MylesK ([info]mylesk) wrote,
@ 2009-05-19 21:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
The Open Discussions
This is the marshalling area for topics where the resolution of Toxics Watch positions has not yet been reached.

(16 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Carbon sequestration
[info]mylesk
2007-05-20 03:08 am UTC (link)
I think where we are at with carbon sequestration is that it should be developed only in accordance with the polluter pays principle; that is, no public money for research or infrastructure.

The discussion: http://conan-o.livejournal.com/8532.html

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Carbon sequestration
(Anonymous)
2008-08-26 06:33 am UTC (link)
I understood that exhaust from an engine emits +/- 100 different kinds of carcinogens. However cancer research and treatment costs are borne by our healthcare system (ie. tax payers), not by the polluters. I feel that the likelihood of increasing fuel costs to cover cancer treatments is pretty remote. Likewise, I feel polluter pays principle on carbon sequestration is pretty remote. Politicians will argue that climate change is everyone's problem so everyone should pay.

northriverca@hotmail.com

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Water Priorities
[info]mylesk
2007-05-20 03:18 am UTC (link)
A member of our board of directors is training-up to be Toxics Watch's water spokesperson, beginning with the Water for Life or Water for Strife conference in Athabasca.

While the priorities of the Bow Riverkeepers are not yet confirmed, they may be endorsed in the near future.

Bow Riverkeeper will recommend that key areas of focus for the strategy in the next few years should include:

1. The adoption of a protective wetlands policy.
2. The need to protect instream flows for all Alberta rivers. There is a need to restore river flows in southern rivers that have been overallocated and to protect river flows in northern basins before they are allocated for off-stream use.
3. The need for a strong aquatic ecosystem protection strategy that is guided not only by gathering of additional science but by precautionary decision-making.
4. The need to have a specific plan for the integration of the Water for Life strategy and the emerging land use framework.
5. A comprehensive strategy on the protection of source waters and the need to link land protection-particularly in the Eastern Slopes-with drinking water downstream.
6. A strong emphasis on groundwater protection.

From: http://www.bowriverkeeper.org/node/128

(Reply to this)

Peak Oil
[info]mylesk
2007-08-01 05:34 pm UTC (link)
These nodes are like the rooms of a memory palace where my thinking on a topic is located.

http://conan-o.livejournal.com/9545.html?view=23369#t23369

(Reply to this)

The Swedish NOx Charge
[info]mylesk
2007-11-07 02:12 pm UTC (link)
Amandi inquired: what do you think about a system for controlling nox like the one described below? Do you think it would be better or worse then the growth caps we have now for fort sask?
06/11/07 7:43 PM

Sweden's Charge on Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions- The Swedish NOx charge applies to NOx emissions from energy production plants. The charge corresponds to $6.15 per kilogram of NOx emitted. Initially, the tax was levied on energy production plants with yearly energy production of more than 50 GWh. In 1997, it was extended to include plants that produce more than 25 GWh per year. Revenue from the charge is refunded to plants in accordance with their energy production. For plants that entered the system in 1992 and that have remained within the system since that time, specific emissions have fallen by approximately 37%. The smaller plants, which entered the system later, have reduced their emissions by about 20%

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: The Swedish NOx Charge
[info]mylesk
2007-11-07 02:19 pm UTC (link)
I like the approach for its administrative elegance (from a government/DAO perspective) and because I'd expect less free-market ideological resistance to it.

What it lacks for me is acknowledgement of ecological limits. If the demand is great enough and emitters are willing to pay, there is no upper limit. Because we're dealing with a pollutant that is affecting the environment at current emission levels, I think this is an important feature.

Can this be a tool employed within a system that includes carrying capacity based caps?

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Question?
[info]matthewdance
2007-11-07 04:15 pm UTC (link)
What is the goal of the Swedish charge? What outcome are we expecting? If we are looking for a decrease in nox emissions then I think we need a cap that gets tighter over time. The charge is not necessary, particularly if we are charging the appropriate rent for the resource....

Anyway, Syncrude Canada, Mildred Lake release ~14500 t nox in 2005 (NPRI Data). So a total charge of ~89 million...is this a lot for industry? :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Deleted post)
Posted for myself
[info]mylesk
2007-11-08 06:53 am UTC (link)
I think because the system drives everyone to the lowest possible intensity in an attempt to even out the return on revenue from the tax.

I'm understanding it this way: the system creates a wealth transfer from the least efficient facility to the most efficient. So, if you want to keep your facility's money with your facility, you have to be as efficient as the most efficient player in the scheme.

It's a fee-bate: a fee based on pollution, with a rebate based on production.

This fee-bate doesn't alleviate the need for a cap based on environmental limits. The fee-bate will ensure that all the players in the game are using a true BATEA, but if there are enough player, the environment will still suffer.

Matt's right that the charge isn't necessary, but it'll prevent existing players from using the cap as a barrier against new entrants, and harness corporate competitiveness to pursue a true BATEA rather than leave reductions up to government enforcement.




(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Thanks you two!
[info]matthewdance
2007-11-08 03:18 pm UTC (link)
That was very helpful.

I can't help but wonder, though, about how the dynamic of peak oil plays into this. I think that working on this type of question is a task in preventing further environmental and health harm as a stop-gap to the time where oil is too expensive to sell and refine. No one will pay $100 / L to fill up. Or to a time where there are technologies that are better at getting us around.

So, what is the best guess on the timing of oil shortages being the agent of change? As Amandi suggested should we maximize the control technology now and worry about the much harder question with the hope that we live in a very different political climate, and that there is less of a drive for refinement.

