As Reps. Waxman and Markey unveiled federal legislation today to combat carbon emissions by creating a national cap-and-trade program, states continue to pass more stringent air pollution standards. Now that the EPA and Congress have placed GHG regulation in front of other types of pollutants, states are stepping in.
On March 23rd, the New Mexico Legislature unanimously passed a bill allowing the regulating state agency to adopt ozone standards more stringent than federal standards. New Mexico, a major oil and gas producing state, has suffered from high ozone levels particularly around Bloomfield, the heart of the San Juan Basin. The bill thus gives the agency added authority to reduce emissions in those areas notorious for nonattainment. As I posted earlier, the most recent research on ozone shows high or prolonged exposure leads to increased mortality rates. Clearly, these are public health issues that now enjoy bipartisan support.
Additionally, parents of northern Indiana kids have filed a class action suit in state court against 11 companies they claim have fouled the region's air. Their suit relies on studies recently released indicating that the air pollution in East Chicago neighborhoods is among the worst in the country. (Kurth v. ArcelorMittal USA Inc., Ind. Cir. Ct., No. 450040903CT00093, 3/25/09) The question the claimants need to address is how much could the CAA preempt any tort suit. I plan to post on that question later.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Long-term ozone exposure increases mortality rate
The New England Journal of Medicine recently published an article by Californian researchers which shows ozone has its own, independent (of particulate matter) health effects on mortality. The study followed 450,000 people from 1982 to 2000 and found that controlling ozone would decrease mortality rates, thus providing a clear argument for emissions control as preventative medicine. It's important to remember that climate change is not the only air pollution problem we still have in the U.S.
Carbon Tax to fund FasTracks
It's no longer news that vehicular emissions are major contributors to global warming. The EPA announced yesterday that the agency would now track GHG emissions from a variety of industries, including the requirement that automakers disclose the anticipated GHG emissions from vehicles in their fleets.
Basking in this new political enlightenment, I'm surprised at how flickle the Front Range mayors here in Colorado have become over FasTracks funding. Clearly, the Front Range is in desparate need of a train system. But we cannot let sagging tax revenues bury this crucial project. Even New Mexico, under Gov. Bill Richardson's persistence, pushed through a passenger rail system from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. The so-called Rail Runner recently added another train to serve its rising demand.
Seemingly unrelated, the Boulder City Council decided to review its carbon tax this week - the first municipal tax on carbon in the U.S. - over concerns it is not doing enough. The website Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker is soliciting fairly balanced opinions from journalists and experts as to the effects of the tax.
Regardless of how Boulder decides to proceed, Hickenlooper and his fellow Front Range mayors should take a moment to step back and see the bigger picture. A carbon tax in the Front Range could help accomplish two goals: 1) provide the needed revenue to meet the FasTracks budget shortfall; and 2) create incentives for the public to use public transportation. By forcing those who drive the most to pay for lightrail lines to Golden, Broomfield, Boulder, and DIA, the Front Range would have correctly internalized the costs of driving. In the end, the tax will increase demand for FasTracks, thereby making the project itself more successful.
With public understanding of the externalized costs of cars arguably at its highest ever, now is definitely the time to think creatively and exploit that awareness of inter-connectivity. Raising taxes is never popular, especially in tough times. But if those mayors are willing to raise the FasTracks tax, it shows some political will exists to do the right thing.
Basking in this new political enlightenment, I'm surprised at how flickle the Front Range mayors here in Colorado have become over FasTracks funding. Clearly, the Front Range is in desparate need of a train system. But we cannot let sagging tax revenues bury this crucial project. Even New Mexico, under Gov. Bill Richardson's persistence, pushed through a passenger rail system from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. The so-called Rail Runner recently added another train to serve its rising demand.
Seemingly unrelated, the Boulder City Council decided to review its carbon tax this week - the first municipal tax on carbon in the U.S. - over concerns it is not doing enough. The website Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker is soliciting fairly balanced opinions from journalists and experts as to the effects of the tax.
