Eb Tide for Bay Pollution

Ches_BayMeasures enacted since 2009 to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment have driven down the level of pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay, according to computer simulations by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a partnership of federal and state agencies and not-for-profits dedicated to cleaning up the bay. The results between 2009 and 2015: nitrogen down 8%, phosphorus down 20%, and sediment down 7%.

Practices are currently in place to achieve 31 percent of the nitrogen reductions, 81 percent of the phosphorus reductions and 48 percent of the sediment reductions necessary to attain applicable water quality standards as compared to 2009, the year before the Environmental Protection Agency established the Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads, states a Chesapeake Bay Program annual report.

“There is good news here,” responded Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker , “but a lot of work remains before we can declare success. Pollution continues to flow from those city streets and farms that do not have controls in place. And while improved, discharges of sewage to public waters continue in some jurisdictions.”

— JAB

There are currently no comments highlighted.

4 responses to “Eb Tide for Bay Pollution

  1. “… according to computer simulations ….nitrogen down 8%, phosphorus down 20%, and sediment down 7%

    I’m betting that if you ask the scientists who are telling us these results if they also believe in Climate Change – more than 98% of them will say yes.

    Clearly these folks are Obama “Leftists” who have taken over the EPA – right?

    So my question is – why do we believe these folks if they’re in bed with the Climate Hoax Cabal?

    Wouldn’t it make sense – that if you disbelieve the scientists that say we are undergoing Climate Change that you’d be a rube not to suspect similar shenanigans on the Bay?

    Isn’t it entirely possible they’re also cooking this data so they can get more grant money?
    wouldn’t we be more than justified in being “skeptics” on this?

    Heckfire – before I can get the words out of my mouth – here it is:

    ” Farmers dispute data over pollution in the Bay”

    Farm Bureau says it initiated the lawsuit because EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act. EPA tried to dictate its will upon Pennsylvania and other states concerning specific activities those states would be required to perform — at their own expense, according to the suit.

    The Farm Bureau suit also alleged EPA’s Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, computer models were seriously flawed, using incomplete data and bad science to make incorrect projections and assumptions.

    It contended EPA violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to provide suf- ficient information or adequate time for the public to provide comments or check the math behind EPA’s TMDL”

    Now all we need is one email from a M. Mann to these guys suggesting changes to data representation and it’s all over with – right?

    see how easy that is? There is no joy in Mudville tonight!

  2. Good for the farmers. Science only works if people can challenge the data and those who reached their conclusions can defend the data, especially if the data is being used to force people into expensive adaptations. Perhaps the lawsuit will fail. I think the science and the models on the bay are more likely to hold up, because they are based on decades of hard evidence that the changing water composition and human-induced pollution was killing aquatic life.

    The atmosphere and climate of this planet is a far more immense and complicated system, by a factor of maybe 10 or 20. You can try to tell me that the evidence is just as strong that CO2 in the atmosphere is going to kill me, but I think that is unsupported by hard evidence. CO2 is not pollution. A couple of feet of ocean rise, even if it really happens, is just a couple of feet of ocean rise. A couple of hundred years of burning coal has done plenty of real environmental damage but ending the use of coal or even all fossil fuels may do absolutely nothing to keep the climate the same. Over the millennia, the climate has constantly fluctuated.

    • As I’ve posted, I am agnostic on Global Warming-Climate Change. I believe the Earth’s climate has and will continue to change. I also believe it is possible for CO2 emissions to have an impact on the climate. Further, it makes sense in any event for the world to look to other, non-fossil-based sources of affordable and reliable energy. I support cost-effective measures that reduce energy consumption.

      But I don’t have blind trust in persons and entities that are seeking and obtaining federal funding. True or not, global warming is “in” with the appropriators and the Administration. One who is skeptical is not likely to get funding and may, if a number of Democrats in office had their way, be subject to prosecution. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/17/democratic-ags-climate-change-groups-colluded-on-p/

  3. But Steve, you fail to miss the point of LarryG’s equivalence argument. A conclusion based on much less comprehensible data should be every bit as meaningful as something based on lots of good data. You just don’t get it.

    By the way, Jim, I always thought the Tide for Bay Pollution was in the key of F#, not Eb.

Leave a Reply