Why Houston's air improved faster than LA

In the early years of the millenium, population growth and manufacturing growth, pushed Houston to less healthy air than LA.

Breathing Easier: How Houston Is Working To Clean Up Its Air : NPR

First regulators looked at the CARB approach, which likely would have worked as well as it has in LA

​

​

In other words identify the biggest problem and fix it. Don't regulate the pollutant and allow the leaks to continue. This took instrumentation.​

Reporting and science, who would have thunk it.

Also BP sold its texas city refinery. BP notoriously let out emergency emissions, did not perform proper maintenance and many believe was criminally neglegent of manslaughter when people were killed in the refinery. There has not been an incident since marathon took over.

Now this is not to say that older polluting cars are not a problem in LA and Houston. LA has a bigger problem here, houston will have a problem if people moving to the city bring such cars in.

Both cities have emissions testing and should have a good idea of which cars and trucks are the heavy polluters. Neither has done much to get them off the road. With Houston, being less of a problem, a solution is to make any person moving to the metroplex have a car that can pass current texas emissions without allowing for old cars and diesels not to take the test. Simply a sell your polluting car before moving to the polluted city. LA has a bigger problem and the city needs to figure out how to get these cars off the road, say in 5 or 10 years.

 

During the time period, Houston went from #1 to #7 in ozone. LA went from #3 to #1 in Ozone, and as a bonus is #4 in particulate pollution.
American Lung Association State of the Air 2013 - Most Polluted Cities

Key was identifying the problem, which were occational leaks and releases of VOC on stationary and mobile sources and not just lowering the average levels of NOx on all sources. They used scientist from a number of universities and JPL. NASA - Getting the Big Picture on Houston's Air Pollution

Now EPA identified the problem, and requested a solution. TCEQ is simply awful to environmental organizations, but somehow with some good science got this one right. Honestly if TCEQ were doing there job properely Houston and Dallas would never reach the top 10, but the board is political appointees much like CARB.

Did CARB do the same thing at the same time? No Finally in 2011 they started taking some action on reducing pollution on the ports in Long Beach and LA. These problems were identified much earlier than the VOC pollution in Houston. Carb has had 40 years to work on it. Old Diesel trucks are also a big problem in LA, especially at the ports, as they are in many cities. Instead of working with the truckers and university professors to come up with a plan of action, they hired tran, with false credentials, and attempted a very radical plan with extremely high costs to the industry. Now some pain is necessary, but unlike houston were corporations got on board to remove voc pollution, the truck lobby is fighting the rule, and the legislature has delayed implementation. A better rule would already be working.

Houston has a huge petro chemical and refining industry. LA problems are worse, but there has been a lot of time to try and tackle them. LA consistantly fails attainment. It may be time for EPA to step in more, as it is on Texas coal power plants, as CARB seems to be working more on curbing ghg than ozone and particulates.

 

Definitely lots of reasons and these come with likely regulation to lower pollution. The question is how do you do it? Do you go to a meeting and ask for a truck rule, that is based on a report, by a guy who made up his phd, and keep it a secret. Then do you claim you are doing the right thing and fight with industry and proffessors at major universities that have found problems with the reasearch. Then do you add criminal penalties.

That is how you stop being a regulator, and start your way to having the law questioned at the supreme court.
Air Pollution: Supreme Court seems open to nixing L.A. 'clean truck' program -- Tuesday, April 16, 2013 -- www.eenews.net

Now I don't have much of a problem with that rule, only the penalties. And you have to ask what were the regulators thinking. But the full court press is because of the other truck rules, that seem simply putative, as if they passed because queen mary nichols thinks she can pass any law she wants.

Pollution From Burgers Worse Than From Diesel Trucks, Study Says (VIDEO)

 

I think you are taking this completely out of the context presented. Houston did have as dirty air as LA did in 1999, which is a point of shame for many texans. Scientists worked with industry to clean it up. Its a work in progress, but much progress has been made. At the same time, CARB seems to have an adversarial role with industry, attempting to regulate everything, and LA again vies with other california cities, and only california cities for the most polluted. Houston did not try to just move the petrochemical industry out further from the city.

Are you say that CARb is like the Iranian government? Wow. That is really nasty. I think it is shameful that in 2013, and all the money spent, california skys are not clearer. I did live there, and go there for work occationally. I lived in Palo Alto which is not nearly as polluted. I have also been to Beijing and heard older Americans say its like Pittsburgh and LA used to be. I am concerned about houstons pollution, not just because it shouldn't be there, but it actually makes my city more polluted.

