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/
Showing posts with label sulfur dioxide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sulfur dioxide. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Rainy Days... is the drizzle smoking?
To me, acid rain seems like a highly unpleasant concept. Rainwater, usually one of the most reliably clean sources of water on earth, becoming caustic enough to increase erosion rates of stone and metal. Also, changing the soil of the plants that it waters in such a way that they die off, and few things if any are capable of growing in the ground thereafter. It just seems wrong, like a perversion of nature in a way; one of the most necessary elements in biological systems, and an invaluable delivery system for cycling and delivering water to regions where it doesn't last long on the surface, becoming a vector for killing off otherwise hardy ecosystems. It's a twisted version of the cycle that is so necessary for life.
While rain itself is naturally more acidic than neutral due to naturally occurring weak acids generated from atmospheric gases, it usually falls within a certain range that organisms have evolved to operate within. If the natural acidity is pushed too far, or reduced to a basic nature, organisms typically suffer from various functions becoming inhibited as the proteins and enzymes within the cells of any organisms subjected to the changed pH become inert or inoperable, if they aren't killed outright by possible corrosive effects. Plants that don't suffer from effects such as these are often victim to either toxic compounds being solvated and absorbed, or to atrophy as vital nutrients are dissolved to the point that they flow away before they can be taken up (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html). Bodies of water are also subject to such sensitivity, with similar reasons- fish are susceptible to poisoning by aluminum and acidic conditions, while microorganisms suffer from their medium being changed (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html).
It's not just the environment that is degrading due to acid rain, either. Various man-made structures are subject to damage from acid rain, especially those made from rocks primarily composed of calcium carbonate, and ferric and cupric metals. "Calcium carbonate in certain stones dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid [from rain] to form calcium sulphate." (http://www.air-quality.org.uk/12.php) Calcium sulphate, often known as gypsum, is a much more brittle stone, and is subject to falling off of the afflicted stonework, leaving an exposed area that is subjected to further reaction with acid rain. Besides the effects upon statues, various buildings of note are feeling the effects, including the Taj Mahal, Notre Dame cathedral, and the roman Colosseum.
Acid rain is generated in various ways, some natural. However, natural acidity is usually caused by carbonic acid, a much weaker acid than the sulfuric and nitric acids that typically causes problems. These are often generated by the release of industrial chemicals from smokestacks, or from the exhaust of motor vehicles. Though both can occur naturally, the quantity of these compounds in the air has increased and been generated more frequently, as compared to being generated from less common events such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, which combined produce roughly 1/7th of the quantity of sulfur dioxide released from human activities per year. And while the phenomenon is typically referred to as acid "rain," it doesn't necessarily need to come down in aqueous conditions- sometimes these acids occur in gaseous or solid forms and reaches the ground long enough to either stick to something or react with something. When this happens, it's usually referred to as dry deposition. However, it's effects can be just as much, if not more noticeable in the long run, since the quantity deposited will most likely be fully unleashed when exposed to water, and when that occurs, the dry material will solvate and add up to a much higher concentration being administered all at once. When this happens, the pH drops even more dramatically, and the organisms subjected to this treatment will most likely not be able to cope. And while humans may not be susceptible to direct health effects from increased acidification of the environment, it is the gaseous and dry particulate that can cause various severe health issues, as these will dissolve in the mucous lining of the respiratory system, and cause heart and lung problems.
Unlike climate change, this matter has received political attention and study, though not without it's own share of political turmoil. In 1980, a program was put together to try and assess the extent and impact of acid deposition on the environment. This program was called the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP), and was supposed to perform a long-term study into the matter of acid precipitation and it's effects on the environment, and come up with a "credible evaluation of the consequences of various policy options" While it seemed to serve it's purpose by the end of it's term, although "advocates from all sides attempted to use the program to support their own policy marketing efforts, or to disparage those of their opponents." (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf). Another study, by the DENR, found in 1991 that large bodies of freshwater are becoming more acidic, enough so that some species of fish can no longer survive within them. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1989, which introduced the concept of "cap and trade," a system where permits are issued for how much of a pollutant gas can be released into the atmosphere by a company per year, and if they don't expect to reach that limit, they can trade those permits to another company for something. This allows for companies with the means to make the large scale changes to their operating facilities to clean their emissions can do so, trading to the companies that don't yet have the capacity to do the same until they do have the capability. It seems to have been a success for this program, and apparently at a lower cost than was initially expected. However, the success may be attributed to certain changes in the industries that were actually subject to exuding the compounds responsible for the acidity in the air. A similar system is being proposed to try and handle greenhouse gases, but part of the reason they are so hard to handle is that they aren't as reactive as sulfur dioxide, and can be harder to contain. There is also the matter of the time that such a plan needs to be effective, as gradual changes come about; climate change is already at an advanced stage of progression, and if this program even had a chance to work here as well, is it too late to help? But that is a different matter.
