Cross-Media Pollution and the
Chesapeake Bay
itrogen oxide (NO ) emissions pollute
N
the air. In turn, polluted air can contaminate the water. Airborne NO emissions,
helping to analyze the results of a model
that Atkinson developed to simulate trading of NOx emission allowances to reduce
x
nutrient pollution in the bay.
for example, are responsible for anywhere
Eventually, Krupnick and McConnell
from 10 to 40 percent of the Chesapeake
will help extend the Atkinson model to
Bay’s nitrogen buildup, which enriches
consider trading under a NOx emissions
nutrients that choke out aquatic life.
cap designed to reduce air pollution after
Despite awareness of this cross-media
deducting water pollution benefits from
effect, however, analysts have found it
abatement costs. They hope insights from
difficult to account correctly for the contrithe study will allow them to develop
butions NOx emissions make to nutrients
policy options for
in the bay.
trading programs
Pollution laws
and for other
do not account for
incentive-based
the cross-media
NOx emission
effect, either, treatreduction proing air and water in
grams.
isolation from one
In related work,
another. Thus, if a
Krupnick and
stricter emission
McConnell will
standard were
explore how the air
placed on cars in
and water impacts
the Northeast
of NOx emissions
tomorrow, the benefrom electric utilifit of making the
ties vary depending
bay a little cleaner at
on facility location
no additional cost
and what this
would go unrecogsuggests about how
nized in the enactpolicies for reducment.
ing utility emisCertainly the task
sions should vary
of accounting for
at the state or
cross-media interacEmissions from cars and trucks make a major contribution to the Chesapeake Bay’s nitrogen buildup, enriching
county level.
tions is not easy.
nutrients that choke out aquatic life.
Knowing more
Many different
about such air and water impacts for each
Environment Division are conducting a
sources of NOx emissions exist whose
facility will also help set the appropriate
study funded by the Air Quality
impacts on Chesapeake Bay waters vary
trading ratios among facilities for the
Coordination Group of the Chesapeake
with time, location, and source. Likewise,
marketable permit program.
Bay Program and by the U.S.
the available response options vary, as do
Into their analysis of cost-effective
Environmental Protection Agency’s Office
their political viability and cost-effectiveabatement policies and cross-media tradof Policy Planning and Evaluation.
ness.
ing programs, Krupnick and McConnell
Working with Brian Morton of the
Yet making an effort to recognize the
will also integrate the array of possible
Environmental Defense Fund and Scott
cross-media effect is well worth the trouactions that might be taken to deal with
Atkinson of the University of Georgia,
ble, RFF researchers say. Neither cleanup
cars and trucks—the so-called “mobile
Krupnick and McConnell are studying the
of the Chesapeake nor cleanup of NOx
sources” that make a major contribution
use of marketable NOx emission
emissions will be cost-effective otherwise.
allowances to achieve both air quality and
to NOx emissions and nutrients in the
What is needed is a framework to
water quality goals. To that end, they are
bay.
determine how best to account for the
COURTESY OF S.C. DELANEY/U.S. EPA
x
20 RESOURCES SUMMER 1996 / ISSUE 124
dual impact of NOx emissions on air and
water quality in devising pollution controls
and to identify cost-effective policies when
both media are affected. Until then, RFF
researchers point out, the real costs of
pollution control will continue to be distorted, since all costs are now attributed to
a given medium in isolation.
To begin to build the needed framework, researchers Alan Krupnick and
Virginia McConnell in RFF’s Quality of the