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/

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.