Does it, really?

I notice in 40 years we are still using the same technology...wheres the progress?

Same tires...

Same cars...

Same trains...

Same oil...

Same coal...

Same paper...

Whats really changed...we care even less about science and the environment now, sad really.

What this article doesn't talk about is how the EPA regulated industry out of America. Now we have less pollution and a hell of a lot less jobs.

other than all the engineers that now work to make all those plants compliant... its tariffs that need to change...

DunkinH

You seriously want to go back to the unregulated industries that made the messes in those pictures...interesting

I liked the 37.9 cent a gallon gas at the Union 76 station in Oregon. And that was DURING the oil embargo. Honestly, didn't see much difference in most of the photos. I agree, same cars, trains, oil refineries, heavy industrial plants, etc. Not much change.

40 years is not that long. How long did we use whale oil before we converted to oil and gas?

40 years is not that long. How long did we use whale oil before we converted to oil and gas?

Whale oil really?

We can't do better than a whale oil reference...

We the corporations?

DunkinH

You seriously want to go back to the unregulated industries that made the messes in those pictures...interesting

No, we're much better off with 22.5% real unemployment, the lowest real wages since statistics began in 1948, and $14 trillion in debt. Government is destroying everything that made this country prosperous.

corporations,

OK, how many centuries were we using the horse and buggy before the internal combustion engine?

It was NASA that bankrupt the country with the spaceshuttle that goes boom! And don't forget the military Generals with their costly worthless weapons.

DunkinH, I can live without polluting corporations. I cannot live with a polluted environment.

There are a lot of folks commenting on this vine that they want to breathe filthy air and drink polluted water again, just so we can have more jobs. If we allow science to move us forward jobs WILL be created in the process. This whole right wing notion that America was more prosperous back in the seventies is BULL. If we had continued down that road imagine what the photos would look like now. I suggest if all the righties out there really want to be reminded of the good old days then they should go out to their garage, stick a hose in the exhaust pipe of their car and breathe deep...

Like unions, the EPA has strayed away from its original noble goals. Both have become albatrosses around the neck of American companies, driving up the cost of doing business in this country. I recall recently on a job where we excavated dirt on the edge of a plant to bury a pipeline. When we were done, we cleaned up the area and planted grass and trees. The EPA came in and showed us pictures of the area before we excavated which was a drainage ditch on the side of the road. They said that was classified as wetland and had to be returned to its original condition. We spent a fortune to turn the area back into a road-side drainage ditch, a mosquito breeding mess.

It's not the EPA (nor Unions), it's the incentives and subsidies our traitorous Representatives (both Republican and Democratic) gave to companies to ship jobs overseas. Today, when the Democrats and President Obama try to repeal those subsidies, Republicans block it.

The problem is that there are too many people. We need a world wide plague and/or population control.

We the corporations?,

Just look at DunkinH's photo. In his world, if he says it louder, it means more. He's a screamer, a shouter, NOT and educated person that really looks at the details. He's a "JarHead", he's told what to say, how to think and what to do.

DunkinH says here that regulations are the cause of jobs being shipped out of the country. We all know this is NOT TRUE. Where the jobs went are a result of economic policy of the last 10 years and trade policies. Tax incentives were given for job "creation". However, the law gave the same incentive regardless of where the job was created. Like a corporation is required to do, get the most you can for the least cost.

So,... Create a job over seas for 12 cents an hour and get the tax write offs for $3.21 per hour. It's a no brainer.

Clean air, land and water had nothing to do with it.

BUT, I'll offer DunkinH this. If he want's no regulations in industry, then let's by all means give it to him in his home town, his back yard, next to his kids and see how he likes the result 10 years from now.

Yeah, DunkinH, 2000 (27 years after those photos, EPA well set in) was such an awful year. 4.5% unemployment, highest real wages this country ever had, a fiscal surplus, more wealth than any other country or entity in the history of mankind... and a cleaner environment. 1972 sure was better than 2000.

Clearly you don't know the difference between correlation and causation.

Ragge...Nasa bankrupted the country/ First, the country isn't "bankrupt".

