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/

Jamming Cultural Frequencies

Culture jamming is an interesting phenomenon. It's a way to challenge how the public views the world as it is, a way to challenge the status quo. By definition, it is "a tactic used by many anti-consumerist social movement to disrupt or subvert media culture and its mainstream cultural institutions, including corporate advertising." I am inclined to believe that this definition could be easily broadened to include hoaxes that are intended to challenge cultural norms and trends. The term is somewhat derived from the term "radio jamming," which is when radio frequencies get taken over or scrambled by a third party between the broadcaster and the recipient. The difference is that culture jamming is typically a way to share a message, usually counter to the original message in a way that the consumer might not be able to tell the difference. It most often works through the same mediums as the messages they are trying to challenge, though often in a way that doesn't get noticed at first.

An organized example of this is the Billboard Liberation Front. While some of their "improvements" to signs are small enough that they might not get noticed at first, they significantly change the message that a sign is trying to convey. An interesting example I noticed on their front page was a neon sign advertising Camel cigarettes having certain sections blacked out and a modified portion to make it read "Am I Dead Yet?" Being organized online, and with their members largely secret, they work in a guerrilla fashion to improve the advertisements of their "clients" in such a way that they "unlock" messages that would have otherwise been "hidden" in the advertisements. To look at it a bit more objectively, they seem to have a strange sort of tongue-in-cheek humor in their approach to changing advertisements, with a manifesto that tells of the Advertisement as a ubiquitous idea permeating our consciousness to a subliminal level, and affecting out views of the world and ourselves... okay, that's actually the case, but they say it in an almost awe-inspired way. The last part of the manifesto states: "Each time you change the Advertising message in your own mind, whether you climb up onto the board and physically change the original copy and graphics or not, each time you improve the message, you enter in to the High Priesthood of Advertisers." They don't necessarily say that one has to physically change the sign- just that it is best to view it in such a way that you are capable of seeing through the veil, and not being suckered in by what they are trying to say, and to not view it with the eyes of a "consumer," but as an independent mind capable of using it to share their thoughts, or spread a message that is typically counter to the initial Advertisement.

Media hoaxes are also an example of culture jamming, though they may often focus on how people act and work to try and change how people are approaching their lives and interpersonal reactions, as compared to focusing on the media outlets and corporations. A legacy example of this type of culture jamming is a man by the name of Alan Abel. In 1958, he started with a campaign called "The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals," or S.I.N.A. for short. He successfully managed to keep the hoax going for 5 years before Time magazine blew the whistle on the campaign, which was run on about $20 a week, with a fake office that was a broom closet with a plaque on the door. The hoax itself was a commentary on censorship, poking fun at the type of people who would ban and burn books and records for "moral" reasons. The campaign was run very successfully with a small group and most of its public appearances being enabled by the news media, which had various "members" of the group come on to talk about the campaign, as well as interviews with the "president," G. Clifford Prout (really a comedian friend of Abel's named Buck Henry) on major news outlets. The hoax captured the public in a way that is hard to describe- people actually joined newsletters and sent in donations (One woman from Santa Barbara, CA actually sent in a check for $40,000!) to support the "cause." The money that people sent in was returned, but anyone who didn't see the initial outing of the hoax was continuously duped for a few more years through the newsletter. It was a very elaborate prank at times, too: there was apparently a song for the group, that was performed a capella on a show, as well as a coat of arms. While it doesn't seem that the public reaction to the reveal of the hoax was ever really recorded, I would hope that those who learned about it after supporting it had a moment where they really thought about what it was they had been trying to support, instead of simply becoming angry. But then again, the type of people who would send in money for such a cause probably aren't open-minded enough to have a reaction besides anger. Abel has continued to pull various media pranks over the last 50 years or so, with the goal of giving people a swift "kick in the intellect." His work has probably had mixed results over the years, but there is one thing that is certain: the man is dedicated, and very good at this particular form of social commentary.

So, whether it be by hijacking the advertisements of the corporations, or trying to make people think at least a little bit harder about the way that society treats certain actions, or about how information is being presented to them, there are people out there who are working to subvert the monopoly on the public mind that various powers-that-be have on the populace. And I am inclined to say: best of luck. People need all the help they can get on that front.