Not really my problem, and has nothing to do with my point, but thank you for a Iranian geography lesson.

 

Huh?
In 1999 they were F and F' in terms of relative pollution. In 2013 Houston gets a D-, safe levels of particulates, still ozone action days but fewer, LA with Carbs help is still F'. The question is why Houston improved so much faster than LA. They defiitely got to 1999 in different ways. LA had an F for 40 years, Houston grew without proper regulation, and the growth got it, its F. Can Carb get LA a D-? Carb has had a lot more time, and World wide professors have studied the pollution as they have Tokyo, Mexico City, and Beiging. When I lived in california I saw a lot of action, but nor very much productive. As I mentioned Port pollution was recognized long ago, and in 2011 finally acted a little. Its really slow pedaling for most of the easily identified problems. I guess they aren't as much fun. Most of the actions to clean up LA really are statewide initiative for stuff like fuel cells and lower ghg. All well and good but when does LA get a D- instead of an F.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.​

-Tolstoy​

Now the question is how do you go about reducing pollution? Do you hire a guy with false credentials to write a report, so you can pass a statewide law that gets fought over in the legislature? Or do you try to work with industry and science. In a state like california or texas there is going to be politics whatever you do. In california fighting often gets you a bigger budget, bigger staff, etc. But what about the results. Would a measurable result to drop to 4 msa's in the top 10. The environmental groups in texas are mad we have 2 in the top ten. These are the 4th and 5th largest MSAs in the country, but really we have the tools to avoid the shame. California seems to bask in being the worst, and yes they have been there for a long time, and the solutions are more difficult, but I see them moving extremely slowly? Still by 2020, even with the botched truck rule, it will eventually not cost much to upgrade so truckers will do it anyway. The ports will get another fix in 5 or 10 more years. We aren't heading toward chinese level pollution.

Yes I don't really think Tehran is very much like either city. I was joking about you making the government comparisons.
Tehran Pollution Crisis 2012: Thousands Dead In Iran's Capital As Government Warns To Stay Indoors
Neither the California or the Texas government is trying to get there own bomb, although both could create there own bombs easily. Neither is subject to sanctions. Both Houston and LA have reformulated gasoline, not sanctions making inferior blends.

Both houston and LA, unlike Tehran have most cars low polluting, but like tehran have not pulled the highest polluting vehicles off the road.

Its about problem solving when the problem is pollution. You don't need problems to look identical to have decent problem solving skills. TCEQ often doesn't want to solve the problem, but when forced to seems to have better skills. It involves the best researchers and industry. CARB seems to want to solve every problem, but when confronted with the one they were created for, seems to reject both the best research and working with industry. Both boards are made up by political appointees, but when it comes to actually hitting an objective the CARB approach seems lacking.

 

There was a glut of pollution even back in 1943 then
All That Smog - Home

Here is a policy discussion of UC-Berkely stating some of the problems from a decade ago.
All That Smog - Policy

 

Yes, there was a insult about the pollution to a visiting Houstonian this weekend, and she said it was mainly cleaned up. Out came the phones and sure enough there has been a big improvement. It was a happy surprise. We also have ozone action days because of Houston pollution, but my city is growing a little to rapidly also. Since we are mainly high tech, the government, and universities, we are pretty clear of industrial pollution. It comes from cars and other cities. I'll have to ask my cousin in Baton Rouge if the non-attainment is over. The ethanol is still there anyway with the mandate.

 

+1

Just to correct one little thing.
Pittsburgh started following CARB rules in 2008, IIRC. Pittsburgh was cleaned by local environmentalists, and the Pennsylvania and epa regulators not CARB. It was gulp the nixon administration that passed the clean air act that provide the tools to clean up Pittsburgh and la.

Just for trivia grins, Houndry invented the catalytic converter in the 1950s specifically because of the problem with air pollution in LA. It would take Mooney and Keith until 1973 to patent one that took care of NOx as well as the hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide from houndry's invention. The catalytic converter was ready and waiting when the clean air act allowed the banning of lead from gasoline so it could be used. Reagan created CARB in 1967. Carb mandated the 2-way catalytic converter in 1975. In 1976 volvo was the first to use the Mooney and Keith 3-way catalytic converter, reducing NOx bellow the CARB mandate.