Put a Lid on It! Just Don't Forget the Seal

Cap and Trade seems like an interesting concept to me. The idea of establishing a system designed to limit atmospheric pollution through market forces seems like something that would work in the world of economics... except this is the real world (hey-o!). By setting up a market for limited emission permits, with a decreasing amount being sold every year, the hope is that businesses will have an incentive to prepare for the decrease by establishing systems to limit and stop emissions. As companies successfully make the transition, or even just reduce their carbon output, they can trade the excess allowances that they have to companies that have exceeded their expected emission levels. Supposedly, this system is supposed to be able to help ease the transition with less regulatory effort and spending. In fact, SO2 emissions (which contribute to the creation of acid precipitation) were actually successfully reduced to a target level before the target year, with such a system playing a significant role. However, when it comes to carbon emissions, it's not just industry that is responsible- most adults drive a car to and from work each day, and with the number of people who do this on a daily basis, it is not a negligible contribution to the equation. I'm not sure if the companies that produce the cars would be held accountable for this to some degree, however, so perhaps it has been considered.

California is putting a Cap and Trade system in place, where about 62 million allowances (each permitting a ton of carbon to be emitted) are going to be auctioned at the start of the program in a three hour window, starting at $10 each. With another auction set for February, it would seem that this will be a seasonal event. Any companies that opt to not purchase during the auction window will still be able to get them on the market from other companies, but this initial auction is being held by the state. Most large companies that practically depend of the emission of carbon pollutants get a break at the start of such programs, though- after all, if Rome wasn't built in a day, then how would you expect it to be remodeled and rebuilt in that time frame? With this consideration, "more than 400 of California's industrial heavyweights... will get 90 percent of their emission allowances free in the first two years, but the percentage of freebies will decline in future years." While I think 90% may be a bit much, at the same time, it at least allows for the companies to start making changes before they start risking the possibility of bankruptcy from the system. However, even with this, some groups are still unhappy:
"Business groups say California could achieve its goals of curtailing carbon without holding an auction. The state, they say, could simply give away all of the emissions allowances for free, and then enforce the cap. As companies move toward compliance, they will buy and sell the allowances among themselves and a price will emerge for carbon. But [fortunately] state officials reject that argument. The Air Resources Board says an auction is needed to jump-start the market and make sure a competitive price for carbon is established."
One of the main reasons why I am inclined to think that the officials are right to do this, is that if the system were set up as the business groups would like, there would be too much potential for racketeering as companies realize that cooperation could be easier than competition in this matter. Besides, as much as some like to tout the idea of market forces, emissions aren't the most tangible commodity. I'm sure many companies, thinking of the permits as a sort of imaginary trade, would be inclined to imagine up more to trade than they have (I believe that something like this had a role in the Enron shenanigans) to make a quick buck.

One of the big things that gets me about the whole system is that monitoring of the emissions is rarely described. Best as I can tell from a Wikipedia entry, monitoring is mostly at the level of the installation responsible for the emissions, and the output is reported to a regulator. This seems like a cause for concern on two levels. One: what is there to guarantee that the numbers being reported are accurate? What prevents the company from muddling their numbers in a way that benefits them? Two: How are they measuring the output? There are certainly many advanced systems that have been made to keep track of such things, but they aren't always installed in facilities. When that is the case, and the company opts to not pay for the system, is there a way for them to check? It just seems like there are too many ways for companies to dodge around this sort of regulation, short of an official audit being performed.

Overall, I don't think that Cap and Trade will work the way that those who endorse it hope it will. However, I also am inclined to believe that it has the potential to work, if things proceed without too much incident. But even if it works, will the effort be too little, too late? The system is in place to monitor and limit emission levels- even if they are decreased, that doesn't mean that the total atmospheric levels are decreasing, just that the rate of accumulation is. We are already above the levels that scientists believe are "safe." At this point, there is the possibility that we are already doomed, and beginning efforts that would only have been effective if we had started them much earlier. Unfortunately, with that being the case, all we might be doing is delaying the inevitable.

