forbidden word: pollution abatement
This is one of the terms you can’t say in the Trump Regime. See a comprehensive list at the Forbidden Words Project.
pollution
pollution, n
-
the act of polluting or the state of being polluted. polluted.
-
the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.
air pollution.
Other Word Forms
- self-pollution noun
Word History and Origins
Origin of pollution¹
First recorded in 1350–1400; Middle English pollucioun, from Old French, from Late Latin pollūtiōn-, stem of pollūtiō “defilement”; equivalent to pollute + -ion
Related Words
from — Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words. (2025d). In Dictionary.com.
~ ~ ~
abatement
abatement, noun
-
the act or state of abating or the state of being abated; reduction; decrease; alleviation; mitigation.
- Synonyms:
- diminution, letup
- Antonyms:
- increase, intensification
-
suppression or termination.
abatement of a nuisance; noise abatement.
-
an amount deducted or subtracted, as from the usual price or the full tax.
-
Law.
-
a reduction of a tax assessment.
-
the termination of a nuisance.
-
a wrongful entry on land made by a stranger, after the owner’s death and before the owner’s heir or devisee has obtained possession.
-
a decrease in the legacies of a will when the assets of an estate are insufficient to pay all general legacies in full.
-
-
Also called rebatement. Heraldry. a charge or mark that, when introduced into a coat of arms, indicates the owner’s disgrace.
Etymology
Origin of abatement
First recorded in 1300–50; Middle English, from Middle French; equivalent to abate + -ment
from — Definition of abatement. (n.d.). In dictionary.com.
~ ~ ~
pollution abatement
pollution abatement
Pollution abatement refers to technology applied or measure taken to reduce pollution and/or its impacts on the environment. The most commonly used technologies are scrubbers, noise mufflers, filters, incinerators, waste—water treatment facilities and composting of wastes
Science Direct – pollution abatement
pollution abatement
Pollution Abatement
In subject area: Earth and Planetary Sciences
Pollution abatement refers to processes designed to minimize the quantities of pollutants discharged into the environment, often involving various treatment methods such as chemical oxidations, phase transfer operations, and advanced oxidation processes to detoxify wastewaters and reduce environmental contamination.
AI generated definition based on: Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology C: Photochemistry Reviews, 2010
Chapters and Articles
You might find these chapters and articles relevant to this topic.
17.26 Future perspective of contemporary and innovative methods for bioremediation
Bioremediation techniques in pollution abatement have been an expanding field of study for several years due to their omnipotence and eco-friendliness. Many studies have used bioremediation to reduce pollutants like uranium. In terms of sustainability and effectiveness, there are various obstacles to implementing lab-based outcomes at a large-scale or commercial level. Some of the potential future research projects include preventing over-deposition and further soil pollution because it is necessary to investigate the best way to store or use the transformed uranium produced during bioremediation. More research needs to be done on the toxicity of uranium in plants and how consuming these plants affects people and animals. The research reports specifically lack the threshold hazard values in plant uptakes. The bioleaching process can be profitable if the impact of particle size is thoroughly studied. It was noticed that the uranium leaching process takes an unusually long time. Consequently, additional research into the factors that determine the required time and the kinetics of the leaching is essential for using this on a large scale. Investigating the large-scale effects of uranium biosorption and desorption is crucial because it provides a relatively successful method for large-scale remediation. Additionally, for improved efficacy of the bio-based processes, microbial activity toward uranium bioreduction under various environmental circumstances needs to be studied. In the case of phytoremediation, it has been revealed that mineral translocations in plants are conceivable, and research in this area could pave the way for large-scale phytoremediation of uranium. Additionally, it is necessary to research how fertilizers and pesticides affect phytoremedies.
7.5.3.2.3 In combination with emission reduction devices
All commercial pyrolysis processes have pollution abatement devices like those used in incineration plants. Particulate filters, cooling towers, wet scrubbers and other popular exhaust flue gas emission control systems exist, but they are smaller than those used in incineration plants [31].
Other type of new techniques involve microwave-based integrated pyrolysis with better advantages of shorter residence time, higher heating values of volatile product, proper heating. The process of pyrolysis is generally carried out in boilers and rotary kilns at large-scale-capacity reactors. Pretreatment to the pyrolysis involves shredding and drying . . .
