- Email: [email protected]
economic issues related to nitrogen
Environment International 29 (2003) 327 – 328 www.elsevier.com/locate/envint
Editorial
Summary of regulatory/policy/economic issues related to nitrogen Abstract This is a summary of the two presentations from the session that dealt with the regulatory, policy and economic issues related to nitrogen compounds and the need to reduce their emissions. The papers were presented by Ronald Evans and Jan Willem Erisman. Information on ecological impacts of nitrogen species and atmospheric relationships are presented in other papers in this special issue. This summary provides an overview of the discussions from the above presentations. D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Regulatory; Policy; Economic; Nitrogen; Ammonia; Emissions, Animal feed lots
1. Introduction Nitrogen is required for cropland and ecosystems. However, too much nitrogen can be associated with losses in productivity and ecosystem balance. Atmospheric research on nitrogen, for the past several years, has been synonymous with work on emissions of oxides of nitrogen, frequently termed ‘NOx’. However, it is known that both oxidized and reduced (ammonia) forms of nitrogen are being concentrated in the waterways around the world. Research has shown, with a significant degree of credibility, that much of the nitrogen in these waterways was released into the environment through the atmosphere. Much remains uncertain and unknown in this arena as to the mechanisms of release and the contributions from various sources.
2. A US perspective on nitrogen emissions Historically, NOx has been the primary focus of nitrogen research, regulation and related economic analyses. Such economic research is driven primarily by regulatory pressures. Over the past several years, EPA has carried on nitrogen research and regulatory analyses in partnership with states, industry, academia and environmental groups. The NOx health costs have been estimated with a comfortable degree of confidence. However, the costs of ‘nonhealth’ (ecosystem and welfare) impacts have not been well researched or documented. Additional study of these secondary effects and costs of controlling both NOx and ammonia are needed. More data on such effects are critical, if meaningful analyses are to be made. Based upon the latest
Air Quality Trends Report (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/), over the past 20 years (1981 –2000), monitored levels of NO2 have decreased 14%. All areas of the country that once violated the National Air Quality Standard for NO2 now meet that standard. While levels around urban monitors have fallen, national emissions of nitrogen oxides have actually increased over the past 20 years by 4%. This increase is the result of a number of factors, the largest being an increase in nitrogen oxides emissions from diesel vehicles.
3. A European perspective on nitrogen emissions Work has been ongoing in Europe for one to two decades in an effort to assess and reduce emissions of nitrogen from both combustion and agricultural operations. As a result, ambient concentrations have begun to go down measurably (14% for NOx and over 20% for ammonia). However, ‘critical loadings’ (a concept that has gained a substantial following in Europe) are still being exceeded. Several suggestions for the US to consider, as a result of these experiences, are listed. (1) There is a need to monitor ambient air quality levels for dry deposition, wet deposition, ammonia and other forms of nitrogen. (2) The US should expand efforts to establish or strengthen the knowledge base on causal relationships. (3) The US should consider adopting some form of ‘critical loading’ for land areas and water bodies. The Netherlands and other countries in Europe have concerns that are different from those of the US in many ways, but the basic concerns are similar enough to provide a basis for learning from each other. The above suggestions should be seriously considered by the US.
0160-4120/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00163-0
328
Editorial
4. Nitrogen emissions and impacts: discussion Ammonia (NH3), NOx, CO, ozone and other pollutants are important in the evaluation of impacts on the overall ecosystem. As discussed above, regulation in both the US and Europe have historically focused on NOx, primarily to understand ozone formation and ways for its reduction. Economic analysis and studies of nitrogen have also focused almost exclusively on NOx. This single focus has begun to change in the past few years. Both NOx + NH3, for example, are now in the policy arena and are strongly implicated in haze formation and visibility degradation. These compounds require significant mitigation, if clarity of the atmosphere is to be restored. Agricultural processes are thought to be a major culprit for NH3, and combustion (from motor vehicle, utility and industrial boilers) is clearly the major producer of NOx. Refinement of inventories of emissions is needed. More (and more sophisticated) monitoring is also required. Both NOx and NH3 are regional pollutants. Local sources can, and do, have far-reaching impacts. Often, local impacts can be traced to sources from hundreds of miles away. The difficulty in achieving a common understanding of causal relations between problems and solutions are usually best approached by increased and improved communication and sharing of information. Measurement of impacts and our concept of source models are the areas of greatest research need. Both impacts and source models need to be examined, particularly on a regional scale. Perhaps information sharing and individual or joint efforts initiated among groups of states/countries can provide a set of viable solutions. National programs need to pay more attention to NH3. We cannot afford to wait for algal blooms to completely overtake the ecosystem before acting. Cooperation among researchers and their studies and policies is required. As always, use of ‘solid science’ is necessary before effective and fair regulations can be developed. In summary, a list of research needs is offered.
