View Full Version : Cnn Pollution in Shenandoah National Park
Wise Old Owl
08-24-2008, 15:22
Cnn Reports Shenandoah National Park
Clickhere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV8o_NuRJlI)
Why the polution controls do not exsist
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp
sasquatch2014
08-24-2008, 18:49
Well I am glad that I am heading there in Sept to do that section before it gets worse I don't plan on a thru until 2014 and the kids are out of school so who knows how much it will change between now and then.
MyName1sMud
08-25-2008, 00:01
I hope it doesn't change much. Isn't that supposed to be one of the really pretty areas of the trail? I can't keep up with all the names anymore :(
minnesotasmith
08-25-2008, 00:05
If I heard CNN while in SNP, I'd consider it pollution. ;)
Wise Old Owl
08-25-2008, 08:59
What gets my goat was the clean air act like so many pork bills has no teeth, far worse than the one sided CNN.
Tipi Walter
08-25-2008, 09:36
What gets my goat was the clean air act like so many pork bills has no teeth, far worse than the one sided CNN.
Viewing CNN is totally voluntary, breathing in polluted air is not. MS's ability to make a quick conservative comment against the possibly liberal CNN reporting Park pollution is more important to him than the actual problem of pollution. In other words, kill the messenger.
I backpack in the range of mountains that stretch along the NC/TN border and close to the east Tennessee valley between Knoxville and Chattanooga. The soupy air pollution in my neck of the woods is terrible and is probably worse than the Shenandoah mess. It's no wonder that the Smokies is the worst air polluted park in the country. If the head honchos governing the Shenandoah had the sense of a common toad, they would close the Skyline Drive to polluting vehicles and leave it for the bicyclists and the motorized wheelchairs.
Nicksaari
08-25-2008, 09:46
Move To Canada
Tipi Walter
08-25-2008, 10:15
Move To Canada
The solution is to not criticize but move?
Nearly Normal
08-25-2008, 10:36
The solution is to not criticize but move?
Most are happy to just "feel better".
Pedaling Fool
08-25-2008, 10:43
The U.S. Capitol burns coal to produce it's power. There's been some controversy over how dirty it is. Maybe now with the change-of-guard they'll fix that:rolleyes:
minnesotasmith
08-25-2008, 11:09
I rather expect that the motor vehicles driving through SNP are actually relatively small contributors to the pollution there park-wide, when it's considered how seasonal is their presence, and how restricted to a narrow strip of the park they are. Rather more of the pollution there undoubtedly comes from vastly larger #s of vehicles in cities to the west and northwest, not to mention the coal-fueled power plants there. Those are much bigger deals politically to affect than just recreational access to a park. Since there aren't likely to be any large cities there banning motor-driven vehicles, Midwestern states deciding not to use electricity any more, etc., IMO it's unlikely there will be intentional, voluntary reduction of air pollution that affects the SNP from those sources anytime soon.
However, anyone concerned about air pollution in the SNP needn't despair. First, Atlas can be expected to continue to shrug. It's been how many decades since anyone capable of making an oil refinery or a fission nuclear power plant thought the tax and regulatory situation made it worth building one in this country? Yeah. And that's with ever-increasing consumption of electricity and refined petroleum products over almost all those years...
Second, as the onset of Peak Oil continues to progress, there will be less and less fossil fuel consumption anywhere within hundreds of miles upwind of SNP due to price-based demand destruction (automobiles, central heat, and air conditioning increasingly not being options for the lower- and working classes). Of course, by the time the air is pristine year-round in SNP, that will likely hardly be a concern for most people who might protest a hazy sunset there now. It's not like anyone would go to SNP for noneconomic reasons in a time of bandenkrieg...
plus.... Y2K is coming!!! oh wait, that past.....
Pedaling Fool
08-25-2008, 11:43
...Of course, by the time the air is pristine year-round in SNP, that will likely hardly be a concern for most people who might protest a hazy sunset there now. It's not like anyone would go to SNP for noneconomic reasons in a time of bandenkrieg...
I remember reading on some website, I believe it was a GSMNP website or maybe the ATC, that pollution ironically makes for prettier sunsets. Gotta always look at the sunnier side of all issues.
