D one of top cities

[maxx]

in pollution, that is.
http://www.eukn.org/romania/news/200...rica_1019.html

While it may be the U.S. metro in the worst environmental shape, Atlanta isn't the only place whose residents contend with contamination. Top spots for toxicity are distributed throughout the country, with Detroit, Houston, Chicago , Philadelphia, Cleveland and Los Angeles right behind it. Cleaning up these cities is neither easy nor cheap. The Environmental Protection Agency [[EPA) expects that it will cost $10.5 billion in federal money in 2010 to improve the U.S. environment's health in general and to craft clean energy solutions..."

Considering the state of our economy in Detroit, this is quite amazing.

[Mikeg]

The methodology used by Forbes for their article appears to be flawed.

The following comment to the Forbes methodology article is more enlightening than the article itself or the uncritical Romanian source that the original poster linked to.

Posted by rjchief | 11/04/09 10:27 AM EST
Your use of the TRI in this study is misguided, at best. TRI measures waste produced by facilities. It doesn't measure the handling of that waste, or if it is disposed of in the area. Thus, millions of tons of waste you are claiming to be "released" into the air, water, or earth of these metro areas aren't even there -- they're in a hazwaste or other landfill hundreds of miles away. How does that information give residents [[or prospective residents) any meaningful understanding of the "waste" in their area? It doesn't. Instead, it's a measure of the amount of industrial activity in an area - read: jobs - all of which could be managed in a sustainable and lawful manner. In fact, your article suggests that someone could dispose of a TRI-classifiable material by merely "releasing" it to local land. Of course, this is incredibly illegal.

Not only that, but the TRI only picks up high-volume releases of toxic chemicals. An area could have thousands of sources of low-volume releases that would never get picked up, but they would still be regulated under air and water permits if they were discharging to those media. I understand that a review of permit discharge records is astoundingly onerous, but it's the only real way to properly measure impacts on the local environment.

The Air Quality Index also measures particulate matter, but it does not take into account the source of those particulates. In some cities, fine particulates can include pollens and other naturally-occurring materials. Thus, your article, which suggests that the cities with high air pollution are somehow rogue unregulated metropolises, fails to capture the potential causes of air quality problems using this method.

I understand that environmental data is complex, but if a respected business magazine like Forbes is going to undertake this kind of project, it has a responsibility to avoid misuse of data and a more comprehensive look at the causes and effects of the data it chooses.

[lilpup]

Cities ought to start suing Forbes et. al. for the damage caused by some of the BS they publish.

[maxx]

Mr. "chief"'s comment about pollen as a significant part of air pollution in cities is unconvincing to me. And I'm not comforted by the thought that some of those tons of waste are being recycled or "properly" disposed of since organized crime has been a big part of the waste disposal industry.
But maybe you'd prefer the Am.Lung Assoc.'s top polluted cities list where Detroit placed ninth in year-round particle pollution. I didn't know Detroit, Warren , and Flint had that much industry left.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/28/pol...hisSpeed=15000

[MJCMEX]

I am a native of Los Angeles.

I love that town. It has the Lakers, the LA Opera, great beaches, the best Mexican food in America...and a smog patch of gray brown that floats over the entire basin.

I was just in Detroit last November and I am wondering how anyone in his right mind could say that the air in Detroit is worse than LA!! It didn't seem that way to me.

Was I just out on a good day or something??

BTW I promise to only root against the Pistons if they are playing the Lakers. It's hard to turn one's back on witnessing 10 championships, but I am anti Celtic and anti Cavs [[Because of Shaq not Lebron) so the Pistons will have my loyalty.

[casscorridor]

Pollution, and therefore carbon, has no borders. There are no factories in the Arctic, yet the polar ice cap is melting. There are no factories in the parts of Africa that are experiencing unprecidented drought and famine, yet fresh water continues to vanish.

Imagine a place such as Las Vegas, where very few factories exist. Does this make Las Vegas a cleaner, healthier place? Does it make it more sustainable? Las Vegas is a city where everything is imported from other regions. Water, food, fuel, everything is brought into the city from afar. The plush green golf courses are surrounded by the reality of the desert.

Or Dubai which produces none of its own food, where the glimmering skycrappers are products of fossile fuels that are pumped up from the ground and sold across the world, further fueling global warming.

How long can this model go on? How long can growth go on? In capitalism, there is no limit, but in nature the limits are closer than we once thought. We are now witnessing the limits of our economic growth, the limits of our economic model. But capitalism has no intention of changing. There is no compromise to growth. If capitalism can not be reformed, it must be abolished.

I think we will soon see that the model cities and suburbs that we're once thought of as progressive-once thought of as a step up from the old dirty inner cities- will collapse under their own weight. What appears to be clean on the surface is really much more dirty.

Michigan is surrounded by freshwater in a temerate climate, and not severely threatened by the worst affects of climate change [[extreme heat, sea level rising, drought, etc). I'd like it is more sustainable to live here than many places.

[Retroit]

Do you think there was no pollution in the USSR?

[MJCMEX]

Hi Casscorridor,

You make an excellent argument about climate. I currently live in Las Vegas and you are correct. Life would be difficult to sustain here without the money that had until quite recently poured into this little desert town.

I am not sure however that Detroit is a great example of pure capitalism failing.

I ask you to consider what the unions did to the auto industry.

Unions here in Las Vegas, particularly the Culinary Union, have really hurt the gaming industry and made Las Vegas an unpleasant place if you are in middle management.

I am all for rights for workers, but I believe that Unions have gone way beyond just securing better working conditions. Don't you think that where the auto industry is concerned a great portion of the blame for waht has happened lies at the feet of the auto worker's union?