Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(13,033 posts)
3. In the article, all the examples were of coal-fired power plants in the central U.S.
Wed Oct 30, 2019, 12:09 AM
Oct 2019

They talked about "the Trump EPA wants to squash Obama era rules that would force owners of this and other power plants to clean up their toxic wastes". But the acid rain problem was largely solved (or at least diminished to the point where it's out of the headlines) before Obama, so yeah, it's confusing. I'm sure coal-fired power generation has been, and is, on net, decreasing.

They show two maps of the acid rain problem ("annual mean wet sulfate deposition" ): 1989-1991 vs. 2007-2009, where 2007-2009 is far better-looking that 1989-1991.

By the way, this is a great example of cap-and-trade working.

Then the article concludes with this paragraph:

When power plants in the heartland burn coal laced with sulfur the toxic waste goes up smokestacks. Prevailing winds that tend to blow eastward then carry pollution from these coal-burning power plants to the Northeast where much of it falls in rain that kills. Team Trump not only thinks that is fine, it wants more acid rain.


So they are agreeing with what you are saying - it's from coal-fired power plants in the Central U.S. But they don't explain how rolling back the Obama-era regulations would bring back acid-rain, particularly with coal-burning declining.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Acid rain, that '70s scou...»Reply #3