Wise Old Owl
08-25-2008, 11:50
Tipi the cars on skyline is nothing compared to the controled burns and coal plants. I can see where you are coming from as a city clearly has smog hanging during a inversion, but a park? - as I write this ..... Oh nevermind.
sasquatch2014
08-25-2008, 16:18
I remember reading on some website, I believe it was a GSMNP website or maybe the ATC, that pollution ironically makes for prettier sunsets. Gotta always look at the sunnier side of all issues.
That is one of the reasons that there are such great sunsets along the Front Range of the Rockies. When I would drive down from Cheyenne to Ft Collins you could see the brown layer of smog just hanging there.
Nicksaari
08-26-2008, 16:44
i will miss SNP and its pollution when i expat to costa rica for five years. F you to the oil man, the tax man, the naysayers, functional retards, and every non eco savy person apart of america. i speak not to the users of this site, but i will happily leave them to wallow in the mess theyve created. be back when economy's stronger, the end of the next presidents term. the govt is THE MOST expensive, most elaborate, and worst hollywood production in the history of civilization. it sickens me so much that i want no part of it any longer. its either suicide, or ex patriot. i choose the latter.
Nearly Normal
08-27-2008, 04:02
The U.S. Capitol burns coal to produce it's power. There's been some controversy over how dirty it is. Maybe now with the change-of-guard they'll fix that:rolleyes:
What change of guard?
The U.S. Capitol burns coal to produce it's power. There's been some controversy over how dirty it is. Maybe now with the change-of-guard they'll fix that:rolleyes:
Hot air is non-partisan, and a plentiful & renewable resource in our nation's Capitol. Let them use that instead. :sun
Tipi Walter
08-27-2008, 08:55
Tipi the cars on skyline is nothing compared to the controled burns and coal plants. I can see where you are coming from as a city clearly has smog hanging during a inversion, but a park? - as I write this ..... Oh nevermind.
I thought if the Shenandoah could close the road to polluting cars it would at least send a small message that a national park is serious about doing something, however small. It would be a symbolic gesture.
i will miss SNP and its pollution when i expat to costa rica for five years. F you to the oil man, the tax man, the naysayers, functional retards, and every non eco savy person apart of america. i speak not to the users of this site, but i will happily leave them to wallow in the mess theyve created. be back when economy's stronger, the end of the next presidents term. the govt is THE MOST expensive, most elaborate, and worst hollywood production in the history of civilization. it sickens me so much that i want no part of it any longer. its either suicide, or ex patriot. i choose the latter.
I agree with your sentiments, but remember despite the recent European immigrants coming to ruin this land, this country still has that old spirit of wilderness embodied in the millions of acres out west still undeveloped. It might be gone in the next 50 years and destroyed by tourism, sprawl and helicopter look-sees, but in the meantime when I think of "America" I see the woolly mammoths trudging thru deep snow and a few paleoindians camping by clean water. This stunted vision is what keeps me backpacking and I see vestiges of it in every stream I camp near and atop every windblown bald.
Great Smoky NP has worse air than Shenandoah. On many days, if OSHA standards were enforced, the Park Rangers would not be able to work outdoors. On many days, a hiker walking the AT in the park is breathing air that is worse than breathing the smog in LA.
I saw a map (http://www.npca.org/darkhorizons/map.html) recently at the offices of the National Parks Conservation Association (http://www.npca.org/) that showed new proposed coal fired power plants in and around the Smokies. It's pure madness.
If you love our National Parks and want to see them protected, support the work of the NPCA.
Tipi Walter
08-27-2008, 09:37
Maybe the Park should be designated a National Sacrifice Area and be done with it. Here are some other sites:
Birney on the Tongue River in the Northern Cheyenne Reservation.
Tar Creek, Oklahoma, the EPAs most polluted site, with lead and zinc mines, is designated a National Sacrifice Area.
Four Corners area of the Navajo Nation.
Black Hills of South Dakota. (Many of the National Sacrifice Areas are on Indian Reservations).
Calvert City, Kentucky, pollluted with pesticides, chlorine, polyvinyl chloride, acetylene, sodium hydroxide, ethylene dichloride, formaldehyde, etc. Has the highest cancer mortality rate in the state but the industry considers environmentalists to be enemies of the people . . .
West Virginia mountaintop removal, 500 square miles of forested mountains and valleys destroyed and 897 miles of Appalachian streams wiped out along with 300,000 acres of hardwood forest.