NASA is responsible for advancing technology that you use and take for granted every day. In addition to the mundane, they are responsible for the introduction of much of today's technologically based medical tratement and recovery. Amputees can live a normal life today because of NASA. LED lighting. Lithium batteries. Design software. Auto aerodynamics. Deep sea divers. Polymer fabrics used by fire departments. X-Ray tech to verify safe environments. Panoramic cameras. Clean battery technology. GPS. Cell phones (you know, those satelites?). Not to mention the inspiration of countless boys and girls to be aware of their own environments. Dreams of space programs are also responsible for inspiring many children to go into the engineering profession, which further effect us all and improves not only our lives, but the quality of life and environment around us.

And the "costly worthless weapons" of the military? You do realize, I hope, that you would not exist as you do now without those weapons. Do you really think we owuld be left alone if we could not defend ourselves?

What world do you live in?

Well, you just clearly illustrated a point about yourself and other lost souls like you.

I agree that some of these photos don't really make a point, like the crappy beach picture. They should show before and after photos of China.

shiva...please explain why they would show pictures of China, when it is about a list of sites listed by the US' EPA 40 years ago.

Your post seems to imply that environmental regulation was, if not the sole cause of the economic downturn in the rust belt, at least a major cause. While regulations did erode the runaway profits of many polluting industries, I think the stronger argument is that the downturn in those areas was the result of many forces, of which environmental regulation is, at best, a minor contributor. Cheap imports and lax regulation on imported goods and outsourcing, coupled with the shift to the information age and a service economy, certainly played a larger part in the economic shift than did environmental regulation.

It is a major cause. Only a fool would believe otherwise. Do you think pollution has gone away? No, it's just occuring wherever the industry moved to, and probably at a much worse scale. But the regressive liberals don't care, all they want to see is closed factories and a shrink in domesitc corporate production. And in typical liberal fashion, you want to grow the government more to impose even more regulations. Free markets made the US the world's #1 economy, not government.

DunkinH

go put your Republiban head back in the corporations a$$ and STFU.

Dunkin said:

"And in typical liberal fashion, you want to grow the government more to impose even more regulations."

------------------------------------------

I think you're you're missing the point of this article. Considering that I see more greenery, less mess of the physical landscape and less pollution in the "after" shots, it looks like what the EPA did to help clean up these sites, succeeded in significant degrees. Ask the longtime residents that live there...'free markets' polluted these areas until the people -- literally sickened by this pollution -- and the courts compelled the government to step in and clean these places up, while at the same time, negatively sanctioning private sector businesses and corporations that dumped their chemicals onto the landscape, polluted the air we breathe, and into the water supply.

If anyone, or any group wants to go back to "the bad old days," it's the regressive right, before the government and the will of the people saw a growing public health problem that desperately needed a solution. Without regulatory oversight, the health of you, your children, your neighbors and friends, and your co-workers will be unnecessarily placed at risk.

Guys, Guys...Come on! This is why we have so many problems, because we're all polarized, trying to blame the other side. In many of the photos I don't see much difference. In none do things look much worse, (although it's sad to see those old Boston row houses have been torn down). In many photos things look better.

Which side is responsible for our problems? Both sides! The Republicans with they're corporate greed and lust for profit for those at the top did the most to create the environmental mess and seem to wish to sustain it. They also sold all of our jobs oversees, along with the equipment and the expertise that was once ours.

HOWEVER...The Liberals who are usually associated with the labor unions, helped to force the collective hand of corporate management. How can American corporations compete in a global economy if we cannot be competitive on labor costs. I mean, we're not even close! Labor unions are a great idea in theory and they helped to forge opportunities, financial parity and equality among our people. But nowadays someone who works on an assembly line, could possibly make as much as the head of the corporation made 40 years ago. Even adjusted for inflation that's pretty outrageous. When you include benefits and retirement that makes for a pretty unequal global playing field. I'm certainly not suggesting that we use China as a model for our labor practices, but there are a lot of out-of-work Americans who would be happy for a paycheck and a little medical insurance. The Unions won't allow them to work. There are also Government jobs helping to clean up the mess we've made and improve our environment, but the Republicans want to cut them. So who's at fault? Everyone. Let's stop wasting our energy pointing the finger, clean up our environment AND put Americans back to work. This is the United States of America, We can do it all!

