After an extensive 2-minute google search, I found this explanation of the pollution haven hypothesis:
Pollution haven hypothesis argues that the industries that are highly pollution intensive i.e. dirty industries, have been migrating from developed economies to the developing world. It is argued that the environmental concerns of the developed economies caused them to enact strict environmental regulations, which have increased the cost of production of the dirty industries at home. On the other hand, the developing countries with their low wages and lax environmental regulations have been attractive alternative producers in these sectors.
Makes sense. Now consider this:
Environmental officials in Ohio say they won't follow their counterparts in Kansas and deny a coal-fired power-plant permit based on carbon-dioxide pollution.
Does that make Ohio the state equivalent of a developing country?
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment became the first government agency nationwide to say that greenhouse-gas emissions from a proposed $3.6 billion plant would threaten the state and its residents.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency this year has approved one draft permit and is considering a second for two proposed coal-fired power plants in Meigs County. Both would produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide.
"That's just not an approach that we are prepared to take here in Ohio," Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski said.
Ohio, like many other states, uses a "don't ask, don't tell" carbon-dioxide policy with businesses seeking pollution permits. State and federal governments do not regulate carbon dioxide, which has been tied to global warming.
But things began to change in April, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Kansas used that ruling to deny a permit requested by three power companies that want to expand a 368-megawatt plant. The Department of Health and Environment said it's the first step toward setting limits and reducing carbon-dioxide emissions statewide, spokesman Joe Blubaugh said.
"The (department) has the authority to protect the health of citizens and the environment," he said.
The expansion would have produced 11 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions a year, according to the Sunflower Electric Power Corp., one of three companies involved in the project in Holcomb, Kan.
Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller said the company plans to fight the state's rejection "on every level and in any way possible."
Environmental groups applaud Kansas' decision.
"We hope that it will embolden other states to enforce their own laws, particularly on coal plants," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's national coal campaign.
Korleski said Ohio is waiting for Congress or the U.S. EPA to set nationwide standards for carbon-dioxide emissions. Several bills were introduced after the Supreme Court's ruling, but Korleski and others don't think anything will pass before the 2008 presidential elections.
In the meantime, the Ohio EPA has approved a permit for American Municipal Power to build a 1,000-megawatt plant in Meigs County. That plant would emit as much as 7.5 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, company spokesman Kent Carson said.
American Electric Power also has filed a permit application to build a 630-megawatt plant in Meigs. AEP officials did not provide emission estimates.
Korleski said without set carbon-dioxide limits, Ohio will not deny permits.
"I think it's a fairness issue," he said.
