Clearing Up Cap-And-Trade

  • In cap-and-trade, businesses can purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

Congress is considering restricting
carbon emissions causing climate
change with a cap-and-trade scheme.
But, recent polls show only a handful
of people have heard of cap-and-trade.
Even fewer understand what it is.
Lester Graham reports cap-and-trade
is not new:

Transcript

Congress is considering restricting
carbon emissions causing climate
change with a cap-and-trade scheme.
But, recent polls show only a handful
of people have heard of cap-and-trade.
Even fewer understand what it is.
Lester Graham reports cap-and-trade
is not new:

We’ve been using the market-based tool to reduce other pollution.

Frank O’Donnell is with the environmental group Clean Air Watch. He says ‘remember acid rain?’ The government ‘capped’ the pollutants causing acid rain. And then came the ‘trade’ part.

“Sources can either reduce their emissions further or purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to.”

O’Donnell says that cap-and-trade was cheaper than anybody predicted, and it reduced acid rain. But it didn’t eliminate it.

“And the reason is that the cap-and-trade target was essentially a politically-driven target. It was not one based fully on science.”

In fact, the US EPA is now proposing cutting acid rain pollutants more.

O’Donnell thinks a cap-and-trade scheme for carbon emmissions could be far more susceptible to political maneuvering.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

More Ethanol in Gas?

  • A corn ethanol refinery- The ethanol industry is asking the EPA to raise the legal limit of ethanol that can be added to regular gasoline from 10 to 15%. (Photo by Grant Hellman, Courtesy of US Department of Agriculture)

In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent. Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent:

Transcript

In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent.

Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has already said that 12 or 13 percent ethanol is possible soon.

But, an environmental groups says, “slow down.”

Jeremy Martin is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says, first, the government should make sure that a higher-ethanol blend doesn’t damage pollution controls on vehicle engines.

“We don’t want to quickly make a change and then find out that we’ve caused a lot of damage to lots of vehicles on the road or caused a lot of air quality impacts.”

Supporters of the increased ethanol blend say it would help US corn farmers and reduce the demand for foreign oil. But opponents say ethanol made from corn does more harm to the environment than good.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

New Chronic Wasting Disease Worries

Officials say a new outbreak of Chronic Wasting Disease
could erupt after a fence was cut at an infected hunting preserve in Wisconsin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley
reports:

Transcript

Officials say a new outbreak of Chronic Wasting Disease could erupt after a fence was cut at an
infected hunting preserve in Wisconsin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina
Shockley reports:

Authorities say someone intentionally cut a hole in a perimeter fence at the preserve in central
Wisconsin. They say tracks indicate deer had gone in and out of the area through the hole…
before the owner saw it and notified the Department of Natural Resources.


Alan Crossley is with the Wisconsin DNR. He says officials shot deer around the preserve to try
to limit the chance the disease would spread to wild deer.


“We have to try to assess whether any deer escaped from that shooting pen. Then we’re going to
be meeting to talk about okay, should we try to do any additional shooting of deer in a larger area
around that pen.”


Crossley says it’s now even more important to monitor deer near the preserve in the years ahead.
He says it will take time to determine how their overall efforts to combat the disease are working.


So far, CWD has been found in the wild in ten states, including Wisconsin, New York and
Illinois.


For the GLRC, I’m Christina Shockley.

Related Links

Tribe Sues for Fishing Rights

The Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma has filed suit in federal court, claiming it still owns fishing rights in Lake Erie… but that’s prompting natural resources officials to worry about the prospect of over-fishing in the lake. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:

Transcript

The Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma has filed suit in federal court,
claiming it still owns fishing rights in Lake Erie, but that’s
prompting natural resources officials to worry about the prospect of
over-fishing in the lake. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill
Cohen reports.


Members of the Ottawa tribe say a 200-year-old treaty gave them fishing
rights, but Ohio officials who regulate fishing are hoping the tribe
doesn’t win its lawsuit.