Well Keith, I'm glad you have a optimistic stance, and you do agree that in many photos things look better, but it has to be tempered with the political reality that your appeal for us to work together and to stop the growing political polarization in the U.S. isn't going to happen tomorrow.

When you have one side willing to negotiate and the other refuses for it taking pride in becoming so hard-line and extremist in their views, the ideas of putting Americans back to work and cleaning up the environment becomes radically different between both sides on most levels of comparison. One side says if you ideologically do nothing and let the free markets work unimpeded, things will supposedly get better. The other side says history proves that laissez faire approaches alone doesn't work to remarkably improve a nation's standard of living or improve the general population's quality of life, but a mix of both government oversight and the private markets, does work better than solely one or the other.

What approach would you prefer to exercise? Cooperation? Or, "Either Do It My Way Or The Highway For You and Everyone Else"? Given your tone, I'm sure you would choose cooperation.

BTW... Regarding a similar topic, GOP politicians on the federal level has had more of their people indicted and prosecuted for crimes than the Dems ever had. To suggest they're both as guilty as each other is being inaccurately overgeneralizing for the sake of somehow achieving an idealistic compromise, in the face of the increased divisiveness that occurs during an election year. ...Just saying.

Check out this list...you'll see a lot more "R's" than "D's come up, accused of verified criminal behavior while they were serving in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

As if environmental regulations aren't necessary. It's still bad today but it was MUCH worse then. Those regulations were coming despite everything a system built on greed could do to stop it...and they tried. We've lost jobs today because other countries are willing to DESTROY their environments in order to turn a profit. The top 10 most polluted rivers are in other countries today because they have our filthy, greedy companies pumping their toxic filth into their rivers. I guarantee you that wont last much longer ether.

DunkinH,

Your head is so far up your a$$ you need a window in your gut just to see where you're going.

Well frankly,I think whats going to happen is already happening I think many will end up living down South and out West where the climate requires less fuel to keep comfortable.

When the jobs disappear,so do the people.What they do not tell you is that back then it took a far more enormous amount of energy to produce the same product we take for granted today such as steel.The jobs are gone as Springsteen has said they are not coming back.There will be no more assembly lines of people,most will be replaced with bots if they have not already.Thats why I was hoping that the government would not bail out the automotive or banking industries..the economy is like a forest,you have to cull out the the overstory to let the understory flourish otherwise you get stagnant dead areas under the overstory that will never ever see growth again.This is whats happened to our economy and sadly I do not think the American public is strong enough to withstand an economic depression that ocurred in the 30's.We have lost a lot of our common sense,easy money replaced it...

Are you attempting to make a point here regarding the undeniable environmental improvement depicted in these photos as a result of EPA regulations and, if so, what is it?

it's sad when 90% of the population knows government is so full of waste yet it's pretty much right down party lines as to who is actually willing to reduce that waste.

And by this he means that only my side has the right idea and the rest are morons. Unless someone is willing to just completely kill something apparently that's just not good enough for the right

stop, do you have proof of that, or is that just your personal opinion that has been told to you by other teabaggers?

I don't know how old you are, but I was involved in the People's Lobby in the 60's, before the advent of the EPA. Grass roots environmentalists who worked to stop smog in LA and California. They made it work before the EPA took it over. When you breathe air that also strips the paint off your car because the oil refineries think unregulated air pollution is a cost of consumers having their gas and oil products, it makes you think, what's wrong with this picture??

Some of you cynics seem to think the clean air and water and environmental areas and national preserves just magically appeared and there has always been a sense from the private sector to keep the environment clean and safe. You're exactly 180 degrees wrong. Big business needed a watchdog with more clout that the People's Lobby could provide. You are fortunate that people spoke up and activists pursued these ends before it was too late.