Regardless of how Boulder decides to proceed, Hickenlooper and his fellow Front Range mayors should take a moment to step back and see the bigger picture. A carbon tax in the Front Range could help accomplish two goals: 1) provide the needed revenue to meet the FasTracks budget shortfall; and 2) create incentives for the public to use public transportation. By forcing those who drive the most to pay for lightrail lines to Golden, Broomfield, Boulder, and DIA, the Front Range would have correctly internalized the costs of driving. In the end, the tax will increase demand for FasTracks, thereby making the project itself more successful.
With public understanding of the externalized costs of cars arguably at its highest ever, now is definitely the time to think creatively and exploit that awareness of inter-connectivity. Raising taxes is never popular, especially in tough times. But if those mayors are willing to raise the FasTracks tax, it shows some political will exists to do the right thing.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Is the Clean Air Act failing rural areas?
It may have been the images of smog over Los Angeles that really provided the impetus to write and pass the CCA. However, recent reports from the major western oil and gas producing areas show higher levels of air pollution than LA, shocking area residents. Air quality reports from Wyoming, New Mexico, and Colorado all indicate that rural areas, once noted for air quality, now suffer from some of the worst levels of pollution in the U.S. Because of the explosion of oil and gas drilling in the Powder River Basin, the San Juan Basin, and on the Roan Plateau, the amount of gases escaping from drill sites has burgeoned into a serious problem.
Residents are waking up to this fact. Garfield County, Colorado, just recently unveiled an air quality website for its residents.
The EPA is supposed to find these areas in non-attainment, and then the state authority must step in to reduce the pollution. If the state cannot regain attainment, EPA is permitted to take control. So far there appears to be no overall improvement. However, Salazar did withdraw BLM O&G leases near some National Parks in Utah. The existence of National Parks, in fact, gives the EPA additional authority as those air sheds mandate additional protections.
Look for more discussion on this topic in the future.
Residents are waking up to this fact. Garfield County, Colorado, just recently unveiled an air quality website for its residents.
The EPA is supposed to find these areas in non-attainment, and then the state authority must step in to reduce the pollution. If the state cannot regain attainment, EPA is permitted to take control. So far there appears to be no overall improvement. However, Salazar did withdraw BLM O&G leases near some National Parks in Utah. The existence of National Parks, in fact, gives the EPA additional authority as those air sheds mandate additional protections.
Look for more discussion on this topic in the future.
Friday, February 20, 2009
How will the EPA tackle greenhouse gas emissions?
The New York Times' Room for Debate Section has some good (and more accurate than last time) commentary on possible directions the Obama administration can head in regulating GHGs. Most commentators agree that, generally, there are two solutions: 1) regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, or 2) work with Congress to create a new law.
The first option is attractive because the framework already exists. The detractors point out however, and I agree, that the CCA was developed to deal with smog - particulates floating in the air in urban areas. GHGs create different effects and come from different sources. A greater expanse of the economy would be affected and regulated, as John D. Graham points out.
Thus, the second option makes some sense, though it make take years to formulate. The law could be crafted so the EPA would have the proper tools to regulate GHG emissions in innovative ways.
There's an option which was not mentioned, however. Perhaps while the U.S. formulates it's own policy, the Obama administration can release the states from federalism issues and allow them to create pilot programs. They are the nation's laboratory of laws, after all (as pointed out in other posts). In fact, thanks to George W. Bush's inability to pass meaningful mercury federal regulation, over 20 states have begun to tackle that problem themselves, though in the shadow of threatened federalism litigation. The states might develop more innovative ideas than the federal government could, while at the same time expose any future roadblocks.
Finally, Robert Hahn and Peter Passell bring up the inherent global problem with any program to regulate GHG emissions. Even if the U.S. does formulate a coherent policy and regulatory program to reduce our own emissions, unless growing industrial nations such as China and India do the same, our effort is eviscerated on a global scale. They are correct that whatever our effort is, we have to create incentives to transfer clean technology to those nations. But I'd like to emphasis that we still have a moral obligation, as a world leader, to reduce our disproportionately large contribution to this problem. We must accept our role as that leader, to go when others might not.