Since the Smokies is the most polluted park in the country, maybe with a little bit more effort and American can-do attitude, it can be designated a National Sacrifice Area and opened to unlimited vehicle traffic. Oh, wait, it already IS open to unlimited vehicle traffic.
the govt is THE MOST expensive, most elaborate, and worst hollywood production in the history of civilization.
So, what is the best ?
it sickens me so much that i want no part of it any longer. its either suicide, or ex patriot. i choose the latter.
Adios, MF. Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.
Stag3
minnesotasmith
08-27-2008, 10:56
Great Smoky NP has worse air than Shenandoah. On many days, if OSHA standards were enforced, the Park Rangers would not be able to work outdoors. On many days, a hiker walking the AT in the park is breathing air that is worse than breathing the smog in LA.
I saw a map (http://www.npca.org/darkhorizons/map.html) recently at the offices of the National Parks Conservation Association (http://www.npca.org/) that showed new proposed coal fired power plants in and around the Smokies. It's pure madness.
If you love our National Parks and want to see them protected, support the work of the NPCA.
Put in some fission nuclear power plants upwind of the GSNP and SNP instead, using the Sierra Club treasury for the licensing and environmental studies costs. Those plants have essentially no emissions besides steam, and our coal isn't in infinite supply, after all.
Put in some fission nuclear power plants upwind of the GSNP and SNP instead, using the Sierra Club treasury for the licensing and environmental studies costs. Those plants have essentially no emissions besides steam, and our coal isn't in infinite supply, after all.
Yes. heaven forbid the US government mandate demand side management for all public utilities. :rolleyes: And how about we confiscate your 2009 AT hike budget, since you're the one suggesting this "fix." :) Can I see a show of hands from those who like that idea? :banana
Pedaling Fool
08-27-2008, 11:17
...I saw a map (http://www.npca.org/darkhorizons/map.html) recently at the offices of the National Parks Conservation Association (http://www.npca.org/) that showed new proposed coal fired power plants in and around the Smokies. It's pure madness.
If you love our National Parks and want to see them protected, support the work of the NPCA.
I'm not saying that all them plants on that map are not a problem, but I also think some organizations use these maps incorrectly for their own agendas. Those symbols of coal plant are not drawn to scale, therefore it exaggerates their presence; kind of like when you see a map of the US and they place little planes over it representing all the aircraft in the skies. The way they represent all the planes, you'd think if you went outside the sky would be full of aircraft and completely blocking the sun.
Everyone go outside right now and count how many planes you see.
Alligator
08-27-2008, 11:38
I'm not saying that all them plants on that map are not a problem, but I also think some organizations use these maps incorrectly for their own agendas. Those symbols of coal plant are not drawn to scale, therefore it exaggerates their presence; kind of like when you see a map of the US and they place little planes over it representing all the aircraft in the skies. The way they represent all the planes, you'd think if you went outside the sky would be full of aircraft and completely blocking the sun.
Everyone go outside right now and count how many planes you see.I disagree. Drawing them to scale you wouldn't be able to see them on those maps. I think you'd really have to zoom in to accurately represent the power plants to scale. The plants are actually represented with very small symbols on the main US map, and get bigger as you zoom in. I'm not saying maps aren't manipulated, but I wouldn't say that is the case here.
Further though, given the wide area of influence coal plants have, the symbols most likely are smaller than what is probably the areal extent of the pollution produced. The power plant symbols appear to be smaller than most state counties when zoomed in for instance on SNP.
sasquatch2014
08-27-2008, 11:41
Put in some fission nuclear power plants upwind of the GSNP and SNP instead, using the Sierra Club treasury for the licensing and environmental studies costs. Those plants have essentially no emissions besides steam, and our coal isn't in infinite supply, after all.
But the question I have is this. Are you one of the ones who will then complain about the trucks going down I-25 carrying all the spent fuel to it's final disposal site?
Further though, given the wide area of influence coal plants have, the symbols most likely are smaller than what is probably the areal extent of the pollution produced. The power plant symbols appear to be smaller than most state counties when zoomed in for instance on SNP.
Agreed. Perhaps the map should also indicate how of West Virginia's mountains each plant will gobble up over their lifespan.
minnesotasmith
08-27-2008, 11:52
But the question I have is this. Are you one of the ones who will then complain about the trucks going down I-25 carrying all the spent fuel to it's final disposal site?
