The Acid Rain Problem in Eastern Canada - Case Study Example

Introduction For the past twenty years or so, environmental concerns have continued to engage the thinking of people from various walks of life, from professors and scientists through average working people and even young students. With global warming, the pollution of our rivers and the sea, and the breach in the ozone layer, there are justifiable fears that we may be digging ourselves into a hole from which we cannot emerge. The issue of acid rain, in particular, is one that has been of great concern to Canadians who fear that increasingly ignoring the problem could have some serious repercussions for the country. This purpose of this paper is to examine the current impact of acid rain in Eastern Canada and to critically review some of the approaches being used currently to deal with it. A Brief Overview of the issue 1. What is acid rain Acid rain is caused by a number of factors, including sulphur dioxide from coal, oil combustion, base metal smelting industries, car exhaust, boilers, and nitrogen oxides (Ting 1996). These chemical by-products in the air change into sulphuric acid and nitric acid and dissolve in water. Once the acid gets in the rain or in snow or fog it can affect a wide swath. In fairness, normal rainfall has slight acidity, and measures about 5.6 on the pH scale. The kind of acid rain that is a cause for worry is the kind that measures 5.0 or lower on the pH scale. “In especially troubled parts of the US and Canada, rain is 30 to 40 times more acidic than normal rain and has pH averages of from 4.0 to 4.3. A lake that has had its pH reduced to 4.5 by repeated doses of acid rain can no longer support fish” (Ting 1996). What is worrisome in Canada is that as much as 43 percent of the land in Canada lacks the capacity to neutralize the acid. While the alkaline content of the soil, and of lakes and streams can neutralize normal levels of acid from rain, the increasingly higher concentrations of acid are too much to counter naturally. Consider that: Kejimkujik National Park in Nova Scotia had acidic precipitation with a pH of three. This is strong enough to dissolve the surfaces of marble, stones, city monuments and even corrode cars…Acid rain is costing the Canadian economy millions of dollars a year. The maple syrup industry is an example of a sector which is heavily threatened by it. The value of Canadian forests at roughly $3.8 billion a year is precious. If acid rain causes damage to just a small percentage of it, thousands of jobs are affected. (Ting 1996) Scientists distinguish between two main types of acid deposition, one known as wet deposition and the other, dry. While wet deposition is what we have come to identify as acid rain, “Dry deposition takes place when particles such as fly ash, sulphates, nitrates, and gases (such as SO2 and NOx), are deposited on, or absorbed onto, surfaces. The gases can then be converted into acids when they contact water” (Acid rain and the facts http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidfact.html). Acid rain is of great concern worldwide because it affects the hydrologic cycle. All plants and animals depend on water, whether such water exists in streams, lakes, rivers, or the ocean. In the hydrologic cycle, water evaporates from the land and sea and goes into the atmosphere, which then condenses and falls back as rain or snow to the earth. While in the process of evaporation, chemicals are picked up by the water water droplets and some of these might be chemicals such as sulphur which have been found to contribute to acid rain. The dependence of all living things on water also means that when this water is contaminated the effects can be dire for all concerned whether they are animals or plants. 2. Sources of acid rain . In North America, there is a flow in the weather system from the southwestern section to the northeast. “Hence from the industrial Midwestern heartland of the US …air pollutants are carried thousands of kilometres away from the source by prevailing winds. Eventually they acidify the air in the pristine south-eastern parts of Canada” (Ting 1996). 3. Sulfur dioxide There are indications that sulphur dioxide is responsible for most of the acid rain because vast quantities of these are released from smokestacks of coal-burnign plants and other industrial plants (Acid rain ). There is a conversion of sulphur dioxide to sulphuric acid, which is then carried down in rain or snow. 4. Nitrogen oxides Nitrogen oxides have also been implicated in the acid rain debate as nitrogen oxides are converted into nitric acid. It must be noted that one major source of nitrogen oxides is automobile exhaust. 