The first option is attractive because the framework already exists. The detractors point out however, and I agree, that the CCA was developed to deal with smog - particulates floating in the air in urban areas. GHGs create different effects and come from different sources. A greater expanse of the economy would be affected and regulated, as John D. Graham points out.
Thus, the second option makes some sense, though it make take years to formulate. The law could be crafted so the EPA would have the proper tools to regulate GHG emissions in innovative ways.
There's an option which was not mentioned, however. Perhaps while the U.S. formulates it's own policy, the Obama administration can release the states from federalism issues and allow them to create pilot programs. They are the nation's laboratory of laws, after all (as pointed out in other posts). In fact, thanks to George W. Bush's inability to pass meaningful mercury federal regulation, over 20 states have begun to tackle that problem themselves, though in the shadow of threatened federalism litigation. The states might develop more innovative ideas than the federal government could, while at the same time expose any future roadblocks.
Finally, Robert Hahn and Peter Passell bring up the inherent global problem with any program to regulate GHG emissions. Even if the U.S. does formulate a coherent policy and regulatory program to reduce our own emissions, unless growing industrial nations such as China and India do the same, our effort is eviscerated on a global scale. They are correct that whatever our effort is, we have to create incentives to transfer clean technology to those nations. But I'd like to emphasis that we still have a moral obligation, as a world leader, to reduce our disproportionately large contribution to this problem. We must accept our role as that leader, to go when others might not.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Indeck Lawsuit, Continued
Indeck's complaint alleges several causes of actions, including that the Governor authorized executive branch agencies to create the system by which New York would administer the RGGI CO2 credits without proper legislative consent.
Two more interesting claims are: (1) that the Governor has, in fact, created a tax, which under established law would require legislative consent; and (2) that the CO2 credits are not personal or real property, but licenses. The agencies responsible, according to the complaint, only have jurisdiction over personal or real property.
The pollution-as-property idea, which is somewhat inherent in all cap-and-trade programs, has troubled environmentalists for some time. The extreme example I remember one troubled individual gave (though I can't remember who) involved a rich person and the Grand Canyon. If you could pay to pollute, then at some point a price would exist which would permit a rich person to fill up the Grand Canyon with his empty soda cans. In other words, the problem is philosophical and economic: Is there always an optimal price to pollute? And if so, does that not discount the non-economic values we place on unpolluted, natural places?
Two last points: Public-good economics have developed rapidly, to the point we can now better calculate the external costs of pollution, thus allowing us to monetarily value clean air. Secondly, Indeck claims "the right to emit" is a license, not a property right. I wonder if Indeck truly believes that, or if it's a litigation strategy. Regardless, it will be interesting what the court finds.
Two more interesting claims are: (1) that the Governor has, in fact, created a tax, which under established law would require legislative consent; and (2) that the CO2 credits are not personal or real property, but licenses. The agencies responsible, according to the complaint, only have jurisdiction over personal or real property.
The pollution-as-property idea, which is somewhat inherent in all cap-and-trade programs, has troubled environmentalists for some time. The extreme example I remember one troubled individual gave (though I can't remember who) involved a rich person and the Grand Canyon. If you could pay to pollute, then at some point a price would exist which would permit a rich person to fill up the Grand Canyon with his empty soda cans. In other words, the problem is philosophical and economic: Is there always an optimal price to pollute? And if so, does that not discount the non-economic values we place on unpolluted, natural places?
Two last points: Public-good economics have developed rapidly, to the point we can now better calculate the external costs of pollution, thus allowing us to monetarily value clean air. Secondly, Indeck claims "the right to emit" is a license, not a property right. I wonder if Indeck truly believes that, or if it's a litigation strategy. Regardless, it will be interesting what the court finds.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Legal Challenge to RGGI
The New York Times' Green blog reports that Indeck Energy, a power generating company, has filed a lawsuit in Saratoga County claiming that New York State impermissibly joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a CO2 emissions cap and trade program. More specifically, Indeck claims New York's executive branch illegally joined the RGGI by executive fiat, without the needed approval of the legislature. Because the RGGI levies a discriminatory tax on long term price contracts, legislative consent was required. More analysis will follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
