environmental policy water pollution air pollution state & local issues global environment
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Policy
Water PollutionAir Pollution
State & Local IssuesGlobal Environment
Types of Water Pollutants Organic wastes
Sewage, residuals from factories, pesticides, oil, detergent
Inorganic substances Toxic metals, salts, acids,
nitrates Non-material
Radioactivity, heat Infectious agents
Bacteria, viruses
Point source vs. Non-point source
Continuous vs episodic
Persistent vs degradable
Water Pollution Policy
Initial burden was on states/localities
EPA established in 1970 Federally set TBES State/local enforcement Municipal treatment
subsidies
Refuse Act (1899) Water Pollution Control
Act (1948, 1956, 1972) Introduced TBES in 1972;
moved away from AQ standards
Loan subsidies for construction of water treatment facilities
Zero discharge goal by 1985 Clean Water Act (1977)
Fishable-swimmable goal Focus on toxic effluents
Water Quality Act (1965, 1987) Converted water treatment
subsidies to revolving loan fund
Focus on non-point sources
Technology-Based Effluent Standards
Effluent standard set at the level of emissions a source would produce if it used particular technologies Best Practicable Technology (BPT) by 1977 Best Available Technology (BAT) by 1983 Best Conventional Technology (BCT) after 1984
Estimated Total Costs and Emissions from Sugar-Beet Plants Using Alternative Abatement Technology
Technological Options
Emissions (kg/kkg of raw product processed
No Contr
olA B C D E
BOD 5.80 3.60 2.20 1.05 0.23 0.00
TSS 10.20 5.70 2.50 1.02 0.30 0.00
Total Costs ($ mil/yr)
0.0 $8.00 $14.40 $23.40 $36.50 $78.80
BAT = ?
BPT = ?
BCT = ?
Rivers and Streams Supporting Recreational Uses: With and Without CWA
Increase in Use Support
Highest Supported Use
Without-CWA Conditions
(miles)
With-CWA Conditions
(miles)Miles
Percent Increase
Percent of Maximum Increase
Swimmable 222,120 238,627 16,507 7.4 49.5%
Fishable 399,999 424,712 24,713 6.2 57.8%
Boatable 454,038 475,894 21,856 4.8 59.4%
Nonsupport 178,514 156,658 -21,856 -12.2 59.4%
632,552 Miles Analyzed during the mid-1990s
If all point-source emissions are eliminated
Comparison of Point Source Water Pollution-Control Costs: TBES vs Least-Cost
Study Water Resource Water Quality Target (mg/liter)
Ratio of TBES to Least-Cost
Johnson (1967) Delaware Estuary 2.0 mg/liter DO3.0 mg/liter DO4.0 mg/liter DO
3.131.621.43
O’Neill (1980) Fox River (Wisconsin)
2.0 mg/liter DO4.0 mg/liter DO6.2 mg/liter DO7.8 mg/liter DO
2.291.711.451.38
Eheart, Brill, and Lyon (1983)
Willamette River
Deleware Estuary
4.8 mg/liter DO7.4 mg/liter DO3.0 mg/liter DO3.6 mg/liter DO
1.121.193.002.92
Kneese and Bower (1968) Delaware Estuary 2 ppm DO3-4 pm DO
3.102.90
Kerri (1966) Willamette River 5.0 mg/liter DO 1.58
Goodwin and Dobbins (1966) Merrimack River 3.0 ppm DO 1.34
Bennett, Thorpe, and Guse (2000)
Long Island Sound Total nitrogen loading (tons)
1.25
EPA estimates 50%+ of water violations due to NPS
Focus on Non-point sources Design standards
No agricultural cultivation on steep slopesDesigns on urban storm sewersHome builders must control run-off
Tax materials/activities leading to NPSFertilizers, chemicals
Total Maximum Daily Load program Emission limits if TBES don’t achieve ambient standards
Tradable Discharge Permits Fox River, Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Dillon
Reservoir Problems
Thin marketsTrading ratios
Water Policy Innovations
Air Pollution Policy
78% Nitrogen21% Oxygen
Ozone: filters out ultraviolet radiation
Other gases provide for “greenhouse” effect
Federal Air Pollution Control Laws
Early law was local in nature; focus on “nuisance laws” Air Quality Act (1967)
Required states to established ambient standards for “criteria pollutants”
expanded grants to states for air pollution control plans Clean Air Act (1963, 1966, 1970, 1977, 1990)
Established uniform NAAQS Established TBES Stationary vs mobile sources SO2 tradable discharge permits
Early law was local in nature; focus on “nuisance laws” Air Quality Act (1967)
Required states to established ambient standards for “criteria pollutants”
