But the trading system has limits. On mercury, for instance, there are strong indications that it’s the wrong strategy. The Chicago area was identified last year in EPA estimates as a mercury “hot spot,” where nearly two-thirds of the pollutant comes from sources within Illinois. Since trading programs allow polluters to buy and sell the right to release mercury into the atmosphere, some utilities may decide to buy their way out of federal limits, thus helping to create a “hot spot” of more intense mercury pollution.
Clear Skies should adopt what Rep. Mark Kirk suggests: Stop industry from buying pollution “credits” to emit more mercury in the region.
It’s a good idea to give the industry more flexibility to meet pollution limits. But right now, this bill doesn’t go far enough and fast enough to reduce major pollutants. Unless Republican leaders are able to peel off a vote in committee, the bill will die. Unless they’re willing to make some concessions, it will deserve just that fate.
This doesn’t address the issue of Southern Illinois coal, but it fits almost exactly with my opinion of how to make the law acceptable.
Adding to the problem with the administration proposal is that the mistrust such proposals create for market based solutions. Many environmentalists distrust the idea because they have too often been used to reduce environmental protection. Moving towards a market based solution should entail reaching the same goal only doing it more efficiently. If you want to change the level of air quality, debate that and then debate the way to get therre.
Proposals to reduce monitoring also raise red flags because low levels of monitoring provide incentives for companies to shirk. Because of these problems in the past, environmentalists refuse to consider strategies that reduce pollution more efficiently, making the costs of regulation less and thus the resistance to regulation less.