Rich also points out an editorial that challenges Barack Obama to support the President’s Clean Skies Initiative.
This is probably the dumbest editorial I’ve read in years. I’m not exaggerating either. The Southern’s editorial board doesn’t seem to grasp even the most basic issues present in the proposal.
The Editorial suggests Obama push for the plan because it’ll help the coal industry, and by implication Southern Illinois.
It will help the coal industry, but not he Southern Illinois coal industry and much of this follows along the same lines of Glenn Poshard’s opposition to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
The most basic issue comes down to what happens when a tradeable permit system goes into place for SO2–sulfur dioxide. Coal from the region is high in sulfur and so any effort to reduce sulfur content other than specific scrubber types that remove sulfur down to a certain level pretty much makes the market move away from high sulfur coal.
The advantages of a tradeable permit system is that it allows the market to reach a level of air quality by using market forces to encourage the most efficient way to get to that level. A specific amount of emssions is allowed, permits are issues/auctioned, and then one can buy permits if they need more or sell them if they don’t need to emit as much.
Those that can reduce pollution the cheapest can sell off permits and those that cannot reduce it cheaply can buy permits to a point where a wall is reached.
But if the goal of Clear Skies is to reduce SO2 emmissions by over 50%, the incentive will be to use the cleanest coal with fewest technological costs. High sulfur coal requires expensive scrubbing equipment to reduce the sulfur that simply switching to western coal can avoid. If you are economically rational, you utilize the least expensive method to reduce emissions and that is easily switching to coal that is low in sulfur. further disadvantaging coal mined in Illinois.
It’s so mindboggling simple, that it’s hard to imagine that even the Southern’s editorial board doesn’t understand that Clean Skies privileges low sulfur coal.
Mind you, there are a bunch of policy reasons you might do that, but if your goal is, as the Southern’s ed board’s goal is, to increase the market for Southern Illinois coal, forget it.
I posted a story in comments about Obama’s position over at the Capitol Fax for more background.
If you want people to use high sulfur coal mandating scrubbers that essentially reduce the amount of sulfur regardless of the type of coal burned is the best strategy as Glenn Poshard long argued. He voted against the 1990 CAA because it privileged low sulfur coal (thanks to clever tactics by Daschle). That the Southern Illinoisan doesn’t understand that is a severe indictment of any claim they have to speak for that region in an intelligent way.
UPDATE: More detail in comments. Also a good point in Capitol Fax’s comments about the issue of the wet scrubber initial cost being a barrier even though in the long run, it would probably make economic and environmental sense.
UPATE 2: Even more on the Clean Skies Act and why the administration’s claims are not just economically illiterate, but logically inconsistent.
Actually, at some point the emission restrictions become stringent enough that they can’t be met simply by switching to low sulfur coal. At that point, at least some subset of utilities will be forced to install scrubbers and will then likely switch back to high sulfur Eastern coal, which is generally higher quality than low sulfur Western coal.
I do not know, however, if the Clear Skies proposal is stringent enough to cause such a shift.
No, it still doesn’t make sense to switch to high sulfur coal because you are working on a tradeable permit system.
If a plant is not meeting it’s goal with low sulfur coal, it can
1) buy more permits
2) install medium level of scrubbers that remove enough sulfur to solve the problem with low sulfur coal
Only the third choice is to install the wet scrubbers that Obama is talking about. It’s the most expensive solution and so the last one to be adopted.
The problem of a permit system is, unless it is really strict on the overall level of pollution allowed (the permit allowance) it doesn’t encourage investment in technology that requires economies of scale to become cheaper. And the new caps aren’t that low despite what it seems (a complicated issue I can discuss in more detail).
The advantage of a permit system is it focuses on results in terms of air pollution. In this case the result in terms of air pollution is to use coal that is cleaner off the bat and treat it as little as possible. The entire advantage of a system is it moves away from the government deciding what tech to use and instead focuses on results.
In the case of Southern Illinois coal you need to mandate the wet scrubbers because the only way to make them cost effective is to force spending on that solution. Once you do that, the economy of scale takes over and the wet scrubber tech becomes cheaper.
Under the permit system, with no incentive to develop the wet scrubber tech further because it is the last option and even if a few have to adopt, it won’t trigger the cost advantages of wide spread use.
So, yes you are correct in theory, but in this case there’s no possible way I can imagine in which Southern Illinois Coal becomes cost effective under a tradeable permit system unless the cap is far, far lower than anything proposed. And, in fact, under such a dramatically lower cap, you’d probably see no greater efficiency than under the current Best Available Technology (BAT) standard..