expanded grants to states for air pollution control plans Clean Air Act (1963, 1966, 1970, 1977, 1990)
Established uniform NAAQS Established TBES Stationary vs mobile sources SO2 tradable discharge permits
Criteria PollutantsParticulate Matter
Health: breathing symptoms; aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease; impairment of the body’s immune systems; damage to lung tissue; premature mortalityWelfare: damage to materials, soiling; visibility impairment
Sulfur DioxideHealth: adverse effects on breathing; respiratory illness; alterations to lung’s defenses, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseaseWelfare: foliar damage on trees and crops; contribution to acid rain; accelerated corrosion of buildings
Carbon MonoxideHealth: exposure to elevated levels causes impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks; individuals with existing cardiovascular disease are at greater risk
Nitrogen DioxideHealth: lung irritation, reduced resistance to respiratory infection; continued or frequent exposure may cause higher incidence of acute respiratory disease in childrenWelfare: contributes to ozone formation and acid rain
OzoneHealth: reduced lung functioning; damage to lung tissue, increased sensitivity of the lung to other irritantsWelfare: reduction in crop yields; foliar damage to crops and trees, damage to ecosystem
LeadHealth: damage to kidneys, liver, nervous system, and blood forming organs; changes in fundamental enzymatic, energy transfer, and homeostatic mechanisms in the body; excessive exposure can cause neurological problems such as seizures, mental retardation, and/or behavioral problems
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air-Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Pollutant Primary Standard
Secondary Standard
Particulate Matter (PM10)Daily mean 150 µg/m3 Same as primary
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Annual meanDaily mean
15 µg/m3
35 µg/m3
Same as primarySame as primary
Carbon Monoxide8-hour mean1-hour mean
9 ppm35 ppm
NoneNone
Nitrogen DioxideAnnual mean 0.053 ppm Same as primary
Ozone8-hour mean 0.075 ppm Same as primary
LeadQuarterly mean 0.15 µg/m3
Same as primary
Sulfur DioxideAnnual mean24-hour mean3-hour mean
0.03 ppm0.14 ppm
none
Same as primarySame as primary
0.50 ppmSource: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
Stationary Source Control: TBES Non-Attainment Areas
Existing Sources: RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology)
New Sources: LAER (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Areas
Existing Sources: None New Sources: BACT (Best Available Control Technology)
Note: New Source BiasCreates incentives to hold onto older, dirtier, factoriesCreates incentives for older factories to produce to
capacity whereas newer factories may have excess capacity
Non-Attainment Areas Existing Sources: RACT (Reasonably Available Control
Technology) New Sources: LAER (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Areas Existing Sources: None New Sources: BACT (Best Available Control Technology)
Note: New Source BiasCreates incentives to hold onto older, dirtier, factoriesCreates incentives for older factories to produce to
capacity whereas newer factories may have excess capacity
Cap-and-Trade (CAP) Program
1990 CAA: reduce SO2 emissions by 40% from 1990 levels
Phase I: 1995 – 2000 110 power plants in 21 eastern/midwestern states # permits = (Avg Btu of fuel used) x (2.5 lbs SO2/million Btus)
Phase II: 2000 – present Covers all power plants in US (approx. 1000) # permits = (Avg Btu of fuel used) x (1.2 lbs SO2/million Btus) Overall cap of 8.95 million permits in 2010
Trading Rules Participants: corporations, individuals, green groups, speculators EPA tracks all trades, monitors emissions $2581 fine for excess SO2
1990 CAA: reduce SO2 emissions by 40% from 1990 levels
Phase I: 1995 – 2000 110 power plants in 21 eastern/midwestern states # permits = (Avg Btu of fuel used) x (2.5 lbs SO2/million Btus)
Phase II: 2000 – present Covers all power plants in US (approx. 1000) # permits = (Avg Btu of fuel used) x (1.2 lbs SO2/million Btus) Overall cap of 8.95 million permits in 2010