While sulfur dioxide emissions by human activity haven't been reduced to zero, they have been reduced significantly, perhaps even to the point where our impact on the environment through that vector is minimal. Hopefully our impact will be less than those of natural causes one day, but in the meantime, it's good to be able to celebrate our victories while we can... as long as we don't backslide in the process.
While rain itself is naturally more acidic than neutral due to naturally occurring weak acids generated from atmospheric gases, it usually falls within a certain range that organisms have evolved to operate within. If the natural acidity is pushed too far, or reduced to a basic nature, organisms typically suffer from various functions becoming inhibited as the proteins and enzymes within the cells of any organisms subjected to the changed pH become inert or inoperable, if they aren't killed outright by possible corrosive effects. Plants that don't suffer from effects such as these are often victim to either toxic compounds being solvated and absorbed, or to atrophy as vital nutrients are dissolved to the point that they flow away before they can be taken up (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html). Bodies of water are also subject to such sensitivity, with similar reasons- fish are susceptible to poisoning by aluminum and acidic conditions, while microorganisms suffer from their medium being changed (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html).
It's not just the environment that is degrading due to acid rain, either. Various man-made structures are subject to damage from acid rain, especially those made from rocks primarily composed of calcium carbonate, and ferric and cupric metals. "Calcium carbonate in certain stones dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid [from rain] to form calcium sulphate." (http://www.air-quality.org.uk/12.php) Calcium sulphate, often known as gypsum, is a much more brittle stone, and is subject to falling off of the afflicted stonework, leaving an exposed area that is subjected to further reaction with acid rain. Besides the effects upon statues, various buildings of note are feeling the effects, including the Taj Mahal, Notre Dame cathedral, and the roman Colosseum.
Acid rain is generated in various ways, some natural. However, natural acidity is usually caused by carbonic acid, a much weaker acid than the sulfuric and nitric acids that typically causes problems. These are often generated by the release of industrial chemicals from smokestacks, or from the exhaust of motor vehicles. Though both can occur naturally, the quantity of these compounds in the air has increased and been generated more frequently, as compared to being generated from less common events such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, which combined produce roughly 1/7th of the quantity of sulfur dioxide released from human activities per year. And while the phenomenon is typically referred to as acid "rain," it doesn't necessarily need to come down in aqueous conditions- sometimes these acids occur in gaseous or solid forms and reaches the ground long enough to either stick to something or react with something. When this happens, it's usually referred to as dry deposition. However, it's effects can be just as much, if not more noticeable in the long run, since the quantity deposited will most likely be fully unleashed when exposed to water, and when that occurs, the dry material will solvate and add up to a much higher concentration being administered all at once. When this happens, the pH drops even more dramatically, and the organisms subjected to this treatment will most likely not be able to cope. And while humans may not be susceptible to direct health effects from increased acidification of the environment, it is the gaseous and dry particulate that can cause various severe health issues, as these will dissolve in the mucous lining of the respiratory system, and cause heart and lung problems.
Unlike climate change, this matter has received political attention and study, though not without it's own share of political turmoil. In 1980, a program was put together to try and assess the extent and impact of acid deposition on the environment. This program was called the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP), and was supposed to perform a long-term study into the matter of acid precipitation and it's effects on the environment, and come up with a "credible evaluation of the consequences of various policy options" While it seemed to serve it's purpose by the end of it's term, although "advocates from all sides attempted to use the program to support their own policy marketing efforts, or to disparage those of their opponents." (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf). Another study, by the DENR, found in 1991 that large bodies of freshwater are becoming more acidic, enough so that some species of fish can no longer survive within them. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1989, which introduced the concept of "cap and trade," a system where permits are issued for how much of a pollutant gas can be released into the atmosphere by a company per year, and if they don't expect to reach that limit, they can trade those permits to another company for something. This allows for companies with the means to make the large scale changes to their operating facilities to clean their emissions can do so, trading to the companies that don't yet have the capacity to do the same until they do have the capability. It seems to have been a success for this program, and apparently at a lower cost than was initially expected. However, the success may be attributed to certain changes in the industries that were actually subject to exuding the compounds responsible for the acidity in the air. A similar system is being proposed to try and handle greenhouse gases, but part of the reason they are so hard to handle is that they aren't as reactive as sulfur dioxide, and can be harder to contain. There is also the matter of the time that such a plan needs to be effective, as gradual changes come about; climate change is already at an advanced stage of progression, and if this program even had a chance to work here as well, is it too late to help? But that is a different matter.
While sulfur dioxide emissions by human activity haven't been reduced to zero, they have been reduced significantly, perhaps even to the point where our impact on the environment through that vector is minimal. Hopefully our impact will be less than those of natural causes one day, but in the meantime, it's good to be able to celebrate our victories while we can... as long as we don't backslide in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)