5. Aquatic effects and how it affects forests As acid rain flows in to streams, lakes and other water environments that serve as a habitat for plant and animal life, the effects are beginning to emerge. Most lakes and streams have a pH level of between 6 and 8. Though some bodies of water are fairly acidic, acid rain compounds the problem for those areas that do not have a surrounding soil buffer with alkaline properties that can neutralize the acid. Some species living in lakes, rivers or wetlands are able to survive in acidic conditions, in particular, mild acidity. Some of the most sensitive species, however, cannot survive and thus, as the acidity increases more and more species will disappear. This pattern has been found through research studies done in Eastern Canada. As a Canadian Ministry of Environment report notes, “Crustaceans, like clams and crayfish, have very little tolerance because their shells contain calcium compounds which are dissolved by acidified water. Effects on crustaceans are noticeable even at a pH of 6.5, which is only slightly acidic. Fish have somewhat more tolerance, but soon encounter difficulties as the pH drops below 6. Trout, for example, begin to experience reproductive problems at a pH of 5.5 and have difficulty surviving below a pH of 5” (What is acid rain? http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/acidrain/ar1-e.html). A few living thigns such as blackfly larvae do well even in acidic conditions and benthic plants, that is, those plants that live at the bottom of lakces, also appear to do well even in an acidic environment. Today, “Rainfalls with a pH-value of 3.5 are already killing plant life (Acid Rain Killed Jurassic Monsters 1993). Already in Canada, the negative effects are becoming widespread in the form of declining forests. Over the past 20 years there have been efforts to cut acid rain in half, with further efforts to cut another 75 percent. The Canadian government takes the issue of acid rain very seriously and has been doing assessments, the so-called, Canadian Acid Deposition Science Assessment. “The assessment, which is done every five years, reports extensive ongoing damage to lakes, wildlife and human health. But some of the most startling findings concern forests. “Since completion of the last assessment, compelling new science has emerged linking chronic acidification of soils to forest decline,” says an executive summary of the report” (Acid rain causing forest decline in vast regions of Eastern Canada 2005). Acid rain depletes the soil of nutrients such as calcium and magnesium through leaching. Human effects Acid rain also affects health and causes respiratory problems for people who suffer from asthma. In fact, according to Dr Philip Landrigan, who is a professor of community medicine and pediatrics at Mt Sinai School of Medicine (New York), next to active and passive smoking, acid rain is the third largest cause of lung disease in North America (Ting 1996). Long term exposure to acid rain, as well, it is feared, can cause cancer.If the problem of acidity in rain continues there is reason for alarm. Research conducted by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has revealed that acid rain may have killed dinosaurs and other Jurassic monsters. Even today, it is possible for acid rain to become a mass killer. As noted above, there have been some improvements in dealing with the acid rain problem in Canada. This progress has been made because Canada and the United States have been working together to deal with the problem, including reducing “air emissions of ground level ozone and particulates” (Studies show diminished acid rain and levelling CO2 emissions 2001). The two countries, it appears, realized the dangers of not tackling the problem. In addition, they were very much aware of the benefits of being able to deal with the issue of acid rain, and since the source of the acid rain for Canada is the United States, there has been a push on the Canadian side for the United States to take a lead and invest the necessary funds and in the technologies necessary to bring the problem under control. Some of the efforts to reduce acid rain have centered on the technology that has been responsible for generating high levels of sulphur dioxide. Thus, a switch from high low sulphur coal and the physical cleaning of pyretic sulphur have been tried. While switching from high to low sulphur coal is feasible in terms of cost, there has often been political opposition to the move. In lieu of that, “some high-sulphur coal producing states offer tax incentives to install scrubber technology as a means of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions” (Bui 1998 992). Another problem is the existence of long term contracts between electric utilities and electric utility plants. Even though low sulphur content coal is available in the Western part of the United States, the cost of transportation has sometimes made it difficult for such a consideration to be taken seriously; also, with long term contracts in place, the electric utilities feel bound to continue with current coal suppliers even if there is significant acid-rain inducing pollution coming from those plants. Yet another method that has been in use is coal washing, which is the chemical cleaning of coal, a process that is believed to take away as much as 20 percent of the pyretic sulphur content. The high cost of this process, however, makes it prohibitive for many companies. Scrubber technologies, including the dry method and the wet method, have been found useful in some smaller coal producing plants. So it seems that cost, and relationships between electric utilities and coal manufacturers, along with political considerations all play