Extra link:
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/

Can Coal Be Clean?

Clean coal is kind of a pipe dream. It's pretty much a rock that can be burned, and since it can be burned without any kind of purification process (in fact, I'm not sure if you can do anything to purify a solid like that) it is bound to have all sorts of nasty things, like heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide (which is one of the worst ingredients for acid rain) and the like. That's not even mentioning the significant quantity of CO2 that is released from burning coal. Most so-called "clean coal" tech has focused on removing the toxic compounds and dangerous particulate from emissions, and to a lesser degree reducing CO2 in emissions. In the past, coal burning plants used to respond to complaints in the local communities about their smoke and dust by making their smokestacks taller, thus making it so that the smoke and gasses would be blown further away from the local populace... thus spreading the problem into a larger area, and affecting more sensitive habitats. Nowadays, they try to improve filters and carbon capturing systems, which is only mitigating the larger problem. And while it is just about impossible to burn something that doesn't produce CO2, the sheer quantity that coal is able to produce gives it unique status as an especially dirty pollutant.

Something that may have an impact on how coal can be used is a method known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a process that can be used to make liquid hydrocarbons from pretty much any combustible carbon-containing compound, such as biomass, natural gas, and coal. It does so by first generating carbon monoxide, then combining it with hydrogen. The process was first discovered by German scientists during the 1920's, and was subsequently used to convert coal to liquid fuel during WWII to power German war machines. While CO2 is still produced during the production and combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuels, it can be captured more easily in the lab, and the other pollutants can be stripped from the gas stream during the production process as well, thus making a cleaner burning fuel. The process has been considered for mass use several times throughout US history, though economic aspects usually brought any advancement to a halt. In fact, some of these events may have been engineered to some degree: "The last time investors started lining up money for Fischer-Tropsch plants, in the 1970s, the OPEC oil cartel opened up its spigots and pushed the price of crude down to $10 a barrel, and that was that". Meanwhile, South Africa has based the majority of their fuel consumption on Fishcer-Tropsch fuels produced from local coal deposits. While it isn't the best alternative to petrol based fuels in terms of CO2 emissions, synthetic fuels are comparable in power, have fewer side products, and in some ways are easier to obtain than oil. After all, we would be able to make it from local sources, instead of having to import most of the ingredients.

While there wouldn't be a need to import most of the materials for Fischer-Tropsch fuels, and they can arguably be made cleaner than many current petrol based fuels, I would be remiss to overlook the aspect of how coal is obtained (though the making of such fuels from biomass would be a nice way to take care of garbage disposal at the same time). One of the greatest impacts coal has on the environment, while it has a more localized effect than the spreading of emissions, can be the mining of the coal from the ground. Whether it's shaft mining, strip mining, or the charmingly named "mountain top removal," there is usually some sort of impact on the surrounding area. Shaft mining, while there seems to be a relatively minimal effect on the ecosystem, can be dangerous work. And while one may think that the shaft is usually left behind after the work, most modern projects fill in the shaft after they leave to prevent some sort of collapse on the surface when the tunnel supports give. Strip mining leaves a massive gouge in the earth, which nature will be slow to reclaim due to the solid rock surfaces left behind with development, and often the rock that they can't use just gets dumped into nearby areas, managing to kill off another area, or perhaps blocking a source of water for a region and spreading the devastation further indirectly. Perhaps the one way this could be made productive is if someone found a way to make a city in the walls, kind of like the ancient city of Mesa Verde. But then, mountain top removal is just destructive, and unfortunately cheap enough that companies will use it anyway. So, even if we found a way to make synthetic fuels with coal feedstock, there would be the issue of how we would obtain it without causing more direct destruction than the insidious elements from the burning of fossil fuels could hope to match. In fact, it may compound the issue, as there would be less living plant biomass to take up the CO2 being produced.

Whatever the case, the one thing that is easiest to take from what I've learned is this: If there's a trick to clean coal, it is to not burn it as coal.

Extra links:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
http://www.economist.com/node/13235041?story_id=13235041