Early and frequent interactions between physical and ecological scientists and economists (among others) is important for the development of scientific data that can make a policy difference. Collect and analyze more (and sound) economic and welfare data. Thoroughly study the impacts and new ways to mitigate and understand bio-system collapse. Assure good peer-reviewed and replicated science.
5. The panel A panel was formed from the speakers in the three sections of Session 3 to address questions regarding future needs. Panel members discussed several areas that should be
pursued in regard to nitrogen emissions and their impact. The importance of technology development, transfer and application was emphasized. Future studies should develop greater sophistication and clarity to more fully understand both emissions and their environmental effects. Without regulations designed to reduce emissions, detrimental environmental changes are certain to continue and perhaps worsen. The panel discussion ended with a series of questions that need to be addressed.
What priorities should top the research funding lists? There has been discussion on the continued need for communication between scientists and policy makers. There are areas of nitrogen research where researchers do not agree on details. How are such uncertainties best resolved and communicated to policy makers? When is ‘uncertain’ too much for forward progress on actions and perhaps regulations? On the other hand, when is risk too high NOT to take action? When should a scientist retain a lawyer? European colleagues: now that you have seen a NC pig farm, what changes in perspectives do you have and what advice do you have for the first three steps we should take? The history of economics reflects regulatory pressures. How do you see that changing over the next several years, decades? What ‘non quantifiables’ most need quantification? We are hearing divergent opinions between the scientists and policy makers regarding whether future ozone and nitrogen levels will increase or decrease. Is this a difference of opinion or a failure to communicate? In an elevated CO2 environment, what can be done to capture N in crops? What is the next limit?
James H. Southerland * Planning Section, North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, 1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1641, USA E-mail address: [email protected] Ronald Evans US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA Jan Willem Erisman Department of Air Quality and Technology, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, ECN, P.O. Box 1, 1755 ZG Petten, The Netherlands
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-919-715-7566; fax: +1-919-7157476.
Editorial
Summary of regulatory/policy/economic issues related to nitrogen Abstract This is a summary of the two presentations from the session that dealt with the regulatory, policy and economic issues related to nitrogen compounds and the need to reduce their emissions. The papers were presented by Ronald Evans and Jan Willem Erisman. Information on ecological impacts of nitrogen species and atmospheric relationships are presented in other papers in this special issue. This summary provides an overview of the discussions from the above presentations. D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Regulatory; Policy; Economic; Nitrogen; Ammonia; Emissions, Animal feed lots
1. Introduction Nitrogen is required for cropland and ecosystems. However, too much nitrogen can be associated with losses in productivity and ecosystem balance. Atmospheric research on nitrogen, for the past several years, has been synonymous with work on emissions of oxides of nitrogen, frequently termed ‘NOx’. However, it is known that both oxidized and reduced (ammonia) forms of nitrogen are being concentrated in the waterways around the world. Research has shown, with a significant degree of credibility, that much of the nitrogen in these waterways was released into the environment through the atmosphere. Much remains uncertain and unknown in this arena as to the mechanisms of release and the contributions from various sources.
2. A US perspective on nitrogen emissions Historically, NOx has been the primary focus of nitrogen research, regulation and related economic analyses. Such economic research is driven primarily by regulatory pressures. Over the past several years, EPA has carried on nitrogen research and regulatory analyses in partnership with states, industry, academia and environmental groups. The NOx health costs have been estimated with a comfortable degree of confidence. However, the costs of ‘nonhealth’ (ecosystem and welfare) impacts have not been well researched or documented. Additional study of these secondary effects and costs of controlling both NOx and ammonia are needed. More data on such effects are critical, if meaningful analyses are to be made. Based upon the latest
Air Quality Trends Report (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/), over the past 20 years (1981 –2000), monitored levels of NO2 have decreased 14%. All areas of the country that once violated the National Air Quality Standard for NO2 now meet that standard. While levels around urban monitors have fallen, national emissions of nitrogen oxides have actually increased over the past 20 years by 4%. This increase is the result of a number of factors, the largest being an increase in nitrogen oxides emissions from diesel vehicles.
