
EPA photos show what US looked like before pollution regulation - dankohn1
http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-america-before-epa-documerica-2017-10/#many-of-these-photos-simply-show-life-in-america-at-the-time-but-a-number-also-document-concerning-environmental-issues-1
======
kibwen
Pittsburgher here. My favorite building in the world is the Cathedral of
Learning, a breathtaking 42-story Gothic Revival building at the heart of the
University of Pittsburgh. It stood through Pittsburgh's industrial zenith,
back when the air was so choked with soot that the streetlights burned all day
and housewives swept the settled ash from their front porches every evening.
You can imagine how that atmosphere took its toll on the building itself,
staining the white limestone in great streaks of black and brown. A few years
back they finally cleaned it; had to, apparently, as the clinging soot was
eating away at the stone itself. It doubtlessly looks far prettier now, but
I'm saddened at such a visible loss of the warning that my city's history
represents, especially since humans seem to be so eager to repeat the past.

~~~
Bluestrike2
Fellow Pittsburgher. The evidence is all around the city. Odd as it may seem,
the soot-covered buildings are actually kind of beautiful in their own way. It
marks the passage of time and the city's own evolution, which wasn't exactly a
sure thing when the steel mills first started to close. But it has to be
cleaned eventually lest we eventually lose the building facades instead.

A few years back, I was walking past a church downtown that was in the middle
of being cleaned. The difference between the side that had been pressure-
washed, and what remained to be done, was striking. Far more than just seeing
the finished product. You look at something like that, realize that people
lived and breathed it in daily for _years_ , and you're almost surprised that
anyone survived long enough to clean up the city's air in the first place.

------
mikestew
The part that I don’t understand is that just about everyone involved with the
current administration, as well as many of those who voted for it, are old
enough to remember. I’m certainly old enough to remember a smoggy L. A., a
dead Lake Erie with rotting, dead fish on the shore, and companies that just
dumped their toxic shit wherever they liked. The pictures just don’t it
justice, especially that it was just everywhere you went in comparison today.
And yet despite being old enough to remember, those responsible for current
policy, and those that vote for them, want to return to those times. I
just...don’t...get it.

~~~
ars
> want to return to those times

Do they? Or do they want to reduce some of the more obscure, less clearly
useful regulations?

Have you heard any advocacy for say, removing catalytic converters from cars?

The most common thing I've heard is states rights, and not having this be a
Federal thing, which isn't really about pollution.

~~~
Pulcinella
>Have you heard any advocacy for say, removing catalytic converters from cars?

Yes. Spend time around car culture and you’ll see there are tons of people who
advocate for the removal of catalytic converters and a drastic reduction in
emission (and safety) standards. There are people proud to roll coal.

Also “states’ rights” arguments are almost always code for something else. The
SR argument is never about the finer points of federalism.

------
thatfrenchguy
Eh, after the Trump administration rolls back environmental protection, it
will be just another of the many things that makes the US a third world
country, like no universal health care, old people working, and people taking
almost no vacation.

~~~
gtcode
This might be a grammatical error, but the USA is not currently a third world
country by any stretch of the imagination.

~~~
orf
Some parts seem to be borderline. States have infant mortality rates on par
with Thailand, Romania and Fiji. Others have life expectancy on par with
Brazil, The Lebanon and Sri Lanka. Transparency International rates the
corruption index of the USA only slightly higher than Uruguay (no breakdown by
state unfortunately, and still quite high overall in developed world to be
fair).

Obviously America is a huge place and one size does not fit all, but there are
some rural areas that wouldn't seem out of place in a third world country for
sure.

~~~
stevenwoo
The state of Texas has a poor country's maternal health outcome on average.
From 2016, and bound to be worse now as the 2017 legislative session seemed to
concentrate on transgender bathroom laws/laws against urban areas having their
own laws.
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2016/09/10/texas-...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2016/09/10/texas-
maternal-mortality-rate/90115960/)

------
thearn4
I grew up right where the photo for Cleveland was taken. It was still dirty in
the early 80s, but so much better than even 10 years before that. I can't
imagine rolling back to the 60s. Then again, the steel industry is probably
never coming back to Cleveland.

~~~
KGIII
Yup. I was brought into this world almost sixty years ago and spent my youth
moving around as the military commanded my father to do.

As such, I got to see the horrible way we treated the planet and can remember
the differences in both results and behavior.

It was not even remotely uncommon to just throw your trash out the car window.
I don't mean a cigarette butt, but whole waste from a fast food meal, diapers,
and any other refuse was simply thrown out of the window.

The national parks were even full of trash. You'd go into the park and the
drive in was littered with the refuse from years of campers and visitors. It
wasn't hidden, but right there in the open.

The bit about don't mess with Texas was actually a campaign to clean up Texas
and stop the littering. The highways were littered more than one might expect
at the enterences of today's landfills.

The rivers were polluted beyond what some seem to imagine today - and this was
not that long ago. For a while, it was even considered sound science that the
solution to pollution is dilution. Technically, that's probably sound theory
but there is a finite amount of dilution to be had.

We've come a long ways and there are still things to complain about. However,
we can now eat the fish from the rivers and probably not die. Probably...