But, I am uncertain. How would it look if we pushed harder now given that this government seems to be willing to play? Could the Swedish Solution be used as a tool to leverage a better technology and policy agreement on the cap-and-trade?

MylesK, I feel a need for an alias as well...what do you suggest given that I lost the password to my previous account...Marsh is dead, long live….

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Thanks you two!
[info]mylesk
2007-11-09 10:23 pm UTC (link)
University of Alberta / CRSC Presents: Michael Batty
- Key Issues Facing a World City in the 21st Century

Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007 > 7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. / Free Admission
University of Alberta Civil Engineering Building (CEB) Room 231

For more information, visit: www.crsc.ualberta.ca
Tel: (780) 492-9957 / E-mail: crsc@ualberta.ca

The City-Region Studies Centre invites you to a free public lecture to learn about the key issues facing a world city in the 21st century. The lecturer, Dr. Michael Batty, is a Bartlett Professor of Planning & Director of the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis at the University College London. Dr. Batty will examine the urban planning of London, England, and discuss the major issues it faces as a world city.

He specializes in spatial analysis, GIS, computer/geometric models of cities and regions & the development of computer technologies. His recent book Cities & Complexity focuses on complexity theory and the application of city models.

He has recently been involved in projects on land use transport modeling; pollution mapping; retailing, town centres, and business investment; geographic virtual urban environments + spatially embedded complex systems engineering.

About: City-Region Studies Centre is a university-based research unit providing actionable knowledge to help community leaders improve quality of life. Based at the Faculty of Extension, CRSC links governments, businesses + community groups to the University of Alberta's research expertise.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Thanks you two!
[info]mylesk
2007-11-09 10:30 pm UTC (link)
Have you ever appeared in my blog as a character like Amandi and Gil? I'm thinking not. I would've fake-named you Daniel Hughs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Thanks you two!
[info]matthewdance
2007-11-10 02:41 pm UTC (link)
I did, but was named gpmarsh...thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Thanks you two!
[info]mylesk
2007-12-20 03:56 am UTC (link)
Hey Matt ~ did you attend Michael Batty's lecture on November 15th?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Thanks you two!
[info]matthewdance
2007-12-20 03:42 pm UTC (link)
I went to a daytime GIS special presentation for students to see Batty. Didn't see him in the evening presentation, but got a 1 hr lecture and spoke to him for some time after the lecture. He is involved with building a 3D model of London where they are modeling a number of things, including AQ, vehicle emissions, urban form etc. What is more exciting is his thinking about urban theory. While he states that we currently do not have a theory adequate to the job of explaining our current urban environments, he is suggesting that we use GIS integrated with cellular automata and other models (including the really cool 3D fly through of London) to study how cities grow and form.

The underlying premise is the examination of the 2 states of a city. The static and the dynamic where the static is a discrete slice of time and the dynamic is the change that occurs over a longer period of time as a function of 4 variables - historical accident, physical determinism, natural and comparative advantages. This model for any city is placed within a larger context global-local continuum.

He works at the CENTRE FOR ADVANCED SPATIAL ANALYSIS (CASA!) http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/index.asp. Check out the movies section of the website.

They are also starting to put their models into Virtual Life. This is cool because the model can then be used by people to see how it works. Just imagine going into a virtual model of Edmonton where you could explore the different options for the development of the urban form, model changing emissions levels or access to the LRT or urban sprawl based on policy decisions?

I find this very exciting...I am struggling with how to make this stuff happen, and get some grad work out of it all at the same time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Thanks you two!
[info]matthewdance
2007-12-20 03:48 pm UTC (link)
Also check out:
http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Question?
[info]mylesk
2008-06-11 06:41 pm UTC (link)
What the NOx charge does is it sets the price of NOx high, the Swedish charge is around six times the price of NOx we expected out of the EPT’s emissions trading system for power plants. And then it gives the money back in proportion to plants’ emissions intensity, so emissions intensive plants loose money while less emissions intensive plants make money. I think that what it does is, because the cost of the tax is so much higher than the cost of reducing emissions on site, and because there is profit to be made from doing better than their peers, industry just reduces as far as it can go.

Even places where that have NOx standards, you end up with a spread of plants, some with really high intensities, because these are the old grandfathered plants, and then the new less emissions-intensive plants. But in Sweden, all the plants have low intensities, I think because the system drives everyone to the lowest possible intensity in an attempt to even out the return on revenue from the tax.

The question that I guess is left unanswered is that of environmental limits. In my mind a cap on emissions is different because it does two different things:

1. Forces industry to install progressively more stringent control technology to reduce emissions, presuming of course the cap is set below actual emissions and reduces over time, and

2. Theoretically, once all of the emissions reductions possible under the capped system are achieved, it stops new emitters from coming on line in favour of achieving an environmental objective.

The tax can address the first question but leaves the second question to be decided later on. That is, once emissions in the system have been minimized by the tax, because its revenue neutral, it just stops working at that point. So, at this point, if there is still an air quality problem, then society needs to make a decision, does it want to stop industrial development and stop licensing plants? Or, if it’s possible, should it raise money from the industry to reduce emissions elsewhere so that there can be room in the airshed for the industry to continue to grow? Or do we just want to leave it as is and suffer the environmental consequences in the name of development?

Putting this whole thing into the context of the Fort Sask cap, given that the NDP and the labour movement, folks that are traditionally our allies are calling for increased upgrading and refining to happen in the province, I wonder if maybe its just easier to focus on trying to maximize control technology now, and worry about the much harder questions when we get to the point in time when we need to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(16 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…