That's what they said in Athens, Carthage, Rome, London, Paris and Moscow. Instead looking toward an uncertain future, just give thanks that you were alive in the greatest country on earth when they were at the height of their power.

Yea, those were the good ol days, breathing in contaminated air. Swimming in grimy waste-ridden rivers, playing on heaps of tires and trash. Definitely want those days back.

What proof do you have that the two are directly related?

Proof? Experience.

I was referring to this sentence: "It's interesting in how America's prosperity has gone away at about the same pace as the blatant air pollution."

You guys seem to forget that the 70's were not all that economically prosperous either,I do recall the prime rate hitting 21 or 22% in 1977 and 78?..Inflation was rampant,there were no new anything.Boston stunk of smog and raw sewage,yea I really want to go back to those times..so no ,equaling pollution with economic prosperity does'nt jive.These days you can have one without the other and still make money.Thank you to all those who DID stand up and say something back then.It forced companies into cleaning up their act and STARTED other companies that dealt in pollution control(like catalyic converter makers,recycling companies,water and chemical pollution management companies,waste compliance companies,waste oil companies,the list goes on and on.Yes it makes the cost of everything rise but when you compare the cost of doing your manufacturing cleanly and then compare it with how much the cost of fuel to do business IN GENERAL went up over the last 3 years or so,it make me shake my head as to the egregarious amount of $$ the fuel companies are raking in at our expense and very disappointed at the fact that absolutely no one says anything...very sad.

You aren't allowed to use that word anymore. You are going to quickly find yourself fighting the PC police.

Its true jake,

Sarah Palin and the PC police outlawed that word a few years back...think it was '08

I think the correct term is creationist retards.

I can hear the right wing retards yelling...."lets go back to the good old days". Breath deep It's good for you.

if retard is so offensive, then how about just "tard"

Retardation as in a condition of being "held back" is in a way, a reflection of a regressive mentality. They don't call the right-wing, "regressive," for nothing. Under their rule, we'll all suffer and live shorter lives with much worse physical health, back in, "the bad old days." The right-wing may call it "the good old days," -- but according to my grandparents and their peers, the 'good old days' weren't so good at all.

Things gradually got better after their neighborhoods next to local industries started getting cleaned up in the late 70's, and most people recovered from their illnesses for being exposed to all that junkyard pollution and industrial waste, because all that mess was being gradually eliminated around their neighborhoods, towns and counties ...care of environmental protection laws and cleanup regulations being enforced by the EPA. But back in 'the bad old days,' these environmental laws to protect the general public didn't exist. The public's health was hazardously put at risk -- and assuming they survived the exposure to contamination, their lives chronically suffered as a result of it. Fortunately, most recovered. A few died.

And if the right-wing get their way and eliminate public health programs, like "Obamacare," and eliminate the EPA as well, then what are you going to do when you and your family gets sick after business industries pollute your neighborhood? Well, under the rule of Conservative Republicans -- as Rep. Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, pointed out -- "If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly," he said. "That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

because the only thing thats happened in the last 30 years is that we stiffened regulations on polluting... nothing else ever happened... because in life only one thing happens at a time, man science must be easy!

We have millions more jobs today than we did in 1972, so what are you talking about lost jobs?

man science must be easy!

Nope, thats why most don't understand it. Guess we could have waited for the market to clean up after themselves...

waggy........total falacy that environmental protection takes away jobs--they create them. You must be playing spotted owl tapes from the 80's. Come to the present if you dare.

We the corporations,

We have millions more people today than we had in 1972. In 1972, the unemployment rate was 5.6%.

Unemployment rates fluctuate, whats your point.

The comment was

The story that I take away from this series of photos is lost jobs.

If environmental regulations were so tyrannical that business could not exist... that comment would be right, no adjustment for population growth necessary.

Otherwise your whole argument that EPA stifles growth is totally wrong because you are admitting its not so bad it can't keep up with population growth, right?

