother.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home