When it comes to international or transnational pollution debates, everyone talks about Kyoto and Global Warming. While those talks to have a practical outcome (it can be argued) it is very hard to understand the issues in any real sense.

So I've got a new angle. The province of Ontario recently concluded a study that found:



The gist of the study is that Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, etc., produce a huge amount of air pollution, which happens to drift right over Ontario causing smog. Now for those of you who are graphically disinclined, Ontario is a big chunk of Canada wedged around the Great Lakes.

Ontario has exactly four coal-fired power plants, while the surrounding states have over 100 (114 the last time I checked.) Now, those numbers (in terms of deaths and economic losses) are pretty severe. Now, the government is not going to go out and sue the Great Lakes states, but there is obviously a need for dialogue.

What I would like to discuss is what (if any) responsibility these States have for what their pollution is doing to their friendly neighbours.

Do the aforementioned states have some sort of responsibility for the pollution that they produce when it effects other countries?

What implications does this have for global or other transnational pollution issues?

This is a really good question. I tried to do a little research on how international law deals with such a situation, and found this article from the Duke Law Journal:

Link

It's not very encouraging, as it seems to imply that the law does not deal effectively even with pollution moving across state lines:




This is a long article, full of legal mumbo-jumbo (i.e. stuff I'm too stupid to understand) but I was able to get this out of it:



You can read all the details about this in the article. It seems to set a precedent that was reiterated in later cases:




So, there seems to be general agreement that nations are responsible for activities within their borders which have an impact on other nations. This seems like basic common sense.

As for what implications this might have for other issues of pollution, that's hard to say. First of all, it doesn't seem to have any implication as to whether a nation should agree to a particular environmental treaty or not. However, it seems to imply that a nation could be required to make payment for damage done to other nations, and that a nation might be required to cease an activity that harms another nation. Which raises the interesting question as to how you make a foreign nation do what it "should" do, short of force.

In any case, the Trail Smelter case shows that it is possible for neutral arbitration to come to a conclusion in such situations. That might be a good idea in similar situations, such as the one you describe. When the nations involved are not as friendly as Canada and the USA, there might not be a good answer at all.

A link to the study would be helpful.

I don't doubt that pollution from the US has some effect on the Canadian population.

However, a few things to keep in mind: wind patterns near the US-Canada border are typically South-east in nature. They flow from Canada to the US (in general). This isn't always the case, but is generally true.

The $5 billion and 2,700 deaths figure...

$5 billion a year equates to about $450 per person for Ontario's 11 million people. That seems awefully high.

Also, almost half of Ontario's population live in the very large city of (you guessed it...) Ontario. I suppose it is difficult to separate the effects of pollution from living in a large city (with its inevitable car exhaust, industry, etc.) from that of the US. Perhaps the study did that, I suppose we can investigate.

Approximately 73,000 people die per year in Ontario (according to this site). 2,700 of these deaths are attributed to US pollution. Which means 4% of all deaths. That is astounding. If we do the math, 2,700 deaths out of 11 million makes it 24.5 deaths out of every 100,000 people. That is big. It makes US pollution a bigger killer than many of the listed causes of death.

Call me skeptical, but those numbers seem a bit inflated.

A few things if I may.

The population of ontario is 12 and a quarter million people. The largest city in Ontario, which I assume you meant, is Toronto. Toronto actually only has 2.4 million people in it, so about a quarter of the province.


As to the study, I suspect smog contributed to the deaths of that many people rather than caused, but that is just a guess on my part. The financial cost could be reasonable, however as you say one needs to know how it was calculated.


The question at hand then is, even if the deaths and cost are less then what is stated there, what is NOT in question is that US pollution is causing significant Canadian deaths and financial cost. So should the US government do something about it?

Are you certain that isn't in question? North America's largest coal-fired power plant is in Nanticoke, Ontario, directly upwind from Buffalo, New York. New York has complained for years that Ontario has been contaminating the air in upstate New York. The studies I've read mentioned that 50 percent of the smog emmisions in Ontario (over a thirty year time period) are related to US coal power plants. Isn't it reasonable to then assume that if the air in Canada is 50 percent effected by US plant emmissions, the air in the US might be equally effected as well? Perhaps the pollution in Ontario is primarily due to their own coal burning facility?

A link to the study can be found here.

But it looks like the wheels are coming off this discussion... lets hold off for a second.



The purpose of this study was to establish a dialogue, not lay blame. But lets put some things in perspective here. The population of southern Ontario is about 7-8 million people, depending on where you draw the boundaries. The population of New York city is the same. While our government DOES accept responsibility for it's part in Great Lakes smog levels, the fact is that we could reduce smog-causing emissions in this province to zero, and not only would we still have a smog problem, but it wouldn't make a big difference in New York as well. And just for your information, Nanticoke will be closed by 2009...