~~~
vacri
I still have a hard time hearing people complain about environmental
regulations, when articles like this post say things like "The river caught
fire a number of times". When your river is catching fire, surely that's a
sign that perhaps some controls should be put in place?

~~~
KGIII
I try to be understanding and say that I don't know if all regulation is
beneficial. I have no problem with regulations being changed to reflect new
information. I don't feel qualified to opine about specific regulations but I
am not arbitrarily opposed to examining existing regulations.

Laws should change with the times and I don't know enough about the specifics
to unilaterally condemn efforts to examine the status quo.

I try to be charitable, after all.

------
merpnderp
But who regulates the regulators? Too bad the federal government is mostly
protected from lawsuits.

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-high-toxic-metal-levels-
in-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-high-toxic-metal-levels-in-animas-
river-after-mine-spill/)

~~~
tomohawk
Or MTBE

[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol28_2/mcgarit...](http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol28_2/mcgarity.pdf)

------
mirimir
> The EPA was founded in 1970 ...

Under the _Nixon_ administration :)

Also, he was close to supporting national minimum income, as a reform of the
welfare system.

In many ways, Nixon was more liberal than any President since. But he was a
paranoid drunkard, and that was his downfall.

~~~
wavefunction
Basic income schemes have been supported by Hayek, Friedman and Keynes. That's
not a marker of liberality imo.

He hated black folks and hippies enough to start the War on Drugs which has
absolutely destroyed black communities among others.

~~~
mirimir
Sure, but what other President has favored basic income schemes?

And sure, Nixon hated blacks and hippies. And Mexicans. And the War on Drugs
has indeed been a disaster. But, I gotta ask, what President since has backed
off substantially on the War on Drugs? Not Carter, as I recall. Or Reagan or
Bush Sr. Or even Clinton. And for sure, not Bush Jr. Maybe Obama, to the
extent of relaxing federal enforcement re marijuana in states that had
legalized.

~~~
asveikau
> Sure, but what other President has favored basic income schemes?

I thought FDR came close.

I was trying to find evidence of this but most google searches along these
lines yield something called the Roosevelt Institute advocating UBI quite
recently. I thought I did see a video of him advocating it in a speech.

Regarding the broader topic of Nixon and policies that are now considered left
wing, ignoring for a moment that the country has shifted very far economically
rightwards starting around the Reagan years, regarding things like the EPA,
the way I always heard it from people of age in the Nixon years was that he
was rather forced into some of these things by the way the will of the public
was shifting.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, FDR. But some say that _he_ was forced into that by the Great Depression,
and that otherwise there would have been a revolution. In 1932, there had been
a huge WWI veterans encampment in DC. They finally got their money in 1936, in
FDR's first term.

And yes, Nixon was perhaps forced into it too. But actually, I mentioned that
as evidence for the rightward shift since then.

------
rrggrr
Rumors of EPA decline are greatly exaggerated. Tier IV emissions standards are
here to stay. Fuel economy rules are here to stay. Airborne dust standards
haven't been relaxed. Criminal offenses for illegal dumping are still intact.
The United States isn't returning the 1970's and claims to the contrary are
political propaganda.

~~~
mmanfrin

      claims to the contrary are political propaganda
    

... despite the party in power in all three branches actively trying to defang
and rollback EPA regulations?

~~~
rrggrr
You're buying into a false narrative. There are many thousands of regulations.
They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary. And, some that do make
sense and that are necessary may get rolled back... for 4 years until the next
administration comes in.

~~~
r00fus
You assume they'll lose in 2020. It could very well be 8 years (or 12).

No one thought GWB would be a 2-term president. No one thought Trump was
electable.

Thinking the assault on the EPA will suddenly be reversed next election -
that's fantasy thinking.