I’m somewhat agnostic on this as someone who isn’t dependent on Illinois votes. I’d probably lower the overall cap, but I don’t see a reason to encourage wet scrubbers other than as economic development for eastern coal producing areas–and that shouldn’t be the point of environmental policy. If the Southern wanted to argue on this point, they’d be reasonable, but they are arguing over it as jobs policy essentially and their suggestion is counterproductive.
Everything I’ve seen shows rising demand for Illinois Basin coal despite the enormous cost gap with Powder River Basin coal, primarily because demand for coal of all types rises as the price of natural gas rises.
The Clear Skies Act benefits Illinois in other ways — primarily from the investment in new technology via the Clean Coal Initiative, including the FutureGen demonstration project. Clean Coal technology is central to future demand for Illinois Basin coal.
That’s what the administration is selling, but I’m not sure why anyone would buy it. The entire project reeks of the supercar which spent a lot of money developing technology, but never actually found a way to encourage implementation of the project. Even if you come up with the tech, and someone adopts it, there is no real incentive for large outlays of capital that will eventually bring the costs down through consistent production.
It’s really a perfect bill in that regards, get a bunch of people who will get hurt by it believing in it without asking about the implementation plan for the tech side. Of course, there is no implementation methodology and the tradeable permit system discourages expensive new technology fixes.
So, you have the worst of both worlds–money spent on pork barrel projects in which the technology will never be implemented and an advantage to outside of Illinois coal (assuming you share the view of the Southern and priorities).
The simplest way to solve air pollution problems is force companies to upgrade their plants. The EPA site outright lies that even minor modifications cause compliance issues–under current law, no one is being forced to upgrade because the Administration dropped enforcement actions.
Clear Skies is an effort to stave off state lawsuits for the federal government to enforce the law.
And here is where you know they are full of shit
If, as the administration says, scrubbers and/or SCR will be added by projection under Clear Skies, how is money saved over command and control that requires such a move? If the same action is being taken by the energy producers, there is no cost savings. There’s no such thing as a free lunch unless you are the fiction this administration peddles as economics.
This is directed at you, but the ridiculous table under
Emission Controls in Illinois under Clear Skies
underscores just how stupid this plan is. The entire point of a tradeable permit system is to give greater flexibility to meet an emissions standard thus getting efficiency gains for the market.
If, however, you claim the market incentives produce the same outcome as command and control , there’s no point to the tradeable permit system.
The bizarre thing is that Bush supporters in Southern Illinois are arguing against the most effective way to promote Southern Illinios coal–mandatory scrubbers and SCR. That’s fine if you want a tradeable permit system to find a cheaper solution, but if you want to promote Southern Illinois coal, it’s dumb. A cheaper solution is going to be using coal that doesn’t require as much investment in technology or you get no efficiency gain from the permitting system.
Are you talking about Muir’s stupid ramblings?
That guy is seriously an ass. If politicians aren’t supposed to break their promises, the So-Ill PROMISES to work against Shimkus when he runs against his term limit pledge, right?
And So-Ill is the only region that can reasonably have been argued to have gone against Obama. He owes them nothing.
Here’s the link to the Southern Illinoisan. I thought I’d put it in the story.
Then you need to read Muir’s banal drivel.
Just because Sen. Obama didn’t get a majority of votes from Southern Illinoisans doesn’t mean they aren’t his constituents. Unlike Sen. Durbin, Obama spoke eloquently about uniting Red and Blue. He’s not obligated to walk like he talks, but his integrity is on the line.
As he puts it: “My conflict here is not between Illinois and the Democratic National Party. My conflict is between wanting to put people back to work and that Illinois doesn’t continue to have one of the highest asthma rates in the country.”
If Obama were advancing any of the arguments you’ve outlined, I’d have a different opinion of his integrity. Unfortunately, he’s playing to the heartstrings of his constituents with a plea about his daughter’s plight.
As you put it, “here is where you know [he is] full of shit.”
Illinois is not a leading asthma state as he asserts. The pollution in Chicago comes from industrial and automobile pollutants, not from Illinois basin coal.
Connect the Head with the Heart, and I’ll fall in line willingly.
—Just because Sen. Obama didn’t get a majority of votes from Southern Illinoisans doesn’t mean they aren’t his constituents. Unlike Sen. Durbin, Obama spoke eloquently about uniting Red and Blue. He’s not obligated to walk like he talks, but his integrity is on the line.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you read anything where I just pointed out he was perfectly consistent during and since the campaign?
—
—Illinois is not a leading asthma state as he asserts. The pollution in Chicago comes from industrial and automobile pollutants, not from Illinois basin coal.
Did you read what else I posted? Are you a complete fucking moron to post this shit after I pointed out how consistent he has been?
–Connect the Head with the Heart, and I’ll fall in line willingly.
Pull your head out of your ass. What is it that makes you feel you can lie with impugnity about public officials?