But you guys are both wrong. I asked a general question, and a specific one. So far nobody except Victoria has bothered trying to answer either; instead of just obfuscating (Amlord,) or laying blame elsewhere (Mrs. Pigpen). Yes, Canada contributes to the problem, but I didn't think it would be too interesting to talk about Canada's responsibility for the minor contribution it makes to smog pollution for two reasons: First, Canada has agreed to participate in a broader international effort to curb pollution, so as such it concedes some sort of responsibility in this regard; and second, most of the members here are Americans, and I wanted to know what they felt about their own government directly polluting other nations; in the terms I attempted to define with the debate questions. By the way, those are:


Do the aforementioned states have some sort of responsibility for the pollution that they produce when it effects other countries?

What implications does this have for global or other transnational pollution issues?

What implications does this have for global or other transnational pollution issues?
Victoria Silverwolf has already addressed the legal issues. I'd like to address the issue geopolitically. We can either deny all responsibility and refuse to treat with the Canadians or we can start to establish a legal framework for dealing with such problems now, while we are on the non-hypocritical side for building such laws.

The real issue we should consider is that Chinese pollution is going to start wafting its way to us in another decade or so, and then we'll be on the receiving end. We can go to China and ask them to curtail their economic growth in order to help reduce our pollution deaths, but they'll probably respond with a quote from George Bush on industry and global warming. So we had better start building the legal structures for this now while we can. Otherwise, we'll all be living with -- or rather, dying with -- Chinese pollution at some point in the future.

Do the aforementioned states have some sort of responsibility for the pollution that they produce when it effects other countries?

How can you determine that a person died from smog, when smog is the catalyst for a cause of death (presumably a lung affliction some sort), which can be attained by a number of things? For example: Smoking and work enviroments?

I'm not saying the statistics wrong, i'm merely curious as to how they isolate the variable.

I would humbly suggest reading the study, which can be found in my last post on this subject.

I went to the link, and then to chapter 4. Most of chapter 4 seems to deal with the results rather then the science behind obtaining them. In the paragraph or so that it dedicates to explaining the science behind it, it cites that it took a region wide census, and doesn't go into any detail about how exactly the census separated the people who obtained lung problems from pollution, from those who such problems from other sources. I believe the site you referenced me to, is more or less about conclusions and implications, rather then the science used to obtain the conclusions.

Perhaps you should read a little closer. From chapter four:



For further clarification: ICAP stands for Illness Costs of Air Pollution, referring to a study prepared in 2000 by DSS Management Consultants in 2000 for hte Ontario Medical Association. The study can be found here if you have further concerns about the methodology. Please note however that the studies in question have never really been criticized for method, and are accepted both the government's of Ontario and the surrounding Great Lake states. THe Ontario Medical Association, which comissioned the first study is not a partisan group either. If you have anything more than an "Well, I don't know" critique of the science, by all means share it. If not, can we please just this once assume that scientists aren't bald-faced liars or corrupt opportunists and answer the questions I posed?

That explains how they have depicted the amount of money lost as a result of the pollution, but not how they separate people who get lung problems due to pollution, from people who get lung problems from other things. Overall the study isn't detailed enough about the methods used to obtain the data (rather ironic for a 114-Page report), so ill ask one of my teachers about the science behind it when school begins again. Lets continue on with the assumption that its accurate.

Do the aforementioned states have some sort of responsibility for the pollution that they produce when it effects other countries?

Crossborder pollution seems to be mutual:

"This report is not meant to point a finger. Ontario acknowledges its own responsibility for contributing to air problems as well," Dombrowsky said, referring to Ontario's smog that drifts to Quebec, the Maritimes, New York, Vermont and New Hampshire.

"We are taking strong actions to reduce airborne emissions from the three major
domestic sources of air pollution: vehicles, power generation and industrial activity."

Note that this infers that a lot of the pollution is comes from sources that are not coal plants.

The Ontario study states that 45% of the pollution is locally produced:
"Based on 2003 demographics, Ontario is burdened with almost $9.6 billion in health and enviromental damages each year due to the impact of ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Of this total, approximately 55 percent is attributable to the U.S. "

On the otherhand, some southern portions of Ontario receive their pollution almost exclusively from the US:

"The report also tells us on high smog days more than half of the ground-level ozone pollutants affecting Toronto's air originated in the United States. The numbers were even worse for Windsor where more than 90 per cent of these pollutants came from American sources and in Kingston where the number is over 80 per cent."

Coal power in the states is benefiting Ontario:
"Just last Wednesday, Ontario was importing 750 megawatts of power from the Midwest. Well, guess what the Midwest burns — coal," said Churley.

Other then the 45% statistic, I got all of the above qoutes from Ultimate Joe's source, located here: http://magazine.novaserve.ns.ca/article6793.html

Currently we have 2 conflicting desires:

First, we want to decrease pollution.

