Air pollution success stories in the United States: The value of long-term observations

Dynamics-based economic and environmental benefits of excavated soil utilization along metro line: A case study

I. THE ROLE OF CO-POLLUTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN CLIMATE POLICY A. The Value of a Comprehensive Approach B. The Benefits of Integrating Co-pollutant Considerations into Climate Policy 1. The Environmental Benefits of Integrating Co-pollutant Considerations a. Existing Air Pollution b. Do Climate Policies Reduce Co-pollutants? c. How Significant are Climate Policies' Co-pollutant Benefits in Light of Existing and Emerging Direct Co-pollutant Controls? 2. The Administrative and Technical Benefits of Taking a Multi-pollutant Approach C. Addressing the Potential Economic and Political Implications of Incorporating Co-pollutant Considerations D. How Co-pollutant Implications Could Influence Climate Policies II. REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CAA A. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program B. Section 111 Standards III. THE CO-POLLUTANT IMPLICATIONS OF REGULATORY VERSUS MARKET STRATEGIES A. Cap-and-Trade B. Integrating Co-pollutant and GHG Control Strategies C. Co-pollutant Distribution D. Impact on Stringency and Associated Co-pollutant Benefits E. Certainty of Reductions F. Offsets and In-sector Reductions G. Incentives for Technology Transformation H. Participatory Benefits I. Conclusion IV. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES: EXTENDING THE CAA's REACH A. Extending the CAA to Previously Unregulated Facilities B. The Nature of Section 111(d) Standards: Modest or Transformative? V. CONCLUSION This article, prepared for UCLA Law's spring 2011 symposium entitled Perspectives on Climate Change, Pollution, and the Clean Air Act, begins by addressing an interesting but narrow question: what are the implications of applying the Clean Air Act (CAA) to stationary source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? That inquiry has led inexorably to deeper issues, including the appropriate role of consequences in developing climate policies, the benefits and drawbacks of traditional versus market-based regulation, and, more specifically, the value of using the CAA to reduce GHG emissions. The CAA's GHG provisions for industrial sources are controversial. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson, environmental organizations, and industry would prefer new climate legislation to implementing the CAA. (1) Further, numerous congressional bills and appropriations riders have sought--persistently but unsuccessfully--to strip EPA of its authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA. (2) An analysis of the CAA's implications can help inform the larger debate about the CAA as a climate policy tool. Given the strong correlation between GHGs and traditional pollutants, there is little question that regulating GHGs from stationary sources will have important consequences. Fossil fuel combustion to produce energy contributed eighty-seven percent of GHG emissions in the United States in 2009, (3) and stationary sources contributed over half of those emissions. (4) Climate policies addressing stationary sources will therefore significantly impact fossil fuel combustion. In most instances, as GHG emissions decrease, associated co-pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other hazardous components, are also likely to decrease. (5) Given the persistence of ongoing air pollution and its pervasive public health and environmental consequences, this co-pollutant benefit'.' is significant. Yet, for the most part, benefits have played little role in climate policy debates. A recent study on the role of benefits in climate policy analyses observed that decision-makers do not usually consider the full range of effects of actions to address climate change. …

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) have been the lynchpins of the U.S. environmental policy for the last half century. Under both acts the federal government sets standards and the states implement, the outcomes of the CAA and CWA have not been the same however. While criteria air pollutants across the nation have been reduced or maintained under the management control strategies of the CAA, far less is known about the effects the CWA has had on water quality, even though, most agree water quality has improved since its implementation. These acts are built on similar frameworks, but the real difference lies on the embedded identification of assessment criteria. The CAA creates a rigid framework for the consistent identification and monitoring of air pollutants, while the CWA relies on a much more flexible system that varies over space and time. Thus, it is the embedded environmental assessment criteria within these acts that have led to different outcomes for similar policies.

