Regulations to control air quality have been talked about for many years, but there have never been serious efforts for global control, despite the fact that air pollution has been directly linked to a range of medical problems, leading to higher mortality rates.
Environmental Concerns Ignored by Mankind
Since most people acknowledge the importance of air quality as an element which has the characteristics to sustain and prolong life, as well as to shorten it, why have environmental concerns been largely ignored, except in local areas where serious air pollution has caused demonstrable and identifiable health damage?
It is true that the use of fossil fuels has enabled society to move through several 'revolutions' - industrial and technological, to name two, developing innovative processes for the industrial sector, medical advances for the health sector, and certainly a much higher quality of life for billions of people, than they would otherwise have experienced.
Admittedly, the negative side of the widespread use of fossil fuels - the U.S. currently produces over 60 percent of its electrical energy from coal - has been a decrease in air quality. One could say that every practice has a price, and poor air quality is what nature extracts from mankind for allowing planet earth to use its fossilized strata as fuel.
No Public Consensus on Protecting Air Quality
There is no public consensus about the need to protect air quality because 'air' is a freely-consumable element, and improvements and its importance to each individual, has has been left to that individual to decide. Consumption dictates air quality trends.
Product choice, far more so than legislation, has demonstrated the increase in perceived importance of air quality concerns, according to Emily McClendon, an environmental marketing specialist, who believes that "communication and shared knowledge are the most important facets of conveying environmentally friendly practices...is convinced a comprehensive approach is the only solution for creating a sustainable economy."
Unfortunately for Emily and other environmentalists who believe that humans can solve their environmental problems without regulation, the reverse has been proven to be true. Cap-and-trade has fallen into disrepute, as witness the recent closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange, and pull-backs or cancellations of carbon reduction programs in other jurisdictions, like British Columbia, the U.S., and the U.K.
The Globe is One Big Marketplace
It is interesting as well as significant for supporters of improving air quality - and who can speak against motherhood - that the products bought by the peoples of the developed countries are invariably produced in what we know as 'third world countries,' where just eking out a living is often very difficult, never mind what the dictator government of the day is doing about either regulating air quality or setting up a carbon trading market.
There is a global relationship between the products purchased and the area where they are produced. Toxic fumes resulting from manufactured products several continents away do not impact those who produce the product. Promoting air quality initiatives has become a privilege of first world countries, the so-called 'industrialized nations of the world,' however most of our goods are produced in third world or underdeveloped countries.
No surprise then that the first world countries, with stronger federal regulation of industry, associate air pollution with vehicular emissions, rather than industry, although industry, particularly the manufacturing sector, certainly plays a significant role in polluting the atmosphere.
Will Polluting Elements of Society Come Back to Haunt Us?
MClendon, like many other environmentalists, believes that society will pay a price for its polluting ways, however, for the time being the benefits of continued growth and innovation, especially in countries where export is the primary economic stimulus, air pollution caused by manufacturing plants will continue to be considered one of the essentially unknown penalties for continued growth.
The long-term effects of pollution on air quality and the methods which can be used to offset the damage to the environment, have been the subject of much discussion, and a number of strategies have been proposed to regulate and control the emission of pollutants, especially greenhouse gases containing carbon elements form fossil fuel. The two strategies which have received the most attention are: cap-and-trade, and regulation by legislation.
Cap-and-Trade Carbon Away or Legislate?
A cap-and-trade solution, in the opinion of many who do not believe that this strategy is or will be effective in reducing carbon emissions, poses several problems, and assumes that trading carbon credits will be of interest to investors, not to mention the scandals and fraudulent practices which have already sprung up around carbon trading.
So far, investors have not shown much interest in carbon trading. While the process could reduce marginal costs for companies which are more efficient at reducing pollution, this method again presumes a lot of participation on the part of polluting organizations. The cost efficiency argument for cap-and-trade still has to be proven.(Financial Post, "Cap and tirade," Peter Foster, Feb. 16, 2011)
The alternative to cap-and-trade is legislation to regulate the overall amount of pollution produced by each company. Although there is an assumption that both approaches would have the same effect, legislating reductions in pollution also presents many challenges. Among them, the increased need for reduction at every location of a company, the requirement for an extensive and continuous inspection framework, and the need for government regulation of continued emission reduction, and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance.
Why Is a Marketing Solution Better Than a Legislated Solution?
While some environmentalists consider the cap-and-trade marketing solution to be the most effective way to minimize and/or control pollution, in jurisdictions where one or the other has been tried, the jury is still out. Implementation coats for cap-and-trade is a factor, since the green marketing aspect of air pollution reduction is unlikely to offset the cost required to reduce emissions.
Perhaps the answer, as suggested by MClendon, is a dual system that would involve a market system for carbon, as well as cap- and-trade to provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions, with a competitive benefit.
Duane Sharp - I am a retired professional engineer (electronics), with over 40 years of writing experience in technology topics, with a focus on the IT ...