3. A European perspective on nitrogen emissions Work has been ongoing in Europe for one to two decades in an effort to assess and reduce emissions of nitrogen from both combustion and agricultural operations. As a result, ambient concentrations have begun to go down measurably (14% for NOx and over 20% for ammonia). However, ‘critical loadings’ (a concept that has gained a substantial following in Europe) are still being exceeded. Several suggestions for the US to consider, as a result of these experiences, are listed. (1) There is a need to monitor ambient air quality levels for dry deposition, wet deposition, ammonia and other forms of nitrogen. (2) The US should expand efforts to establish or strengthen the knowledge base on causal relationships. (3) The US should consider adopting some form of ‘critical loading’ for land areas and water bodies. The Netherlands and other countries in Europe have concerns that are different from those of the US in many ways, but the basic concerns are similar enough to provide a basis for learning from each other. The above suggestions should be seriously considered by the US.
0160-4120/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00163-0
328
Editorial
4. Nitrogen emissions and impacts: discussion Ammonia (NH3), NOx, CO, ozone and other pollutants are important in the evaluation of impacts on the overall ecosystem. As discussed above, regulation in both the US and Europe have historically focused on NOx, primarily to understand ozone formation and ways for its reduction. Economic analysis and studies of nitrogen have also focused almost exclusively on NOx. This single focus has begun to change in the past few years. Both NOx + NH3, for example, are now in the policy arena and are strongly implicated in haze formation and visibility degradation. These compounds require significant mitigation, if clarity of the atmosphere is to be restored. Agricultural processes are thought to be a major culprit for NH3, and combustion (from motor vehicle, utility and industrial boilers) is clearly the major producer of NOx. Refinement of inventories of emissions is needed. More (and more sophisticated) monitoring is also required. Both NOx and NH3 are regional pollutants. Local sources can, and do, have far-reaching impacts. Often, local impacts can be traced to sources from hundreds of miles away. The difficulty in achieving a common understanding of causal relations between problems and solutions are usually best approached by increased and improved communication and sharing of information. Measurement of impacts and our concept of source models are the areas of greatest research need. Both impacts and source models need to be examined, particularly on a regional scale. Perhaps information sharing and individual or joint efforts initiated among groups of states/countries can provide a set of viable solutions. National programs need to pay more attention to NH3. We cannot afford to wait for algal blooms to completely overtake the ecosystem before acting. Cooperation among researchers and their studies and policies is required. As always, use of ‘solid science’ is necessary before effective and fair regulations can be developed. In summary, a list of research needs is offered.
Early and frequent interactions between physical and ecological scientists and economists (among others) is important for the development of scientific data that can make a policy difference. Collect and analyze more (and sound) economic and welfare data. Thoroughly study the impacts and new ways to mitigate and understand bio-system collapse. Assure good peer-reviewed and replicated science.
5. The panel A panel was formed from the speakers in the three sections of Session 3 to address questions regarding future needs. Panel members discussed several areas that should be
pursued in regard to nitrogen emissions and their impact. The importance of technology development, transfer and application was emphasized. Future studies should develop greater sophistication and clarity to more fully understand both emissions and their environmental effects. Without regulations designed to reduce emissions, detrimental environmental changes are certain to continue and perhaps worsen. The panel discussion ended with a series of questions that need to be addressed.
What priorities should top the research funding lists? There has been discussion on the continued need for communication between scientists and policy makers. There are areas of nitrogen research where researchers do not agree on details. How are such uncertainties best resolved and communicated to policy makers? When is ‘uncertain’ too much for forward progress on actions and perhaps regulations? On the other hand, when is risk too high NOT to take action? When should a scientist retain a lawyer? European colleagues: now that you have seen a NC pig farm, what changes in perspectives do you have and what advice do you have for the first three steps we should take? The history of economics reflects regulatory pressures. How do you see that changing over the next several years, decades? What ‘non quantifiables’ most need quantification? We are hearing divergent opinions between the scientists and policy makers regarding whether future ozone and nitrogen levels will increase or decrease. Is this a difference of opinion or a failure to communicate? In an elevated CO2 environment, what can be done to capture N in crops? What is the next limit?
James H. Southerland * Planning Section, North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, 1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1641, USA E-mail address: [email protected] Ronald Evans US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA Jan Willem Erisman Department of Air Quality and Technology, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, ECN, P.O. Box 1, 1755 ZG Petten, The Netherlands
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-919-715-7566; fax: +1-919-7157476.