They say, since the tribe is a sovereign nation,
the Native Americans would not have to abide by state limits on fish
catches, and that could ruin the business of the commercial fishing
companies that rely on the lake.


The Ottawa’s lawyer, Dick Rogovin, says the state could compensate.


“If these tribes take a lot of fish out of the water, I think the state’s
got to put fish back in. That’s their obligation: to supply fish for
everybody else.”


Some Native American tribes do have fishing rights in other parts of the
Great Lakes, but court agreements between the tribes and the states put
limits on the catch of fish in those areas.


For the GLRC, I’m Bill Cohen.

Related Links

Tribal Governments Demand Role in Annex 2001

  • Water diversions from the Great Lakes concern many people, including Native Americans. Some are worried that their voices aren't being given equal weight. (Photo by Bartlomiej Stoinski)

Tribal and First Nation governments from the Great Lakes region say they’re being left out of negotiations to craft a sweeping new framework for regulating Great Lakes water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

Tribal and First Nation governments from the Great Lakes region say they’re being left out of negotiations to craft a sweeping new framework for regulating Great Lakes water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


Representatives from about 75 Native American communities in the U.S. and Canada are demanding a more prominent role in the decision-making process for the agreement known as Annex 2001. The agreement aims to limit Great Lakes diversion. But many tribal groups say the draft agreement is weak.


The Council of Great Lakes Governors says it plans to invite tribal groups to a forum shortly after the New Year. Frank Ettawageshik is the tribal chair of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, in northern michigan. Ettawageshik says he has yet to see the offer. But he says tribal governments don’t just want to be consulted as Indian communities.


“Of course, the governments are made up of many communities. But it’s not just a matter of wanting community input. It’s a matter of wanting input at a government-to-government level.”


The Council of Great Lakes Governors is handling Annex negotiations. The eight governors and two premiers are expected to sign the agreement sometime next year.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Counterpoint: Agreements Will Invite More Diversions

  • The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:

Transcript

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements
that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing
Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in
the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:


In theory, the proposed Agreements are supposed to provide a framework for using the water of the
Great Lakes. In reality, they’re about as leaky as a sunken lake freighter. The framework’s
there, but they fail to impose an overall limit on the volume of water that can be diverted,
or who can take it.


Not only that, but proposals to take less than a million gallons per day out of the basin won’t
require a region-wide review, several of these smaller withdrawals could eventually add up to a
whole lot of water. And whether it’s one large pipe or a lot of tiny ones, the end result is the
same.


Given that the Great Lakes basin contains 20% of all the fresh water on the planet, diverting
some of it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, only 1% of that water is renewed each year.
It would be a good idea to first figure out how much water can be taken without disrupting the
ecological balance of the Lakes. Only once that’s been done should we be looking at allowing
large-scale withdrawals.


And then there’s the threat of trade challenges. Each state or province that approves a water
taking permit won’t be paid directly for the water. Instead they’ll recieve a funding to upgrade
sewage treatment plants or to improve local habitats for example. Recently, a Canadian non-profit
asked for legal opinion about the Agreements. The response was that linking the approval process
to funding for public works basically means that the water is being sold, and under the terms of
NAFTA, once you’ve identified something as a commodity, you can’t restrict its sale.


Canadians should be particularly concerned about these Agreements. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors drafted them. And although the premiers of Ontario and Quebec have signed off on them,
in the end, neither province has the right to veto the decisions made by the Council. In my book,
that’s a lot like being invited to dinner and then being asked to leave before the main course.
And the reverse is true too. If Ontario or Quebec approves a withdrawal, states in the U.S.
wouldn’t have the ability to veto the decision. We share these lakes. If we are all called on
to protect the Great Lakes, then we all need to have an equal voice. That’s why our federal
representatives in Washington D.C. and Ottawa need to draw up a binding international agreement
on water withdrawals.


If nothing else, the proposed Agreements have made it clear that the Great Lakes must be
protected. And with 40 million users already relying on this irreplaceable resource, we clearly
need something better than these Agreements currently have to offer.


Host Tag: Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario.

Related Links