into the issue of whether more trees will be dying in Eastern Canada in the future. Critical evaluation First of all, it seems that the United States and Canada, in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation that has characterized their relationship for decades, were able to see the benefits to each country of dealing with the acid rain problem. These two countries also have an army of scientists that could present information in a dispassionate, scientific way, and thus help to tackle the problem in a practical rather than an emotional manner. Critical review/assessment Companies are often primarily concerned about profits and as long as that is their only focus, it becomes very difficult for them to spend money in areas where they do not see any returns. The sulphur dioxide that is responsible for acid rain is coming mostly from factories in Eastern United States but their effects go far beyond the confines of that area. In effect, other people have to pay for the problems unleashed by these companies. First of all, being able to pinpoint the source of the acid rain was a good first step. On a voluntary basis, few companies have been willing to do what is necessary to overcome the problem by investing in newer and cleaner technologies. Under such circumstances, the only way these companies cannot be made to move is through the coercive power of the government. Modern governments, such as those in Canada and the United States, however, recognize that they benefit from the tax dollars of the companies within their borders and so prefer not to use coercion alone as a weapon. Sometimes, incentives are offered to get companies to do the right thing. The use of legislation also establishes very clearly for affected companies that their actions are not acceptable, and that forces them to take the issue more seriously. For example, “In the United States under the Clean Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, an emission permit market for the acid rain precursor sulphur dioxide has been established for electric utilities” (Guha 1996). These permits acknowledge the reality that companies involved do indeed have to release sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere as part of their operations. There are efforts, however, to control the frequency of such pollution and rather than use force the predominant ethos is one of cooperation. As Guha (1996) notes, “The objective of the regulatory policy is generally seen as attaining a predetermined environmental quality at the least cost. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects that the combination of marketable allowances and free choice of compliance techniques will reduce costs of sulphur dioxide abatement by at least $1 billion” (Guha 1996). A two-phased approach was involved, with the first phase involving the 110 worst emitting power plants. These were enjoined to cut down their emissions by 3.7 million tons by January 1, 1995. The next phase involved other plants, all of which were required to cut their emissions by 6.9 million tons by January 1, 2000. By learning what the base production levels were, the regulatory agencies were able to provide permits that would not put too much of a constraint on the companies involved. This was a good approach, first of all because it elicited the collaboration of the companies involved, and showed them that the government was watching them closely. These companies, of course, knew that the government has the power to invoke more drastic measures should the collaborative approach fail. The use of permits that can be traded is also useful. The permits can be traded, and Canadian entities have not been unknown to purchase permits in the United States. This, of course, would mean that companies that sell out their permits would then have to limit their emissions, a move that can help reduce sulphur dioxide levels, especially if the purchasers do not themselves intend to exercise their permits. Among the incentives for Canada to participate in the permit purchasing system are the following: Canadians’ buying of permits from American polluters has been described as a form of bribe but this is not illegal and Canadians are protecting their own interests while at the same time giving the American companies involved something tangible, in the form of money, that they can hold onto. Canada has been said to be free-riding on the U.S. system, which also involves stringent enforcement according to the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The United States understand that their relationship with Canada is important so even though much of the pollution ends up affecting Canada, the United States is rightly willing to show itself to be morally responsible. Moreover, American leaders are looking to the long term because if they do not deal with the problem now simply because it mostly affects Canada, who is to say what other problems, perhaps, intractable, are going to emerge in the future. The money that Canada invests in the permit market may be seen by some as a waste of money. This, however, is not the case. Canadians are not only trying to protect assets that are quantifiable such as the forest products, for which a cost