If it can keep up with growth then the EPA has met a balance, remember the current situation is a result of DEREGULATION of another industry, Wall St.

wags, do you really think any of the people who own or run or sit on the boards of businesses and industries that pollute live downwind or downstream from their messes? of course, not. why do you think these people live in coastal areas and big sky states such as Idaho, Wyoming and Montana?

they chose to move their businesses overseas because there is no regulation. So, hey, let's move it 10,000 miles away and it will take generations before that swill works it's way back here. it's not because of EPA regulations, it's because they didn't want their own backyards soiled. and they could care less about who does the work, whether it's an American or a Bangladeshi or a Filipino as long as it's done cheap.

We the corporations,

You are correct. You used the fact that more people are working today than 1972 as a (meaningless) proof that we haven't lost jobs due to EPA regulations. I used the (meaningless) fact that the unemployment rate is higher now than in 1972 in my reply. Let's start over: You cite your sources that show the EPA and/or environmental regulations have resulted in more jobs being created than have been lost, and I'll see if I can refute yourf logic. Solyndra doesn't count, since it created and lost an equal number of jobs.

It's amazing that the news media does not think the American public has a memory.I was a kid then and right after these pictures were taken the recession of 1974 happened and the unemployment rate shot up to right about where it is now 8.5% and stayed there for a long long time.Many plants closed back then because of the recession back then not because of EPA regulations.Yea back then companies tried to blame them but most companies that went broke back then were headed that way anyways.Does anyone remember that Chrysler went bankrupt and was bailed out in 79?..about the time of the K car?Now,many of those times in the 70's are retiring,if they have not already.I am 20 years away from that and I feel for the kids these days because automation has taken away many jobs laborers used to do and that is a good thing.That lowers costs for everyone all around.As far as the unemployent rate now,if would seriously consider,if I graduated now,I would seriously consider moving overseas to a country where the growth rate is much higher than it is here because our population as a whole will never boom as it once did.Yes it is a lot cleaner and better,but if you are not employed now,your chances of ever making money here are slimmer and slimmer.

as long as we're stereotyping, your a tard

Bottom line is the world consumes X amount of oil, gas and coal to produce the products humans want and need. The reduction in pollution in this country is more than compensated by the increase in pollution in other countries. All the products you buy in this country are made in countries that pollute. It's the same old story. Pollute, but just not in my backyard.

Are you some kind of expert on chemical engineering to know this, or is this just your opinion?

No john is just using the fact that US production of your evil CO2 has fallen greatly since the crash. But since levels of CO2 have increased It must be coming from some where. Could you explain to me why global temperatures have not increased since 1997 even though CO2 has increased. Is this heat mysteriously disappearing?

I would also like to know why none of the current climate models even come close to actual global temperatures?

And if the EPA wins out and follows the goal of 0% CO2 as stated by one of the new "exspurts" Bill Gates then you won't need to worry about cooperations they will all be broke trying to acheive an impossible goal on a carbon based world.

It tells me that the old negatives faded, like color pictures in your family picture album. No conspiracy there.

Regardless of the natural fading of the photo prints due to UV and oxygen exposure onto unstable dyes, it still doesn't detract from the obvious that the junkyard messes, dirty water and sky-blackening smokestacks are now gone in the 'after' shots. Just look at almost any comparative outdoor shot of a public place 40 years separated, even for sets of photos not part of this article. No conspiracy is evident -- unless you consider progress or modernization a manipulative, pervasive, fearsome conspiracy, then I can't help you.

Oh wow,thats right,the new generation does'nt have to deal with faded negatives and color prints made chemically.Hey guess what all? Eastman Kodak was one of the worst chemical polluters in Rochester NY around the time of this color picture.And today they are almost bankrupt because they reluctantly went along with 'going digital'.I hope there are others out there who do see where many of the 'jobless' you speak have gone.Many have gone away with the outdated technology that companies here were using before the recession;many used them either because they were reluctant to let their employees go or were forced to by unions.The recession,for many, was the final straw.Many companies let people go..automated their processes and never hired back.Machining and painting are good examples of automation controlled

You are totally wrong. You obviously weren't there in those years.