The waste produced by a fission nuclear power plant isn't 1/10th of one percent the volume of waste from an equivalent-capacity coal-fueled power plant. Nuclear waste disposal isn't a technological issue, but a political one. Even the French know how to do this. You're not even talking one 18-wheeler a year per nuke plant, heading out to Nevada, hopefully running over some perpetually unemployed longhaired beardos (who don't know where electricity comes from but still use it) holding picket signs on the way. :sun
minnesotasmith
08-27-2008, 11:55
Agreed. Perhaps the map should also indicate how of West Virginia's mountains each plant will gobble up over their lifespan.
Hardly any these days. U.S. coal production increasingly comes from the West, where it is lower-grade but way lower in Sulfur, often to the point that is contains less Sulfur raw than Eastern coal does after desulfurization.
Hardly any these days.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement. Have you flown over the coalfields of West Virginia recently? Or have you hiked in Eastern Kentucky? Obviously not.
I'm not sure why objectivists (like you) avoid inconvenient facts so assiduously.
Alligator
08-27-2008, 12:16
Hardly any these days. U.S. coal production increasingly comes from the West, where it is lower-grade but way lower in Sulfur, often to the point that is contains less Sulfur raw than Eastern coal does after desulfurization.Not hardly, 2006 data (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html#fes1) [Table ES2] show WV second in production and over 10% of the total produced.
Granted there has been a decline in eastern production though.
Extractive people can be that way. Needs to grow some plants, or get in touch with nature somehow.
minnesotasmith
08-27-2008, 12:21
That's an incredibly ignorant statement. Have you flown over the coalfields of West Virginia recently? Or have you hiked in Eastern Kentucky? Obviously not.
I'm not sure why objectivists (like you) avoid inconvenient facts so assiduously.
Anyway, you brought up getting coal from mountaintop removal in WV, not WV in general. THAT is probably in significant decline.
Pedaling Fool
08-27-2008, 12:27
I disagree. Drawing them to scale you wouldn't be able to see them on those maps. I think you'd really have to zoom in to accurately represent the power plants to scale. The plants are actually represented with very small symbols on the main US map, and get bigger as you zoom in. I'm not saying maps aren't manipulated, but I wouldn't say that is the case here.
Further though, given the wide area of influence coal plants have, the symbols most likely are smaller than what is probably the areal extent of the pollution produced. The power plant symbols appear to be smaller than most state counties when zoomed in for instance on SNP.
I understand they cannot draw them to scale, but I've seen many exploit these maps to their advantage, despite accuracy.
If the pollution is so bad, then why are we living so long? Again not saying it's not a problem, but I just see it as being overblown.
Anyone know the amount of nuclear waste the US has generated in total?
leeki pole
08-27-2008, 12:28
Yep, and I bet T. Boone Pickens shorted oil futures to come up with his "plan." Funny how oil has dropped $40 a barrel since his "plan" and you tell me how that's simply a coincidence. I'm not a smart man, but I'm a little bit puzzled. Please enlighten me.
Alligator
08-27-2008, 12:30
Anyway, you brought up getting coal from mountaintop removal in WV, not WV in general. THAT is probably in significant decline.Well, 44% of the production comes from surface mines as opposed to underground mines. (From Table 2 of that link.) Now how many of those are mountaintops I don't know, but they do call it the Mountain State.
the goat
08-27-2008, 12:54
Anyway, you brought up getting coal from mountaintop removal in WV, not WV in general. THAT is probably in significant decline.
it ain't in significant decline, check this site out if you want the facts:
http://www.ilovemountains.org/
it ain't in significant decline, check this site out if you want the facts:
http://www.ilovemountains.org/
It'll only be in decline when there are no more mountains to remove. Or if our federally elected officials stop playing games with the Clean Water Act and actually enforce it. Whichever comes first.
Does this effect hikers? Where the Great Eastern Trail goes through SW Virginia, there is a county where no stream contains water that can be consumed. None. Zero. Zilch. That's due to mountaintop removal.
Pedaling Fool
08-27-2008, 13:04
For everyone against coal plants: Where were you on the issue of increasing the number of Nuclear power plants, back when they were really unpopular (mainly because of 3 mile island and all the hub-bub about nuclear waste)? And what is your position on it now?
the goat
08-27-2008, 13:14
It'll only be in decline when there are no more mountains to remove. Or if our federally elected officials stop playing games with the Clean Water Act and actually enforce it. Whichever comes first.
