Environmental Analysis Should Include Examination Of Failing To Perform The Examined Action

Environmental hazard or engine for environmental enhancement?

Remember “acid rain?”

We were all going to die of it once but, only after all our buildings and art works had been eaten away by the nasty stuff.

So all kinds of things were done to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, especially in North America and Europe, with the result that the term “acid rain” is seldom heard anymore.

The reason all that is important is that sulfur dioxide plays a part in cooling the atmosphere.  The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines famously cooled the earth’s temperatures for at least a couple of years by, depending on the source, ½ to a full degree due to the massive releases of SO2 occasioned by the eruption.

Now, if SO2 releases result in global cooling, and we brought about massive decreases in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere in the latter decades of the 1900s, what should be expected?

Maybe, global warming!

Having lived through the acid rain controversy, one bearing remarkable similarities to the more recent discussions about global warming and climate change I can say that in the days when acid rain was going to pour down and dissolve all our faces no one much mentioned the probable result of SO2 reduction; warming of the atmosphere and, thus, the earth.

I’ve been thinking about this recently because locally, in Whatcom County, an incredibly angry discussion has been taking place regarding the permitting of a “coal” port in the county and the subsequent shipping of coal through the county to that port for export to Asian markets.

The discussion is now entering the scoping phase of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will, purportedly, examine the impacts likely if the port is built and coal shipments to the port result in the shipping of more coal through Whatcom County than is already being shipped.

As a note, coal has been transported by rail through the county for decades with no controversy at all.  The announcement of a new coal port has suddenly made the future shipping of coal the source of all future evils to be visited on residents.

So the thought occurs, if Environmental Impact Statements are science based, purportedly removing politics and emotion from the assessment, shouldn’t the EIS include analysis of what happens if the proposed action does not take place?

In the example of SO2 reductions I have to honestly say the potential for global warming inherent in the scrubbing of the gas from power plant and factory emissions was never discussed so far as I can remember, certainly not extensively.  Had it been talked about we would at least not be as “surprised” as we are about today’s temperature increases.

I wrote in an earlier post about the millions of deaths, mostly in developing countries, caused by the elimination of DDT some decades ago.  Had we discussed the probability of those deaths honestly at the time we may have still banned DDT but we would have also have had to take responsibility for deliberately allowing those deaths to occur.

News Bulletin:  This just in!  Environmental Impact Statement finds travel by air poses unacceptable risks to natural environment.  Air travel suspended - clipper ship futures rise on stock exchange.

In the case of coal, what is the balance between any environmental consequences seen when we ship coal and the environmental consequences both in my neck of the woods and overseas if we do not ship the coal?

These are serious questions.

For example, there are known, and to some extent, measurable consequences to human life and health when an economy goes sour.  Some years ago I researched the issue and, at the time, the best analysis available in the academic world resulted in a calculation that in North America, at least, a $8,000,000 reduction in economic activity resulted in one premature death.

We intuitively know that is the case.  A breadwinner loses a job, comes home and assaults his wife and family.  Recent news in the United States has featured several stories of gunmen recently fired from their jobs bursting into their former places of work and killing one, two or several people.  To the extent the layoff occurred as a result of the on-going depression in the United States, a reduction in economic activity helps account for the premature deaths.

Unfortunately, especially in the United States, the consequences to the environment of not performing an action are seldom discussed.  All the discussion goes to the issue of what is likely to happen if the action is undertaken.

Perhaps it is time to change that.  If we ever want to really enhance our environment, we must change that.