The old pictures are from faded negatives, before digital preservation. The EPA in America inspired similar movements in many countries in the world and the legislation was copied widely, benefiting millions of people and saving the lives of countless children. Most of the old chemical industries have not been shipped overseas. They have found ways to make products without the pollution. I worked in the chemical industry for two decades and I know what happened.

Dangerous raw chemicals like benzene and creosote were regularly poured into rivers.

Unless you can come up with a new chemical, society cannot currently survive without benzene which is the building block of all pharmaceuticals.

The chemical industry always located along rivers so that they could dump their chemical waste.

That is not the primary reason. Plants are located near rivers because they need cooling water. You can build a plant on the river and not dump anything into it via zero-discharge design.

No one said we don't need benzene. We just don't need to dump it raw into rivers and lakes. Yes you can build a plant along the river and not dump waste. But that is not what was happening before the EPA stopped it.

I dispute your statement about river locations. The dairy industry, for example, used to locate all its plants along rivers not for cooling water but to dump waste products like heated whey.

And by the way, what do you think they did with the cooling water once it was heated up? They pumped it back into the streams where it killed fish and other wildlife.

Mother Nature does not provide a free lunch.

what do you think they did with the cooling water once it was heated up? They pumped it back into the streams where it killed fish and other wildlife.

Huh? That is a new one for me. Plants have cooling towers where the water is recirculated and cooled through evaporaton. Those plumes people see from the road is not pollution, but water vapor from these cooling towers. Cooling towers have been in used long before the EPA ever came into existence because it is much cheaper to cool the treated water than to continuously pump dirty fresh water from the river and fouling the equipment.

We know about cooling towers. That is modern technology that mostly was adopted after the EPA brought the problem to attention. I personally witnessed as a boy the hot waste water being pumped into our fishing stream.

But see how easy it was to solve the problem without exporting jobs to wherever? Cooling towers are pretty low tech, yet they work great! This just proves that the nudge to clean up from environmental legislation stimulated creative solutions to industrial problems (I am an engineer).

Modern technology? You can't be that old. I have worked in some of the oldest plants and have never seen cooling water dumped into the river. It doesn't make economic sense. The equipment gets fouled up quickly with the dirty fresh water and causes plant downtime. Cooling towers have been in use industrially since the turn of the 20th century. Commercially, they have been used for air conditioners. The early versions were the splash type. More recent technology uses filling. Nuclear power plants use the funnel looking natural drat type. May I ask what kind of plant you witnessed cooling water dumped into the river. I'm curious as to why they did it since it is so costly and damaging to equipment.

(Sigh). Currently, that slightly cutesy statement of yours doesn't make any historical or commercial sense, whatsoever.

Really? I had no idea we were so clean. Nice you've figured it all out.

If Nixon were alive today, he would be vilified by the GOP Tea Party for being, "too liberal" for their tastes. Oh, how far to the right the Republicans have gone since the 70's. I was told that back then, the Dems and the GOP had much in common, they just occasionally differed on timelines and details on advancing the common good.

Back then, the Dems would propose social initiatives, and the GOP would hash out how to pay for it in order to make it happen. But now, with the extreme directions the GOP wants to go, pretty soon, they won't have anything in common with anyone, save for a handful of Libertarian anarchists, wealthy ultra-conservative Caucasions, and Christian fundamentalist theocrats.

Do you really want to get into Democrat Party values.

Democrat Party created Jim Crow Laws

Democrats fought the creation of the EPA

Democrats hate the country

Democrats keep the poor in welfare instead of training them how to work and teach them useful skills.

By the way.

This summer will be colder then normal. And the winter coming will be cold also.

The sun is currently changing its poles. Strangely this may happen.

The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers.

Officials of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation said on April 19 that the activity of sunspots appeared to resemble a 70-year period in the 17th century in which London’s Thames froze over and cherry blossoms bloomed later than usual in Kyoto.

ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201204200075

Funny how the sun was discounted in global warming huh? It's just a shiny thing up in the sky right Democrat?

Anna,

Do you really want to start listing what you "believe "is bad with the Democrats?

You left of socialist or the new term progressives don't have a lot of empathy for those groups either.