Trading Rules Participants: corporations, individuals, green groups, speculators EPA tracks all trades, monitors emissions $2581 fine for excess SO2
Clean Air Markets in Action
Affected SourcesAllowance PricesTrends in SO2 EmissionsCross-State Air Pollution Rule
AEP Muskingum River Plant 98,515 tons of SO2 in 2010 4 coal-units producing 840 MW 159 full-time workers
AEP Dresden Natural gas unit producing 580 MW 25 full-time workers
Mobile Source Emissions
Federal focus has been on emissions per mileEquimarginal principle suggests all RHS factors should be balanced
New Car Emission StandardsVOC, NOx, CO, PM“Technology forcing”Inspection and Maintenance programs
Technology StandardsReformulated fuelsAlternative fuels: methanol, natural gas, hydrogen Clean cars: electric vehicles, hybrids
TotalEmissions
Number ofVehicles
Average MilesTraveled
Emissionsper Mile= x x
Massachusetts v US EPA: Supreme Court rules 5-4 that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA is responsible for its regulation
Massachusetts v US EPA: Supreme Court rules 5-4 that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA is responsible for its regulation
Emissions (million short tons)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Carbon monoxideStationaryMobile
29.4174.6
24.9160.5
22.5131.7
22.292.2
22.545.3
Nitrogen oxidesStationaryMobile
11.515.3
12.314.8
12.113.4
10.012.6
5.87.2
Volatile organic compounds
StationaryMobile
16.118.5
15.116.0
12.012.1
9.58.0
9.04.5
Sulfur dioxideStationaryMobile
30.60.6
25.20.7
22.20.9
15.70.7
7.70.2
Particulate matter (PM10)
StationaryMobile
12.40.6
6.30.7
27.10.7
23.20.6
10.50.3
LeadStationaryMobile
39.2181.7
9.564.7
3.81.2
Stationary and Mobile Sources of Criteria Pollutants in the US
Source: Table 15.1, Field and Field (5e), p302
Emissions (hundred tons per day)
1990 Actual
2000 Without
CAA
2000 With CAA
VOC 62.2 66.0 46.8
NO 67.3 67.8 49.5
CO 258.6 242.1 201.5
SO2 61.3 64.8 48.5
PM10 77.5 78.8 76.9
Source: Table 15.2, Field and Field (5e), p302
Estimated Impacts of 1990 Clean Air Act
State & Local Issues
Municipal WastesLand Use Control
Municipal Solid WasteDisposal Options
Landfills Incineration Recycling
NIMBY
Media switching?
Municipal Solid Waste
1960
1970 1980
1990 2000 2010
Total quantity generated (mil. tons)
88.1 121.0 151.6
208.3 242.5 249.9
Quantity generated per capita (lbs/person/day)
2.7 3.3 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.4
Disposal, percent of total: Landfill Combustion Recycled
93.60.06.4
93.10.36.6
88.61.89.6
69.314.516.0
57.513.928.6
54.311.734.0
Municipal Solid Waste
Source: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_data_tables.pdf
Source: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal
Source: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal
Source: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal
Economics of Recycling
Producer and Consumer DecisionsPrivate costs versus social costs
Reasons to Recycle1. Feels good?2. Saves energy?3. Saves money?4. Creates good jobs?5. Saves trees?6. Improves environment?7. Saves landfill space?
Producer Decisions
D
S2
S1
PV
PV + t
q1 q2 q0
With S1: q1 units will be recycled; reuse ratio = q1/q0
Increase reuse ratio?
Raise q1, hold q0
Reduce q0, hold q1
Public curbside collection
Reduce overall demand
do both!Increase PV thru tax
Materials
Cost Effectiveness?
Minimum content standards?
Taxes or TDP?
$
Consumer DecisionsWhich goods to buy? In what quantities?Should I recycle?
Worksheet on Landfill vs RecyclingMandatory recyclingDisposal taxesDeposit Refund
Product A Product B
Value to Consumer 140 160
Purchase Price 100 100
Net Value
Landfill Option
Disposal CostsPrivate Costs 10 10
External Costs 10 40
Net BenefitsPrivate
Social
Recycling Option
Disposal Costs
Private 10 40
Community Transport -- 10
External Costs 10 0
Value of Recovered Materials 0 20
Net BenefitsPrivate
Social
40 60
30
20
50
10
30
20
20
30
(20) (10)
(20) (30)
Global Environmental
IssuesOzone DepletionGlobal Warming
Biodiversity
Global Warming
Climate Sensitivity Doubling of CO2 + 1°C
Feedback effects Water vapor: + 1.7°C Clouds ???
