232
Toxic Chemicals
command-and-control rules require. For the public, the program translates into
cleaner air, efficiently achieved, because the public ultimately pays for pollution
control through electric rates.
There are limits to cap and trade. First, a cap-and-trade approach is most effective for pollutants that are dispersed and have widespread rather than local impacts.
Acid rain is a national or regional problem caused by widespread dispersion of
acid-forming gases by a relatively small number of coal-fired electricity-generating
stations and metal refineries. Trade across a region or even across the country can
result in controlling local impacts. This is in contrast to toxic wastewater discharge,
which has significant local impacts that are not taken care of by buying a credit from
a distant company.
The success of the cap-and-trade approach to acid rain has led to proposals to use
cap-and-trade approaches for combating greenhouse gases. As such, it would appear
to be an ideal candidate for this approach since it is a problem with international
impact, rather than local to any emission source. A complication with a traditional
cap-and-trade program is that each emission source must be equitably allocated
a specific cap, which takes considerable regulatory staff time for something with
even relatively few chemicals and sources such as acid rain. While power plants and
factories are significant individual dischargers of greenhouse gases, virtually everyone is a source of these emissions through our individual use of fuels for transportation and for heating individual homes.
A cap-and-trade system for toxic chemical use would be even more difficult as
caps would be required for each toxic chemical and would need to be allocated to
the diverse group that uses those chemicals. Finally, trade markets would need to be
established for each of those chemicals.
POLLUTION TAXES OR FEES
Another market-based approach to preventing pollution is to charge taxes or fees
based on the environmental impact of the discharge. As an example, for greenhouse
gas, this would amount to a “carbon tax,” or fee charged per pound of carbon in fuel
that, when burned, would emit a given amount of greenhouse gas. This approach
is simpler to administer than a cap-and-trade program because, for example, the
sources of fuel would be regulated rather than all of the individual users of the
fuel. In doing so, this would cover all users of the fuel (as the cost of the tax to
the fuel suppliers would be reflected in the cost of the fuel to end users), including
individuals, and not just the major emitters. Similarly, in the case of a toxic chemical
use reduction program, the total impact cost of chemical use would be borne by the
individuals enjoying the benefits of using the chemicals rather than borne by the
public through medical or other toxic impacts.
There are several advantages of pollution taxes or fees to the enforcing agency
over a direct control or command-and-control approach (Humboldt State University
1997). Money is generated for the program by pollution taxes or fees generate money
for the program as opposed to money being spent on enforcement. Because enforcement under this market-based approach is simply based on the payment of taxes or
Toxic Chemicals
command-and-control rules require. For the public, the program translates into
cleaner air, efficiently achieved, because the public ultimately pays for pollution
control through electric rates.
There are limits to cap and trade. First, a cap-and-trade approach is most effective for pollutants that are dispersed and have widespread rather than local impacts.
Acid rain is a national or regional problem caused by widespread dispersion of
acid-forming gases by a relatively small number of coal-fired electricity-generating
stations and metal refineries. Trade across a region or even across the country can
result in controlling local impacts. This is in contrast to toxic wastewater discharge,
which has significant local impacts that are not taken care of by buying a credit from
a distant company.
The success of the cap-and-trade approach to acid rain has led to proposals to use
cap-and-trade approaches for combating greenhouse gases. As such, it would appear
to be an ideal candidate for this approach since it is a problem with international
impact, rather than local to any emission source. A complication with a traditional
cap-and-trade program is that each emission source must be equitably allocated
a specific cap, which takes considerable regulatory staff time for something with
even relatively few chemicals and sources such as acid rain. While power plants and
factories are significant individual dischargers of greenhouse gases, virtually everyone is a source of these emissions through our individual use of fuels for transportation and for heating individual homes.
A cap-and-trade system for toxic chemical use would be even more difficult as
caps would be required for each toxic chemical and would need to be allocated to
the diverse group that uses those chemicals. Finally, trade markets would need to be
established for each of those chemicals.
POLLUTION TAXES OR FEES
Another market-based approach to preventing pollution is to charge taxes or fees
based on the environmental impact of the discharge. As an example, for greenhouse
gas, this would amount to a “carbon tax,” or fee charged per pound of carbon in fuel
that, when burned, would emit a given amount of greenhouse gas. This approach
is simpler to administer than a cap-and-trade program because, for example, the
sources of fuel would be regulated rather than all of the individual users of the
fuel. In doing so, this would cover all users of the fuel (as the cost of the tax to
the fuel suppliers would be reflected in the cost of the fuel to end users), including
individuals, and not just the major emitters. Similarly, in the case of a toxic chemical
use reduction program, the total impact cost of chemical use would be borne by the
individuals enjoying the benefits of using the chemicals rather than borne by the
public through medical or other toxic impacts.
There are several advantages of pollution taxes or fees to the enforcing agency
over a direct control or command-and-control approach (Humboldt State University
1997). Money is generated for the program by pollution taxes or fees generate money
for the program as opposed to money being spent on enforcement. Because enforcement under this market-based approach is simply based on the payment of taxes or