The lawsuit was filed in the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals by a coalition of several environmental organizations, such as the National Parks Conservation Association. The heart of the controversy lies in the difference between federal haze rules, which use the 'command-and-control' technique of mandating that plants install the best available control technology, and the cross-state air pollution rule, a different program which allows more flexibility through trading of pollution credits.
Clear day and hazy day at Voyageurs National Park
Under federal environmental laws, Minnesota is required to make progress on reducing haze in certain national parks, such as the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs NP, which have suffered from vision-obscuring air pollution from industry and vehicles. According to the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, this haze is also a public health hazard, being linked to asthma and heart problems.
To comply with the federal mandates, Minnesota has submitted a Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA. The plan centers around the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, a system for trading of certain types of emissions.
Trading of pollution permits, commonly known as 'cap and trade', is controversial in part because it allows some firms to buy 'permission to pollute' from other firms that have not used all of their own permits. According to some critics, this creates a tendency for pollution 'hot spots' in certain areas (though a recent study at Indiana University disputed this claim). However, cap and trade also allows reductions in overall smog to take place where it is cheapest- if one plant can reduce emissions for a lower price than another, it can do so and sell its permits to the other plant.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has not yet commented on the lawsuit.
Image Sources: Earthjustice
No comments:
Post a Comment