Primary treatment
With the increasing costs of pollution abatement and high cost municipal surcharges, food processors are forced to look into alternative methods for pretreatment of wastewater prior to discharge for secondary treatment or other treatment systems (Sistrunk, 1984). Physicochemical methods are being increasingly used for the preliminary treatment of wastewater before its biochemical purification. This is due to stricter requirements with regard to the degree of purification of wastewater and the need to remove all organic admixtures before it is discharged (Radoiu et al., 2004).
In wastewater treatment, coagulation/flocculation processes are mainly used for the removal of colloidal material, which causes colors and turbidity. An essential feature of wastewater flocculation is the elimination of suspended solids (SS) and as much of the organic material as possible. To remove SS and organics, a floc forming chemical is needed which can be separated from water by flotation, settling or adsorption (Al-Mutairi et al., 2004). Over the last 20 years, new coagulants, both inorganic and organic, have been used in an attempt to improve the elimination of organic matter and total suspended solids during the treatment of wastes from the agro-food industry and, particularly, those from slaughterhouses (Aguilar et al., 2005).
The rate and effectiveness of the flocculation process employed depended on the composition of the wastewater, its temperature, the rate of mixing and the order in which coagulants and flocculants are introduced into the wastewater. When dissolved in wastewater, flocculants may be in a non-ionized or ionized state. When they are ionized, they are called soluble polyelectrolytes (Radoiu et al., 2004).
In this way, screening, settling and dissolved air flotation (DAF) still remain widely used for the removal of suspended solids and fats, oils and greases from slaughterhouse wastewater. These processes resulted in 75–80% BOD5 reduction and had the additional advantage of removing large quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus (Johns, 1995). Moreover, the particles present in wastewaters can be removed by coagulation/flocculation processes, the efficiency of which can be studied by comparing the particle size distribution before and after the addition of a coagulant (Lind, 1996; Mejia and Cisneros, 2000; Aguilar et al., 2003).
Dissolved air flotation units can achieve COD reductions ranging from 32% up to 90% and are capable of removing large amounts of nutrients (Mittal, 2006). Similarly, Manjunath et al. (2000) reported that DAF units reduce waste strength by about 50%. Furthermore, chemicals such as polymers and flocculants are often mixed prior to the DAF process with the aim of increasing protein clumping and precipitation as well as fat flotation (Mittal, 2006).
Table 12.3 shows the DAF performance on slaughterhouse wastewater. In addition, Table 12.4 displays the influence of various coagulants in removal efficiency of COD, BOD5 and total suspended solids (TSS) at several conditions of pH and doses of different coagulants aids. As can be seen from Table 12.4, three combinations of compounds: PAX-18, Al2(SO4)3 + PA polyelectrolyte and Fe2(SO4)3 + anionic polyacrylamide appear to be the most effective in COD removal rates, while the results obtained for the other compounds varied with pH.
Table 12.3. DAF performance on slaughterhouse wastewater
| Treatment | %COD removal efficiency | %TSS removal efficiency | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| DAF and chemicals | 32–92 | 70–97 | Karpati and Szabo, 1984 |
| DAF at pH 4–4.5 | 71 | 78 | Travers and Lovett, 1985 |
| DAF and chemicals | 38–71 | 37–63 | Mittal, 2006 |
| DAF with air | 40 | 60 | Travers and Lovett, 1985 |
Table 12.4. Removal efficiency of COD, BOD5 and TSS using different coagulants
| Coagulant | %COD removal efficiency | %BOD5 removal efficiency | %TSS removal efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Al2(SO4)3 | 33.1–87 | 30–88 | 31–97 |
| Fe2(SO4)3 | 64–78 | 81–91 | 43–98 |
| PAX-18 | 69–80 | 45–79 | 57–97 |
| Al2(SO4)3 + AP | 46–87 | 62–90 | 86–97 |
| Fe2(SO4)3 + AP | 59–90 | 62–93 | 81–98 |
| PAX-18 + AP | 69–80 | 79–90 | 88–98 |
| Al2(SO4)3 + AP polyelectrolyte | 79.1 | 86.3 | 85.4 |
Adapted from Kargi and Shuler, 1980; Radoiu et al., 2004; Aguilar et al., 2005. AP = anionic polyacrylamide
Copyright © 2005
With the aim of improving the efficiency of a biological treatment process, Grismer et al. (2002) conducted studies using alkaline or enzymatic treatments towards hydrolyzing or reducing the size of fat particles in a slaughterhouse wastewater. Particularly, tests were conducted on wastewater samples with 2.5–3.0 g/l of fat particles mixed with the hydrolyzing agents at room temperature for 4 h. The most practical treatment involved a pancreatic lipase which resulted in a reduction in particle size to 60% with an attendant increase in free long-chain fatty acids. In this way, Masse et al. (2001, 2003) reported that pancreatic lipase, PL-250, proved to be the most efficient in reducing pork fat particle size and increasing free long-chain fatty acid (LCFA) concentration. However, the effectiveness of primary treatment is debatable since pollution is only transferred to another waste (usually solid wastes), which will eventually need to be treated.
