Pollution control: Target(I) Flashcards
What is flow-damage pollution?
In the context of environmental harm, flow-damage pollution refers to situations where the extent of damage is directly tied to the pace at which pollutants are being introduced into the environment. The key factor here is the current emission rate of these harmful substances.
If there is no flow, there is no damage.
- Example on flow damage: Noise pollution, when the noise is there we are hurt, but when the noise stop we are not hurt anymore.
Mathematical
M_t+1 = M_t
where M_t = emission flow
What is stock-damage pollution?
Stock-damage pollution, on the other hand, pertains to cases where the level of environmental damage is linked to the accumulated total of pollutants present in the environment at a given time. Here, it’s the aggregate amount of the pollutant that has built up in the ecosystem that is critical for assessing damage.
There would still be damage here, if there is no flow, because this an agregate damage built up at a given time.
- Stock damages = climate change
Mathematical
A_t+1 = aA_t + M_t
where A_t = pollution stock, a > 1 = parameter that says pollution stock is increasing, a < 1 = pollution stock decreasing.
For small values of a, pollution stock will be roughly proportional (and close) to the current pollution flow.
How is the efficient level of pollution defined in theory? In real life?
In theory:
There are costs and benefits of pollution emissions: The benefits of pollution emissions comes from reduced pollution damage. Stricter pollution targets will generate benefits but will also generate higher costs of production
With both benefits and costs, economic decisions about
the appropriate level of pollution involve the evaluation of
a trade-off.
The trade off is optimized at the point where the marginal benefits arising from reduced pollution damage fall to a level equal to the marginal benefit from avoided control
costs.
In Theory:
Paris 2015
Discuss the statement “Only the highest standards of
environmental purity will do.
”
Lots of threads:
Strong sustainability idea. We need to do as much as possible now, fast.
Economical reasoning, we will need the economy to survive this transition.
Technological constraints, it’s not possible right now to make it to zero emissions.
Global cooperation, the issue goes past countryborders. We need a diplomatic solution to that.
Equity and Access: High environmental standards should also consider equity and access to resources. There’s a risk that stringent measures could disproportionately affect lower-income populations or countries, who may lack the resources to implement such standards.
State the efficient emissions: the case of pure flow-damage pollution
- In this case we change our idea of benefits of pollution. Here we think that the benefits of pollution is saved abatement cost. To understand this, take a firm, who needs to lower there abatement. They invest in some CO_2 saving equipment, that they put on their chimney. The equipment they bought takes up 50 % of the CO_2, but they could have bought equipment, which was more expensive, that saved 99,9%. Because the firm saved abatement cost, then it can be seen as a benefit of pollution in an economic perspective. Problematic understanding, because saved abatement costs might benefit certain economic actors in the short term, the long-term environmental and health costs of continued pollution can far outweigh these savings. This perspective can lead to underinvestment in sustainable practices and technologies, ultimately imposing greater costs on society and the environment.
- The costs of emissions are called ‘damages’.
- These damages can be thought of as a negative externality.
- For the moment, we assume that i) damage is independent of the
time and the source of the emissions, and that ii) emissions have
no effect outside the economy being studied. We relax these
assumptions later. - An efficient level of emissions is one that maximises the net benefits
from pollution, where net benefits are defined as pollution benefits
minus pollution damages.
Where is the efficient level of emissions from a firms point of view? The case of pure flow-damage pollution
An efficient level of emissions is one that maximizes the net benefits
from pollution, where net benefits are defined as pollution benefits
minus pollution damages.
NB = B(M) - D(M)
where, B = benifit, M = emission flow, D = Damage.
The net benefits from pollution is maximized, when marginal damage cost is equal to marginal abatement cost.
What is “mixing of a pollutant”?
ChatGPT
The concept of pollutant mixing describes how a pollutant diffuses or spreads out in the environment due to physical processes like wind or water currents. When we say a pollutant is “uniformly mixing” (UM), we mean that these processes distribute the pollutant so evenly throughout a certain area that its concentration is the same no matter where you measure it within that area. Essentially, the pollutant quickly disperses so that its levels are consistent across different locations.
Can we use a simple model of flow pollution, to determine the optimal level of emissons, when the pollution stock decays quickly and the location of
the source of pollution does not matter for the damage cost?
Yes, BUT we need to distinguish between “uniformly” and “non-uniformly”.
What is uniformly mixing (UM) and non-uniformly mixing (UM) pollution.
For a pollutant that behaves in this uniformly mixing manner, the specific location where it’s released doesn’t affect how it’s distributed in the environment. all that matters for the damage cost is the total quantity of the pollutant that’s released.
With non-uniformly mixing pollutants the optimal constraint on
emissions from a given source of pollution will typically
depend on the location of that source.
So the difference is, that source of pollution in the first case do not depend on the location of the source, where the second does.
We look into it because in the case of pollutants are not uniformly mixing, then location matters, due to who bears the cost or need help.
Give me some examples on non UM pollutants?
Examples include ozone accumulation in the lower
atmosphere, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur in urban
airsheds, particulate pollutants from diesel engines and
trace metal emissions.
Many water and ground pollutants also do not uniformly
mix.
If you want to say this in academic environmental language, how would you do it?
The sentence means that the connection between the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere (emissions) and the level of these pollutants found in a specific area of the atmosphere (concentration) varies from one location to another. In simpler terms, how much pollution is put into the air doesn’t directly translate to the same level of pollution being present everywhere. Different factors, such as geographical location, weather patterns, and local environmental policies, can influence this relationship, causing variations in pollution concentration across different areas.
There will not be a single relationship between emissions and concentration over all space.
What does “source of emission” and “receptoptor of emission” means?
The source of emissions is the producer of the pollution, e.g. a firm or private cars.
The receptor of emission is where the damage is felt. So e.g. is the climate and biodiversity in general terms receptors.
What are the assumptions for the Ambient pollution standards: Optimal emission targets across space?
Various physical and chemical processes determine the impact on
pollutant concentration in any particular receptor from any particular
source.
For simplicity, we assume that the relationships are linear. In that
case, a set of constant ‘transfer coefficients’ can be defined.
We also assume the pollution stock decays quickly.
Outline the algebra og ambient pollution standards.
Suppose that there are J spatially distinct pollution ‘reception’ areas
(or receptors), each being indexed by the subscript j (so j = 1, 2,…,J)
There are N distinct pollution sources, each being indexed by the
subscript i (so i = 1, 2,…, N).
The transfer coefficient d_ji describes the impact on pollutant
concentration at receptor j attributable to source i.
The total level, or concentration rate, of pollution at location j, Aj, will be the sum of the contributions to pollution at that location from all N emission sources. When the pollution stock decays quickly, this can be written as
A_j = Sum (N and i=1) d_ji * M_i
where Mi denotes the total emissions from source i.
We calculate the sum of equations as a Matrix timed with vector. See example in the slides, where we have N = 2 sources and j = 4 receptors. So two polluters affecting 4 receptors. When we have knowlede about the, source, receptors and pollution (M), then we can calculate ambient pollution levels at each receptor.
What is the socially efficient level of emissions from each source?
It will be the set of emission levels that maximises net benefits.