Cap and Trade Legislation for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Air & Waste Management Association, this review examines the history of air quality management (AQM) in the United States over the last century, with an emphasis on the ambient standards programs established by the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. The current CAA system is a hybrid of several distinct air pollution control philosophies, including the recursive or circular system driven by ambient standards. Although this evolving system has resulted in tremendous improvements in air quality, it has been far from perfect in terms of timeliness and effectiveness. The paper looks at several periods in the history of the U.S. program, including: (1) 1900-1970, spanning the early smoke abatement and smog control programs, the first federal involvement, and the development of a hybrid AQM approach in the 1970 CAA; (2) 1971-1976, when the first National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set and implemented; (3) 1977-1993, a period of the first revisions to the standards, new CAA Amendments, delays in implementation and decision-making, and key science/policy/legislative developments that would alter both the focus and scale of air pollution programs and how they are implemented; and (4) 1993-2006, the second and third wave of NAAQS revisions and their implementation in the context of the 1990 CAA. This discussion examines where NAAQS have helped drive implementation programs and how improvements in both effects and air quality/control sciences influenced policy and legislation to enhance the effectiveness of the system over time. The review concludes with a look toward the future of AQM, emphasizing challenges and ways to meet them. The most significant of these is the need to make more efficient progress toward air quality goals, while adjusting the system to address the growing intersections between air quality management and climate change.

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Air & Waste Management Association, this review examines the history of air quality management (AQM) in the United States over the last century, with an emphasis on the ambient standards programs established by the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. The current CAA system is a hybrid of several distinct air pollution control philosophies, including the recursive or circular system driven by ambient standards. Although this evolving system has resulted in tremendous improvements in air quality, it has been far from perfect in terms of timeliness and effectiveness. The paper looks at several periods in the history of the U.S. program, including: (1) 1900–1970, spanning the early smoke abatement and smog control programs, the first federal involvement, and the development of a hybrid AQM approach in the 1970 CAA; (2) 1971–1976, when the first National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set and implemented; (3) 1977–1993, a period of the first revisions to the standards, new CAA Amendments, delays in implementation and decision–making, and key science/policy/legislative developments that would alter both the focus and scale of air pollution programs and how they are implemented; and (4) 1993–2006, the second and third wave of NAAQS revisions and their implementation in the context of the 1990 CAA. This discussion examines where NAAQS have helped drive implementation programs and how improvements in both effects and air quality/control sciences influenced policy and legislation to enhance the effectiveness of the system over time. The review concludes with a look toward the future of AQM, emphasizing challenges and ways to meet them. The most significant of these is the need to make more efficient progress toward air quality goals, while adjusting the system to address the growing intersections between air quality management and climate change.

Recent and pending legislative and regulatory changes in the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) will profoundly affect oil and gas investment decisions and operations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Revisions in the CAA Amendments of 1990 transfer jurisdiction for regulating OCS air emissions from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for all of the OCS except the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. Program delegation to coastal states and local air agencies will drastically affect the California OCS. Stringent CWA regulations on effluent limitations for OCS discharges will force muds, cuttings, and produced sands from some operations to be barged ashore for disposal. Barging materials for onshore disposal will add to the industry's environmental liability under the (%4 Amendments and the materials may be subject to RCRA requirements. Depending upon how they are implemented, the requirements of each of these laws can exacerbate compliance problems with the other laws. The cross-media regulatory effects of these laws--those affecting air, water, and land--will compound industry compliance costs and affect domestic energy production. .&I energy impact analysis should assess the cumulative effects of these regulations on energy production. INTRODUCTION At a time when depressed oil and natural gas prices, combmed with burdensome environmental requirements, are limiting investment in exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources on the U.S. OCS, legislative and regulatory actions by the Federal Government will or have the potential to further increase the cost of environmental compliance. A report by the First Boston Company indicates that over the past 5 years, the average return on investment on the upstream side in the U.S. has been 6.2'% or less for five major companies. This return is less than the cost of capital during the same period. Among the reasons for these "anemic returns," the First Boston cites the array of access issues and the costs of environmental compliance.l As the Federal agency with the responsibility for leasing lands and regulating mineral exploration and development activities on the OCS, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) tracks legislation and regulatory actions that may affect the OCS program. The MMS is keeping close surveillance on two proposed rulemakhg actions by the U.S. EPA and a legislative reauthorization pending in Congress (at the time of this writing). This paper reports on the potential requirements that may flow from the individual rules or law, and focuses on their overlapping effects and possibly conflicting requirements. CLEAN AIR AC13 0(33 REGULATIONS In November 1990, section 328 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-549) transferred authority to regulate pollutant emissions from OCS sources from the DOI to the EPA for the entire OCS except for the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. These Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas remain under the jurisdiction of the DOI.