Does this effect hikers? Where the Great Eastern Trail goes through SW Virginia, there is a county where no stream contains water that can be consumed. None. Zero. Zilch. That's due to mountaintop removal.
unfortunately, since mountaintop mining rapes the lands of the less affluent, i look for little support from federally elected officials.
For everyone against coal plants: Where were you on the issue of increasing the number of Nuclear power plants, back when they were really unpopular (mainly because of 3 mile island and all the hub-bub about nuclear waste)? And what is your position on it now?
What does that have to do with mountaintop removal? If that was seen as an option back in the 70s, I think people would have reacted differently.
This is a complex issue. Not one with any simple solutions. There really are no gotcha equations either. We're all in this together. Until we're willing to take a hard look at our lifestyles and our energy use, and the impact it has on the natural environment and our air quality we're not going to make any progress.
Pedaling Fool
08-27-2008, 13:24
What does that have to do with mountaintop removal? If that was seen as an option back in the 70s, I think people would have reacted differently.
This is a complex issue. Not one with any simple solutions. There really are no gotcha equations either. We're all in this together. Until we're willing to take a hard look at our lifestyles and our energy use, and the impact it has on the natural environment and our air quality we're not going to make any progress.
Sorry, I'll back out of this discussion. I thought it was about our energy use and it's effect on the environment.
Sorry, I'll back out of this discussion. I thought it was about our energy use and it's effect on the environment.
That's hardly necessary. It's just not a simple as you'd have people believe.
Nuclear energy is not a panacea. And it's not as if mountaintop removal was in the equation in the 70s. And the health impacts of burning coal were not known in the 70s.
leeki pole
08-27-2008, 14:23
For everyone against coal plants: Where were you on the issue of increasing the number of Nuclear power plants, back when they were really unpopular (mainly because of 3 mile island and all the hub-bub about nuclear waste)? And what is your position on it now?
I'm all for coal, where I grew up half the people were employed by coal producers. Now they're out of work, even with the scrubbers. Granted, it was bituminous, not anthracite, so the sulfur emissions were greater, but the reclaimed land is great for fishing and wildlife. The coal companies sold it for pennies on the dollar and the "strip pits" as we call them are very beneficial to the environment. You can take a look at Southern Illinois whitetails and largemouth bass and see for yourself. My Dad has a 12 pound bass on the wall in his den, from a pit. Many Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young trophy deer have been taken in that area. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I'm all for coal, where I grew up half the people were employed by coal producers. Now they're out of work, even with the scrubbers. Granted, it was bituminous, not anthracite, so the sulfur emissions were greater, but the reclaimed land is great for fishing and wildlife. The coal companies sold it for pennies on the dollar and the "strip pits" as we call them are very beneficial to the environment. You can take a look at Southern Illinois whitetails and largemouth bass and see for yourself. My Dad has a 12 pound bass on the wall in his den, from a pit. Many Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young trophy deer have been taken in that area. Coincidence? I don't think so.
The reclaimed areas are hardly "beneficial to the environment." Yes, you get some game species, but overall, biodiversity takes a huge hit. The forests that were decimated contained a tremendous variety of species. Now you have virtually no biodiversity after reclamation.
The biggest problem with mountaintop removal, is once the forest is removed, floods devastate local communities in the hollers below. Also, the sludge pits contain millions or sometimes billions of gallons of waste. 300 million gallons of toxic coal sludge spilled near Inez, KY a few years ago. It was an absolute disaster.
leeki pole
08-27-2008, 14:40
The reclaimed areas are hardly "beneficial to the environment." Yes, you get some game species, but overall, biodiversity takes a huge hit. The forests that were decimated contained a tremendous variety of species. Now you have virtually no biodiversity after reclamation.
The biggest problem with mountaintop removal, is once the forest is removed, floods devastate local communities in the hollers below. Also, the sludge pits contain millions or sometimes billions of gallons of waste. 300 million gallons of toxic coal sludge spilled near Inez, KY a few years ago. It was an absolute disaster.
I won't argue with you about mountaintop removal. Yes, that's probably not beneficial.
But strip mining is not that detrimental to the surrounding ecosystem. How in the world could trophy class wildlife be present if it was? I've fished, hunted and hiked reclaimed land and seen no evidence of adverse effects. I think, with all due repect, you need to see it for yourself.