Major Greenhouse Gases
Gas Preindustrial Level
Current Level
Major Source
Water Vapor
CO2 280ppm 387ppm Fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, cement production
CH4 (methane)
700ppb 1745ppb Landfills, enteric fermentation
N2O 270ppb 314ppb Fertilizers, biomass burning, fossil fuel combustion
CFC-12 Refrigerants, propellants
280ppm 560ppm: + 1°C
560ppm 1120ppm: + 1°C
“Hockey Stick” graph
IPCC Report
Temperature increases caused by (human generated) CO2 increases0.5°C (1° F) over last 100 years1.5° - 4.5°C over next 100 years
rising sea levels on coastal societies rapid change does not allow for evolutionary
changes agricultural and forestry changes
Stern ReviewCritique of Stern Review
Global Warming Policy Kyoto Protocol (1997)
Prescribed emission reduction targets for 6 GHGs Signatories must reduce GHG 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012
Technical Responses Increase earth’s absorption abilities Reduce emissions
Stern Review Damage estimates: 5-20% loss in annual global GDP Annual mitigation costs: 1% global GDP to meet 550ppm target
Policy Options Differences in control costs suggests incentive-based strategies
Tradable discharge permits Emissions tax
Differences in contributing factors complicate global agreements between nations
Total CO2 Production = pop x (GDP/pop) x (energy/GDP) x (CO2/energy)
Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Means of Reducing CO2
Means Costs per Ton of CO2 ($)
Co-firing boilers with natural gas $10
Early retirement of coal plants, replaced with nonfossil fuels
280
Increased energy efficiency in homes 175 to 300
Increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings -190 to 75
Cogeneration—commercial 85 to 210
Increased fuel efficiency in cars -220 to -410
Increased fuel efficiency in light trucks -510 to -410
Mass transit 1,150 to 2,300
Cogeneration—industry 55 to 120
Urban tree planting 180
Afforestation with CRP 35
Increased CO2-abscorbing capacity through management of existing forests
150 to 200Source: Table 20.3, Field and Field (4e)
Stern Review
CO2 target = 550ppm Choice:
Costs of strong and early action (1% GDP) Costs of not acting (5% - 20% GDP)
3 Elements of Policy Pricing of carbon: taxes, cap-and-trade, regulation Support innovation and deployment of low-carbon technologies Remove barriers to energy efficiency (inform, educate, persuade)
International response is required Emissions trading Technology cooperation Reduced deforestation Adaptation
“Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen”
Requires emissions 25% below current levels by 2050
Kyoto Protocol (1997)
Stern Critique: Overestimated MD
Demographics: assumes rapid pop. growth and low income growth in low latitudes
Discount rate Low discount rate (r = 1.4%)
use for evaluating the cost of future damages
Mitigation costs are evaluated using r ≈ 4%
Adaptation is not taken into account
Extreme weather events increase: from 0.2 percent of GDP to 5% of GDP
Non-market damages suffer from sampling bias
Equity: extra weight given to damages suffered by poor people
MACSternMDStern
CO2e550
t* MDMendelsohn
$
E*
PV of damages = $85 per ton of CO2
($300 per ton of carbon)
Must reduce emissions by 25% below current level by 2050 Renewable energy sources
(42%) Nuclear power (15%) Carbon capture (15%) Energy efficiency (27%)
Ignores value of lost fossil fuels Ignores impact of renewables
on land usage/prices
MACSternMDStern
CO2e550
t* MDMendelsohn
MACMendelsohn
E**
Stern Critique: Underestimated MAC
$
Economic and CO2 Emissions Data for Selected Countries, 2008
Country Population(millions)
GDP per capita ($)
Total Emissions (million tons)
Emissions per capita
(tons)
Emissions per Dollar GDP (kg/$)
China 1,326 6,679 7,030 5.3 1.027
United States 303 42,656 5,670 18.7 0.455
India 1,125 2,622 1,740 1.6 0.597
Russia 142 14,730 1,710 12.0 0.853
Japan 127 31,275 1,210 10.0 0.329
Germany 82 32,786 787 9.5 0.312
Brazil 192 9,682 393 2.0 0.212
Source: Gapminder.org
Global Warming Policy
Copenhagen Consensus“What would be the best ways of advancing global welfare, and particularly the welfare of the developing countries, illustrated by supposing that an additional $75 billion of resources were at their disposal over a four-year initial period?”
Economic and CO2 Emissions Data for Selected Countries, 2008
Country Population(millions)
GDP per capita ($)
Total Emissions (million tons)
Emissions per capita
(tons)
Emissions per Dollar GDP (kg/$)
China 1,326 6,679 7,030 5.3 1.027
United States 303 42,656 5,670 18.7 0.455
India 1,125 2,622 1,740 1.6 0.597
Russia 142 14,730 1,710 12.0 0.853
Japan 127 31,275 1,210 10.0 0.329
Germany 82 32,786 787 9.5 0.312
Brazil 192 9,682 393 2.0 0.212
Source: Gapminder.org
Global Warming Policy
United Nations Climate Change Conference from Durban, South Africa
BiodiversityTypes
Genetic materialSpeciesEcosystems
Species StockRandom mutationsExtinction rates
Over-exploitationHabitat destructionIntroduction of non-native species
Policy ApproachesEndangered Species Act (1973)
1,967 species have been listed as endangered or threatenedProhibition on takingsProtection of habitats
CITES (1975)Export/import controls5000 animals/28,000 plants
Coase Theorem Alternative?Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRECosta Rica and Merck
51 species have been removed 23 have been recovered 12 listed in error or due to taxonomic change 10 have gone extinct 6 discovery of new populations