Fact is, the government should be meaningfully increasing our regulation of
emissions and pollution (in terms of costs) or some will cause irreversible
results in the global ecology (coral reefs, ocean acidification, carbon
levels, global temperature). Not moving forward means we lose ground.

~~~
dom0
> will cause irreversible results in the global ecology

We (as in _homo sapiens_ ) moved beyond that point years ago. Everything we
can do now is attempt to reduce global permanent damage, not avoid it. Also,
these attempts are not successful at this time.

------
ourmandave
If you want a good EPA history, there's an interview with William Ruckelhaus
(former EPA admin) on NPRs OnTheMedia (from 03/2017)

[http://www.wnyc.org/story/how-environment-got-
political/](http://www.wnyc.org/story/how-environment-got-political/)

 _With the help of Richard Andrews, professor emeritus of environmental policy
at UNC Chapel Hill, and William Ruckelshaus, EPA administrator under
presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Brooke considers the tumultuous
history of the EPA, its evolving relationship with the public, and its
uncertain future._

------
monort
Why environment pollution is not solved with suing polluters by those, whose
property is affected? E.g. I don't understand why anyone can drive an internal
combustion car and pollute the air of residents.

Is there some legal protection for polluters?

------
kamaal
India/Bangalore is in a situation which is somewhat similar. Here are some
photos of how polluted lakes look like.

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengaluru-lake-
frot...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bengaluru-lake-froth-on-
streets-here-s-what-causes-the-toxic-foam-and-how-it-is-harmful-to-
people/story-yuAhx2f4wIYlJYPReVxz7O.html)

[https://www.ndtv.com/karnataka-news/bengalurus-bellandur-
lak...](https://www.ndtv.com/karnataka-news/bengalurus-bellandur-lake-catches-
fire-again-thick-smoke-engulfs-area-1690623)

------
icebraining
It was also a source of humor, like by mathematician and satirist Tom Lehrer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_-KNNl-
no](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_-KNNl-no)

------
ourmandave
Aw, why can't we go back to the Good Old Days (tm) when Cleveland's Cuyahoga
river was literally on fire?

[https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63](https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63)

Bring the family on down and roast some marshmallows and shit.

------
DINKDINK
Where's the data for what the US looks like after EPA? where's the control
group?

This is emotional, not rational.

------
drallison
Before the EPA in photos (scary). We were fowling out own nest big time; the
EPA and regulations have begun to turn that around.

Why would the Trump Administration want to return to the polluted past? What
is the benefit of pollution? It's insane.

------
depressedpanda
Is it wrong of me to find most of those pictures beautiful, in a post-
apocalyptic way?

~~~
lghh
I agree, they are cool to look at but not something I want to live in or
through in any way.

------
intrasight
Not saying things weren't much worse then, but a clever photographer could
still find such shots in most cities today.

------
norikki
We just export all this pollution to China. Instead of a good unionized
manufacturing job with a pension paying $25/hr, the average American now
scrapes by makes minimum wage working odd hours at a Starbucks with no
benefits. We need massive tariffs on dirty Chinese imports so clean Made in
America products can compete. Otherwise we're just subsidizing the destruction
of the environment in third world countries and making income inequality in
the US worse by making working class Americans poorer.

~~~
DougWebb
The problem with a tariff on Chinese imports is: who do you think pays the
tariff? The Chinese manufacturer? The importer? American distributers? No,
it's the American consumers who will have to pay for it. How does that help
American manufacturers to compete? They still have much higher costs than
their Chinese competitors, so they'll be outmatched on R&D, marketing,
variety, etc.

Besides, the American consumers probably can't afford the higher prices
anyway, so rather than helping American manufacturers, tariffs will just
collapse the market when consumers stop buying the products, or they go to
underground sources.

To level the playing field, we can't do it on the market-price side. We have
to do it on the manufacturing-cost side. The US has all of these regulations
that protect the environment and protect workers, but the costs have been
borne by each manufacturer separately. I think that's led to a great deal of
redundancy and inefficiency, which has raised the cost of these protections
beyond what most manufacturers could bear. We need to move to a system where
these costs are shared by all Americans, and by all who buy American products,
in a more efficient manner. That should reduce labor costs, hopefully enough
so that the benefits of local manufacturing outweight the still-higher labor
cost to provide an American-level standard of living.

~~~
adventured
> They still have much higher costs than their Chinese competitors, so they'll
> be outmatched on R&D, marketing, variety, etc.

That's incorrect. It's essentially as expensive at this point to manufacture
in China as it is in the US, for everything except the most basic of labor-
intensive manufacturing (particularly in industries where China's lax
environmental and labor protection rules are beneficial). Which is why China's
manufacturing industry is barely growing. Companies that would have chosen
China as an obvious, easy solution for decades, are now choosing Vietnam,
Mexico, Pakistan, et al. It's enough that it has robbed China of nearly all
manufacturing expansion.

2015: "U.S. Manufacturing costs are almost as low as China’s"

[http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/fracking-manufacturing-
costs/](http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/fracking-manufacturing-costs/)

2016: "These days, China's labor costs are only 4% cheaper than those in the
U.S. when productivity is factored in, according to Oxford Economics."

[http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/economy/china-cheap-
lab...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/economy/china-cheap-labor-
productivity/index.html)

~~~
DougWebb
Substitue "China" for any other country where manufacturing is cheap and my
argument stands. You've highlighted another problem with the tariff idea: if
it targets one country, manufacturing will shift to another cheap country
rather than coming back to the US, and the tariffs would have to apply to more
and more of them until we've been completely isolated in a global trade war.

------
fencepost
Somebody had best back those up before they disappear down the memory hole.