Blue Jay
08-27-2008, 14:53
This entire thread is POLITICAL. My poor eyes are going to fall out. I log onto this site to find out how many hundreds of people are killed by bears every day and recipies for Cous Cous and you have all assulted my sensitivites with (oh the horror) POLITICS. You should be all banned for life. Besides since politics are banned there is clearly:banana no such thing as air pollution or energy issues. They just evaporate as we stick our heads in the sand. Now please stick with killer bears.
I won't argue with you about mountaintop removal. Yes, that's probably not beneficial.
But strip mining is not that detrimental to the surrounding ecosystem. How in the world could trophy class wildlife be present if it was? I've fished, hunted and hiked reclaimed land and seen no evidence of adverse effects. I think, with all due repect, you need to see it for yourself.
Strip mines are clearly not as damaging as mountaintop removal. And I have seen plenty of strips in Eastern Kentucky.
I'm a life long fisherman, so bear that in mind when you read my comments. Game species management are a whole different animal than looking at the ecosystem as a whole. Yes, some strips can recover nicely after many decades. The Cumberland Trail is proof of that.
I appreciate the dialogue. Too much arguing and not enough talking.
leeki pole
08-27-2008, 15:19
Strip mines are clearly not as damaging as mountaintop removal. And I have seen plenty of strips in Eastern Kentucky.
I'm a life long fisherman, so bear that in mind when you read my comments. Game species management are a whole different animal than looking at the ecosystem as a whole. Yes, some strips can recover nicely after many decades. The Cumberland Trail is proof of that.
I appreciate the dialogue. Too much arguing and not enough talking.
Yep. You're right. I appreciate it as well.
Nearly Normal
08-27-2008, 19:06
For everyone against coal plants: Where were you on the issue of increasing the number of Nuclear power plants, back when they were really unpopular (mainly because of 3 mile island and all the hub-bub about nuclear waste)? And what is your position on it now?
Most people want things done properly. Clean energy included. But when it comes down to it no one wants a nuke facility in their backyard. Hell, they don't even want wind power. Remember the debate here on that for Maine?
The government needs to stay out of it and let business get to business....and the Sierra Club needs to stay out of it to. That is, if you indeed want energy in a timely, cost effective fashion.
The only role government should play is creating incentive.
Most people want things done properly. Clean energy included. But when it comes down to it no one wants a nuke facility in their backyard. Hell, they don't even want wind power. Remember the debate here on that for Maine?
The government needs to stay out of it and let business get to business....and the Sierra Club needs to stay out of it to. That is, if you indeed want energy in a timely, cost effective fashion.
The only role government should play is creating incentive.I poked around a bit and found this site:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statessc.html
Looks like SC ranks 3rd in nuclear power output and there are license applications for a couple more reactors. My question would be why not add reactors at existing sites? Disposal is still a big factor and anyone who lives in SC knows that we have often been called a dumping ground for waste.
The government needs to stay out of it and let business get to business....
We tried that. It was called "Enron." Worked like a charm.
Nearly Normal
08-27-2008, 22:07
So government is the answer to all our needs?
Skidsteer
08-27-2008, 22:38
We tried that. It was called "Enron." Worked like a charm.
So government is the answer to all our needs?
Hey, hey, hey!
Now don't start that again. Tsk.
Sensationalist reporting.
Ozone and acid rain are not unique to the SNP.
Of course, it is boring to say that the whole world is affected, and no one cares if LA or NYC has an ozone or acid rain problem, so trot out a NP and make the news sensational.
But shouldn't this thread be in the political forum?
Tipi Walter
08-27-2008, 23:18
Sensationalist reporting.
Ozone and acid rain are not unique to the SNP.
Of course, it is boring to say that the whole world is affected, and no one cares if LA or NYC has an ozone or acid rain problem, so trot out a NP and make the news sensational.
But shouldn't this thread be in the political forum?
I think whether a Park's air is polluted or not is a relevant topic for a thread on a backpacking website. The choices humans make to pollute the landscape derive from policies set in motion by leaders in a political party. And these leaders define the limits and parameters of corporate behavior, etc. So, you just can't separate what's political from what's strictly recreational, i.e. hiking and backpacking in a National Park. The "politics" of polluting the air is probably just as important as the economic reasons for doing so.