can be attached but also they are protecting priceless elements of the Canadian heritage which can be lost because of acid rain. “For example, costs of losing a historical stone structure such as the nineteenth century marble-tomb head in Halifax, or the Louis-Phillippe Herbert’s Parliament Hill stature are difficult to impute” (Guha 1996). The fact that 75% or so of sulphur emissions are attributed to U.S. sources imply that Canadians have to look at home grown companies as well to see where Canadian companies may be contributing to the problem. Lessons learned While it is too early to proclaim that Canada has been able to overcome the acid rain pollution problem, it is possible to point to some significant gains. The success in reducing the emissions of sulphur dioxide provide an object lesson in problem solving and collaboration. Canadians did not approach the United States purely on an emotional level. Rather, they used scientific information, including information from American researchers to confront the United States about its responsibility to control what could conceivably detrimentally affect both countries in a very bad way. The United States also took a pragmatic approach, which might have stemmed from recognition of the historic ties between the two countries as well as the need to do the right thing. The approaches to the problem also took on a pragmatic turn. Rather than threatening the companies involved, the government used various incentives as well as backed their commitment with the force of the law. Many businesses rightly want to comply with the law, so in the absence of a law, such businesses may feel at a loss as to what to do. Once the law was in place, and there was a system of tradable emission permits in place, the affected companies did what they could to stay within the limits of the law, with the effect that there has been a significant improvement in the control of sulphur dioxide. In fact, part of the reason sulphur generated in New York might find its way into Canadian skies has been blamed on the Clean Air Act of 1970 which forced manufacturers to erect tall smoke stacks in the hope that this would keep the air clean. Often, this indeed helped to keep the local area clean of the particulates in the smoke but the particulates travelled far making their descent in some other territory and bringing unexpected headaches far from their source. Though there have been some inconclusive studies regarding acid rain, more and more there is consensus that the effects of acid rain are not necessarily salutary. “Trees are dying. That much, everyone agrees. In West Germany, where the Black Forest is turning gray, Waldersteben, or “forest death,” has become a household word. Evergreens in Poland and Czechoslovakia are balding by the millions, and on several summits of the American Appalachians, spruces and firs stand naked and skeletal, stripped of their needles. One of the most shocking examples is North Carolina’s Mount Mitchell, where a number of destructive factors are apparently at work – insects, frost and the cloud of acid fog in which the peak is frequently bathed” (Who will stop the rain? 1984). One thing is clear. As much as Canadians have reason to lament the dying forest in eastern Canada, acid rain is by no means a problem only for Canada and the U.S. to worry about. Conclusion The efforts that have been made by the United States and Canada with regard to the acid rain problem are admirable. Much more remains to be done, however. At the same time, it is important for these two powerful nations to join hands with other countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic in order to find a lasting solution to the problem. Sharing research findings and systems for controlling the causes of acid rain will go a long way towards staving off the day when all the forests would be denuded, with possibly dire consequences for the world as a whole. Bibliography “Acid rain.” http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AcidRain.html (March 7, 2007) “Acid rain and the facts.” http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidfact.html (March 6, 2007) “Acid rain causing forest decline in vast regions of Eastern Canada 2005.” Alaska Highway News, (Mar 15, 2005):A8. “Acid Rain Killed Jurassic Monsters.” Canadian Journal of Health & Nutrition, Issue 134 (Oct 1993):51. Bui, Linda T.M. “Gains from Trade and Strategic Interaction: Equilibrium Acid Rain Abatement in the Eastern United States and Canada.” American Economic Review, Vol 88 No 4 (1999):984-992. Guha, Aparna. “Internationalizing the role of domestic pollution permit market.” Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 22 Issue 4 (Fall 1996):449-456. “Little is known about acid rain.” Nation’s Business, Vol. 72 (Nov 1984):29. “Studies show diminished acid rain and levelling CO2 emissions.” Power Engineering, vol. 105 Issue 1 (Jan 2001). Ting, Kevin. “How Can Rain Be Acid?” Canadian Journal of Health & Nutrition, Issue 163 (May 1996):79. “What is acid rain?” http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/acidrain/ar1-e.html (March 7, 2007) “Who will stop the rain? Wrangling over acid from the sky.” Life, Vol. 7 (Nov 1984):60. Read More