Extra Links:
http://www.adbusters.org/

Hoax saying the Alberta tar sands would be a setting for Mordor in "The Hobbit"

http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm Excellent article, with even more links

Recounting of an interesting request for customized Nikes

An interview with Alan Abel

http://theyesmen.org/ A particularly famous Culture Jamming group

The Pebble Project: Trying to Make a Molehill Out of a Mountain

In Alaska, a project that could determine the fate of a large region in the south is currently being hotly debated. Called the Pebble Project (for the Pebble Partnership that owns the mineral rights) it is a mining project that is still waiting for approval, since the mineral rights were first obtained in 2001 by the initial member of the Pebble Partnership (Klare, Ch.5). The claim, located near Iliamna Lake, is possibly the biggest gold mine and the second largest copper mine in the US, as well as containing respectable amounts of silver and the rare element molybdenum. However, it is located within a very sensitive ecologic region, with major watersheds and hundreds of rivers and streams moving through the area. But the concern about these waters being contaminated is more specific than the usual concern about downstream contamination and ecological poisoning: the region is home to the most prolific salmon fishery in the world. These fish are a keystone species for the region, being the staple diet for many creatures, as well as many Native American communities that rely on them to provide a large portion of their food supply each year. They are also important commercially- 12,500 people are employed in the $100 million per year industry. If toxins from the mining project were to enter this system, even if the fish didn't experience mass die-offs, the toxins would become concentrated in their bodies and make them unsuitable for safe consumption, still managing to ruin the lives and livelihoods of all who depend on them. With these considerations in mind, the resistance to the plan becomes easier to understand, despite the payload that would be taken from the ground and the jobs that it would generate.

The controversies aren't limited to just the nature of the project either. Currently, an independent panel set up by the Keystone Group is supposed to be partaking of a review of data gathered by the company that wants to do the work, but already two members have left the review panel. One left voluntarily, due to personal problems with the process as it was taking place, and the fact that they were supposed to perform the review based on conditions in the region, and without a proposed plan for them to consider in the process. The other was "excused" from the panel, due to a paper he had helped co-write on the fisheries and possible impacts of mining on the region, and this made it seem that he would be biased during the review process. While the second reviewer, Daniel Schindler, believes that both sides of the debate need to be analyzed for scientific accuracy, his contributions to research about the ecosystems of the research were viewed as "acts of advocacy." While it may be easy to see how the connection to be made, the fact that he holds both sides of the debate to standards of scientific accuracy should be enough to make him a valuable member of a review panel, and the fact that he has done research on the matter should support that claim, instead of branding him as being a sympathizer with one side. The one other matter for consideration is that if a plan for the mine had been submitted along with the data for the region (supplied by the Pebble Project) as the first reviewer would have liked, he may have been able to offer specific input based on his previous research.

Even with the possible benefits that the mine could offer to the region, there are many who believe that the impact would be too great to be offset by the benefits, especially since they will last much longer than the jobs that will be supposedly created by its activity. Many are worried not only what will happen to the communities that already populate the region, but about the generations who will come after, and be the ones who have to suffer most for any mistakes made at this time. As was already mentioned, most people who live in the region rely on the land for their food, since getting food delivered is too expensive for the local economies to handle, and many have learned the skills to do so effectively enough that they can fish, hunt, and gather resources to sustain themselves and their families. There are some who do it due to circumstances, and others who do it by choice, and probably some who do it with a mix of the two stimuli. But if a large industrial project were to be inserted into the environment, there would no longer be an ecosystem capable of sustaining these enterprising spirits, as game would most likely be frightened off, and the land would be changed so that various plants would be harder to find. And if the mine isn't able to live up to its promise to maintain the project in such a way that no contamination of the surroundings occurs, a promise that has never come to fruition by any mine that has similar conditions to the Pebble Project (even with claims that technology has advanced enough for them to do so), the fish and streams will be forever changed in such a way that the local culture and ecosystem will be irreparably damaged.