The rice–crab co-culture (RC) system is a multidimensional integrated farming model with significant potential for balancing ecological and economic benefits in paddy fields. However, improper nitrogen (N) fertilizer application exacerbates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, degrades water quality, and disrupts the balance of the RC ecosystem. Therefore, optimizing and improving N management strategies for the RC system is crucial to maximize its ecological and economic benefits. This study conducted a two-year field experiment to assess the impact of optimizing N application on the productivity, sustainability, and economic benefits in RC systems. Comparisons were made to compare rice and crab productions, GHG emissions, and net ecosystem economic benefit (NEEB) between the RC and rice monoculture (RM) systems under different N application rates (0, 150, 210, and 270 kg ha−1) with the aim of identifying the optimal N application rate for the RC system. The results showed that the N application rate of 210 kg ha−1 in the RC system improved the agronomic traits and N use efficiency, leading to a 0.4% increase in rice yield (7603.1 kg ha−1) compared to the maximum rice yield in the RM system at 270 kg ha−1. At this application rate, surface water quality was optimal for crabs, resulting in the highest crab yields (370.1 kg ha−1) and average weights (81.1 g). The lower N application reduced the greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) of the RC system by 13.7% compared to the RM system. The NEEB at the optimal N application rate of 210 kg ha−1 in the RC system reached 8597.5 CNY ha−1, which was 1265.7% higher than that of the RM system at 270 kg ha−1. In summary, optimizing N application in the RC system conserves N fertilizer resources, increases rice and crab yields, and reduces GHG emissions, thereby synergistically enhancing both economic and ecological benefits. Optimizing the N application rate has greater potential in other innovative RC models, and the productivity, sustainability, and economic efficiency should be further investigated.

Waste paper recycling decision system based on material flow analysis and life cycle assessment: A case study of waste paper recycling from China

I. INTRODUCTION II. HISTORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE A. The Evolution of Climate Change Policy B. The Domestic Agenda for Combating Climate Change III. CONFRONTING ARTICLE III STANDING A. Developing Standing Jurisprudence B. The Effect of Lujan C. Should the Political Branches Decide? IV. EXAMINING THE CLEAN AIR ACT A. The Chevron Test B. An Analysis of the D.C. Circuit's Opinions in Massachusetts v. EPA 1. Judge Randolph's Majority Opinion 2. Judge Sentelle's Concurrence and Dissent 3. Judge Tatel's Dissent V. PROMOTING REGULATION THROUGH THE CLEAN AIR ACT A. Article III Standing 1. The Akins/Lujan Standard 2. Proposing New Standing Requirements for Global Warming Disputes B. Interpreting the Clean Air Act Provisions 1. Examining Congressional Intent 2. The D.C. Circuit's Mischaracterization of the Clean Air Act C. The Likely Outcome of Massachusetts v. EPA VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION On October 20, 1999, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and a number of environmental groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate certain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles and engines. (2) The organizations argued that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (3) provided the EPA Administrator with mandatory discretion to regulate GHG emissions. (4) Petitioners contended that statements made on the EPA's website and other documents concluded that the emissions they sought to control may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public welfare. (5) They also claimed that motor vehicle emissions from the GHGs could be significantly reduced by increasing the fuel economy of vehicles, eliminating tailpipe emissions altogether, or using other current and developing technologies. However, the EPA concluded that it did not possess the legal authority to regulate the GHG emissions and denied their petition. (6) In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, (7) the D.C. Circuit addressed the issue of whether the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA Administrator to control GHG emissions of new motor vehicles and engines. A three-judge panel voted 2-1 against reviewing the EPA's decision that it lacked authority under federal law to regulate GHGs. (8) The majority held that the Administrator properly exercised his discretion under section 202(a)(1) in denying the petition for rulemaking. (9) In an en banc hearing, the D.C. Circuit rejected a petition for rehearing. (10) Late last term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear arguments to resolve this controversy. (11) This comment asserts that the CAA authorizes the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. The Supreme Court's decision in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (12) held that if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, the question becomes whether the agency's action involves a permissible construction of the statute. Part II of this comment discusses the historical background of climate change policy regarding GHG emissions. Part III focuses on the various environmental law cases addressing the issue of Article III standing. Part IV analyzes the Chevron test and the three opinions by the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency judges. Part V advances the belief that section 202(a)(1) of the CAA provides mandatory authority and predicts that the Supreme Court will decide that the petitioners possess proper standing and that the EPA is mandated under section 202(a)(1) to regulate GHG emissions. This prediction is based on the Court's jurisprudence regarding Article III standing and the Chevron doctrine, respectively. Part VI concludes that failure to control the production of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines limits the impact of the CAA to protect the public welfare from threats to the environment. …