Second, we still want to:
Drive Cars
Have Industry
Have electrical power

The only solution to the power problem, is to convert the coal plants into something else, and doing so will require both money and a willingness to trade one detriment another. We can either convert the plants to Nuclear power, or we can convert them to oil power.

While oil isn't as pollutive as coal, it still creates pollution nonetheless. Also (with rising oil prices) converting to oil will make power more expensive.

Most of the time nuclear power doesn't create any pollution at all, but when things go wrong, it can make a wide area unhabitable for thousands years. Thus, I consider nuclear power to be more destructive then either coal or oil.

Basically we cant solve the power problem without creating other problems.

As for cars, we could try to implement measures that will make SUVs less desirable. First, we can stop making them tax deductable (for some reason trucks are tax deductable, and SUVs are considered trucks), and second, we can perhaps make a new car tax which annually collects a certain an of money from drivers, which is contingent upon milage. This would no doubt hurt the American car industry however, because hybrids (the cars with the best milage) are mostly from Japan.

So basically we cant solve the car problem without creating other problems.

As for industry, we would have to increase regulations. I'm not knowledgable enough in that field to actually know what the regulations would be, but I can gather they would be expensive.

As usual when it comes to the enviroment, we can only trade some problems, for some other problems.

Thus we must ask ourselves, which problems are worse.

Ontario (as a net effect) is not really losing money, because money is being given to local doctors, in exchange for treatment. The money isn't leaving the province, and it isn't being destroyed So whats really being lost is lives.

On one hand, in order to solve the problem, we can give up billions of dollars, and the well being of millions. On the otherhand, we can give up 2,700 lives. This is in essence a moral question, and I think those billions of dollars would be better spent saving the 6 million people in the world who die each year of starvation.

What implications does this have for global or other transnational pollution issues?

That the public is generally ignorant. Before I read this thread, I used to think smog was just something which decreased the enjoyability of park views.

If you can find ANYONE, ANYWHERE, who can credibly say that the economic cost of ill health and premature death caused by airborn pollution is entirely offset by economic activity created by medical services, I would be personally amazed to the point that I would like to shake your hand.

If you can find ANYONE, ANYWHERE, who can credibly say that the economic cost of ill health and premature death caused by airborn pollution is entirely offset by economic activity created by medical services, I would be personally amazed to the point that I would like to shake your hand.

The point is, Ontario is not losing money, because money is not leaving Ontario. It is merely changing hands, and consequently there is no net loss. Money has to leave the province, or be destroyed before there is actually less of it in circulation. Yes, individuals are losing money, but not the province as a whole. If you disagree with this, then are saying that when you pay for any service at all, you are hurting your regions economy.

I will explain this once. Ontario does not "lose money" in the sense that individual dollars leave circulation. What pollution does in this case is create an economic loss. Ill workers cannot go to work or be as productive as they would be if they were healthy. This economic loss is NOT offset by spending in the health-care industry.

Also, please note that there are no closed economies, so even if your understanding of productivity even approached being correct, your theory would still be patently false. The closest thing to a closed economy on this planet is North Korea. Ontario purchases medical hardware from out of province, some drugs are purchased elsewhere, etc... and that's just when it comes to health care.

Now can we please try answering the questions that I asked. Given that, according to this study, which you utterly failed to disprove with your economic excursion, suggests a real loss in economic activity and lives...

Do the aforementioned states have some sort of responsibility for the pollution that they produce when it effects other countries?

What implications does this have for global or other transnational pollution issues?

I will explain this once. Ontario does not "lose money" in the sense that individual dollars leave circulation. What pollution does in this case is create an economic loss. Ill workers cannot go to work or be as productive as they would be if they were healthy. This economic loss is NOT offset by spending in the health-care industry.

Ok, you've got me there. While that doesn't support the idea that the cost of pollution can be estimated by adding up the cost of treatment, it does nonetheless prove that there is an economic loss.

Also, please note that there are no closed economies, so even if your understanding of productivity even approached being correct, your theory would still be patently false. The closest thing to a closed economy on this planet is North Korea. Ontario purchases medical hardware from out of province, some drugs are purchased elsewhere, etc... and that's just when it comes to health care.

Virtually everything we buy these days is imported anyway. I would suspect that buying stuff is worse for the trade deficit then buying services, because if you buy services, then at least some of the money you give away will go into the pocket of the service employees (in this case doctors). Thus, from a trade deficit viewpoint, this actually slows down the speed at which money leaves Ontario.

Now can we please try answering the questions that I asked. Given that, according to this study, which you utterly failed to disprove with your economic excursion, suggests a real loss in economic activity and lives...

I already gave you my views on this issue on my post before last. Reducing pollution can save a over two thousand lives, but it would cost money, and that money can save more lives if it is channeled elsewhere.