Perhaps the only way for this particular project to be done safely would be to develop a completely novel method of resource extraction that takes away the need for tailing ponds. Perhaps either tailings could be treated and recycled as the process proceeds, simultaneously reducing the quantity of material needed and the risk that comes with having ponds of toxic waste sitting out in the open. Or another method of removing the target resource from the ores can be developed, that wouldn't rely as much on chemical extraction. Whatever the case, I don't think that the mining should be done as most projects are done. The people and ecosystem of the region should not be put at such high risk to satisfy the greed of a world that has managed to squander a good portion of its resources when they could have found ways to reclaim them for reuse, and thus reduce the need to find ever increasing quantities of raw materials. While it may not be easy, the people of the region have a means to be self-sustainable, which in many ways is a greater boon to their existence than having a high per capita income. Those from outside shouldn't be allowed to take that from them for the sake of temporary (and to some degree, unneeded) boosts in production.

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

Where to begin...

Since this is my first post, I figured that a subject directly relating to the class may be an appropriate start. Why is it that oil has become such an integral part of political proceedings? I suppose I'd be inclined to say that it did during the course of WWII, when it's strategic importance was fully tested. It was a source of fuel that could drive multi-ton vehicles in just about any situation, even in colder climates where other fuel sources might have become too viscous to flow through the engine. It was easy to transport, and as long as certain basic safety measures were in place, it was relatively safe and stable. I am inclined to believe one of the major points here is the matter of how much horsepower could be produced with a good engine. Being able to keep aircraft aloft, even with heavy loads, became a major selling point for the fuel source during the cold war era, when there were 24-7 flights of bombers prepared to divert their holding pattern to hit the heart of the Soviet Union. But since then, a few alternative sources of transportable energy have been researched and produced, including better electric motors and batteries, biofuels, and to a lesser extent, hydrogen based power. While they each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks, there has not been enough research into most of them to improve their viability and effectiveness. Is this due to oil's dominance, in minds and established infrastructure, or perhaps there are individuals who try to halt development to maintain oil's dominance? I suppose it will only be a question that can be properly answered in hindsight, when all the factors can be analyzed together. In the meantime, oil still holds the primary role as the worlds energy source, even as it is known to be running out.

A significant factor to consider in this situation is political corruption. It has long been known that various groups will somehow try to buy politicians in one way or another- whether it be with gifts, bribes, or campaign funding. While there are laws in place against such activities, they certainly occur anyway, often leading to a politician acting on their part in future lawmaking or other political maneuvers. Oil companies have the distinction of being pandered to by the government, even before they start buying individuals. Since they provide the lifeblood for the armed forces, as well as the primary convenience of the everyday individual, they are the controllers of one of the greatest strategic factors for a modern armed conflict. The government, being unable to take control of the companies, even through modern capitalistic methods, instead simply gives them what they want to make sure that they keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, since the primary sources of oil are in foreign countries, that also means the government has to pander to them to allow American companies to drill in areas outside of their direct control. As elaborated in Blood and Oil, this means a lot of concessions and gifts to groups that are not particularly friendly or well-meaning. However, since they are limiting their options by not researching alternatives, the US government is in a way forcing itself to continue these practices.

To take a slight conspiracy take on it, perhaps one of the reasons that the government does what it can to keep up oil production is so that they can get it relatively cheap. Following with the law of supply and demand, when more people want something, the cheaper it can be to get, hence why buying in bulk is a popular economic choice. However, since the government subsidizes oil production, that take on the situation doesn't really hold water. For more on this, I would suggest looking here.

 So, while it's easy to comment and complain, what is there to actually do about the situation?
 Well, I'm not really sure. It's easy to say that we need to work more on alternative energy sources, it's a group decision. There are more ways to make the transition than there are ways to continue as we are, and some prefer not having to make hard decisions, much less putting work into them. I suppose the best we can do is put the best and brightest on the job, try to turnover the current political stagnancy with new members, and try to minimize our personal reliance on oil. While that last one is hardly a drop in the bucket, if enough people try to do the same, it will reduce the rate at which the bucket fills, if nothing else.