Waste disposal is an important part of the life cycle of a product and is associated with environmental burdens like any other life-cycle stages. In this study, an integrated assessment for solid waste treatment practices, especially household solid waste, was undertaken to evaluate the impact contribution of household solid waste treatment alternatives towards the sustainable development by using Life Cycle Inventory Assessment method. A case study has been investigated under various possible scenarios, such as (1) landfill without landfill gas recovery, (2) landfill with landfill gas recovery and flaring, (3) landfill with landfill gas recovery and electric generation, (4) composting, and (5) incineration. The evaluation utilized the Life Cycle Inventory Assessment method for multiple assessments based on various aspects, such as greenhouse gas emission/reduction, energy generation/consumption, economic benefit, investment and operating cost, and land use burden. The results showed that incineration was the most efficient alternative for greenhouse gas emission reduction, economic benefit, energy recovery, and land use reduction, although it was identified as the most expensive for investment and operating cost, while composting scenario was also an efficient alternative with quite economic benefit, low investment and operating cost, and high reduction of land use, although it was identified as existing greenhouse gas emission and no energy generation. Furthermore, the aim of this study was also to establish localized assessment methods that waste management agencies, environmental engineers, and environmental policy decision makers can use to quantify and compare the contribution to the impacts from different waste treatment options.

When it comes to ecological diversity, California has it all: snow-capped mountains, wide deserts, scenic beaches, and some of the worst environmental problems in the country. Six of the country’s ten most polluted cities—Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno–Madera, Visalia–Porterville, Merced, and Sacramento—are found in California, where children face fivefold greater risks of reduced lung function compared with children who live in less-polluted areas. Beyond its air pollution problems, California could also face catastrophic consequences from climate change. Assuming warming trends continue at their present rates, experts generally agree that the Sierra snowpack—which is crucial to the state’s drinking water supply—could decline by 50–90% by the century’s end. With statistics like that, environmentalism has become a powerful force in California. According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a San Francisco–based research organization, 65% of Californians don’t think the federal government is doing enough to combat global warming. Two-thirds of the population support state efforts to address climate change, while an equal number support tougher air pollution standards on new vehicles, even if it makes vehicles more expensive. California legislators have responded with some of the strongest environmental laws ever passed. Whereas the U.S. government has yet to regulate carbon dioxide, California recently passed AB 32, a groundbreaking law signed by governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006 that directs industries to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by 25% over the next 13 years. Another law—AB 1493, which was enacted in 2002—directs automakers to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles sold in California after 2009, with a 30% reduction in statewide vehicular emissions by 2016. (That law is currently being challenged by a lawsuit from the automotive industry.) This year, California will consider a statewide green chemistry policy that could exceed the scope of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which sets national policy on chemicals used in products and industrial processes. Local governments have also tightened environmental controls. San Francisco, for instance, recently passed the country’s first ban on baby products containing bisphenol A and has also regulated levels of phthalates in these products. Bisphenol A and phthalates are both suspected endocrine disruptors. Coming from one of the world’s largest economies, these preemptive legislative efforts have impressive clout. “California provides an example [for other states],” says Cympie Payne, associate director of the California Center for Law and Policy at the University of California (UC), Berkeley. “Other states find it easier to model their own laws on those that another state has already put into effect.”

Coming Together for Climate and Health: Proceedings of the Second Annual Clinical Climate Change Meeting, January 24, 2020.

A Breath of Bad Air

A breath of bad air