Carbon Sequestration

[iceaura]

The market mechanism for de facto regulation of pollution etc - selling the privilege for money - only works if the price is at least approximately the cost of the behavior. It's a way of removing the temptation of externalizing one's costs.

But it will only work for some pollutants - one must be able to monitor and source the pollutant, apprehend the perp and enforce the fines, arrive at legally defensible but still realistic estimates of the costs, etc.

As we saw with BP in the Gulf, those are hard things to do. Ban and coercive regulation are much cheaper and easier.

And I will bet th Germans know that - and that there are some pollutants no one is allowed to dump in the Rhine for any price.

 

[KitemanSA]

That's not what I asked. Take a moment to think about it in terms of the Missippi River. Your position would be the equivalent of "The river has great assimilitive capacity, discharges should not be to contact rec standards, they should be of lower standards (higher levels of contaminants) that and allow for reasonable mixiing." (Dilution is the solution). The 'Linear no thresh-hold' position you're opposing would be the equivalent of suggesting that any discharge has an impact and that all discharges should meet contact recreation end of pipe standards.

Getting back to this after a bit, There is actually a slight difference between most chemical releases and nuclear isotope releases. Most chemical sensors have limited sensitivity, but radio isotope sensors can count to the single nuclear event. And even so, chemical discharge limits are typically limited by what is harmful. Isotopic discharges are limited only by what some bureaucrat deems is "reasonable", even if 100 times that amount is less than some popular natural sites.
As an example, by the Japanese standard to return to their homes, the total radiation must not exceed 1mSv/y above natural background. By that standard, we should evacuate Denver, the entire county of Finland... The "standard" is absurd.
And by the way, the resort city of Guarapari in Brazil is more than 100 times that value, and Ramsar in Iran is 200 times that value, but they have no issues. If LNT were valid, folks should be dying in droves from cancer, but they aren't. That SHOULD tell you something.

 

[Trippy]

But it will only work for some pollutants - one must be able to monitor and source the pollutant, apprehend the perp and enforce the fines, arrive at legally defensible but still realistic estimates of the costs, etc.

As we saw with BP in the Gulf, those are hard things to do. Ban and coercive regulation are much cheaper and easier.

And I will bet th Germans know that - and that there are some pollutants no one is allowed to dump in the Rhine or any price.

I must confess to having had similar thoughts, however, I still have been unable to find these laws that Billy T is referring to.

 

[billvon]

People´s behavior was not regulated. They were allowed to chose which of two behaviors they would do. (no regulation of behavior): Can dump in the Rhine if you want but then you must pay a fee. Or Alternatively, don´t dump in the Rhine.

That's akin to saying that theft is not regulated. People are allowed to chose which of two behaviors they would do. (no regulation of behavior): Can steal if you want but then you must pay a fine/go to jail afterwards. Or alternatively, don´t steal. No regulation.