Co-composting and co-digestion are two rather new processes that have been adopted because of the fact that most of the wastes to be treated biologically are characterized by a lack of nutrients and porosity. Therefore, a mixture with other complementary wastes stands for a promising approach towards overcoming these problems.
6.2 Potential of urban greenery in pollution abatement
In this section, we discuss how urban greenery has contributed to the reduction of controlling air quality in Asia. As plants provide natural aesthetic and other ecosystem services, vegetation has been the first choice of urban planners, although in particular reference to Asia only a handful of studies have been conducted in this field. Trees have been identified as most suitable for pollution abatement due to their larger surface area, sufficient height, and crown density. Compared to trees, shrubs have also shown remarkable potential in capturing ground dust, but a lowering of canopy height and density under a polluted environment reduced the overall capturing capacity (Chen et al., 2016). Grasses have been found to be less useful in their capture potential but are important for ground cover in an urban atmosphere. For proper designing, several aspects should be considered such as type of vegetation, plantation height, height of the tree, crown thickness and density, planting density, vegetation configuration, meteorological conditions, BVOC emission potential, and susceptibility to biotic and abiotic factors.
In Khulna City, Bangladesh, the TSP removal potential of the green belt was assessed by Islam et al. (2012) and found up to 65% reduction of TSP pollution, which was more in summer compared to winter as the leaves were fully expanded in summer. The study also found a positive correlation between TSP removal and crown density (R2 = 0.73) while the shelter belt porosity (R2 = 0.81) was negatively correlated. The authors suggested that the width of the green belts should be 5 m along the street. A larger canopy density should be preferred for pollution capture with sufficient shelterbelt porosity below 40%. It was further recommended that shrubs should be planted along with tress to increase TSP capture around the streets (Islam et al., 2012).
Takahashi et al. (2005) assessed nitrogen dioxide (NO2) assimilation capacity of 70 woody plants in Hiroshima, Japan. The results showed significant variability in NO2 assimilation capability among species which differed by a factor of 122. NO2 assimilation capability was found to be maximum in Prunus yedoensis and least in Cryptomeria japonica. The authors further classified different taxa into four types such as taxa having high NO2 assimilation and resistance (13 species), high NO2 assimilation with low resistance (11 species), low NO2 assimilation and resistance (35 species), and low NO2 assimilation with high resistance (11 species). Takahashi et al. (2005) also suggested Robinia pseudoacacia, Populus nigra, Prunus lannesiana, and Sophora japonica for phytoremediation of urban air pollutants.
Yin et al. (2011) assessed TSP, SO2, and NO2 removal capacity of plants in Pudong District, Shanghai, China and recorded 2.6%, 5.3%, and 9.1% removal of NO2, SO2, and TSP by urban vegetation. Crown volume coverage, vegetation condition, and air pollutant diffusion distance were found to be the major determining factors in influencing pollution removal (Yin et al., 2011). Green space or urban parks have great significance in reducing or controlling air pollution in urban centers. Yin et al. (2011) in Shanghai, China estimated that parks can remove TSP, SO2, and NO2 by 2%–35%, 2%–27%, and 1%–21%, respectively.
Chen et al. (2016) assessed the importance of different vegetation species, planting configuration, and the role of the wind in influencing PM in urban and street level in Beijing, China and suggested that configurations of shrubs and tree-grass are the most important factor in horizontal PM2.5 reduction. Different species also showed variations in the collection of the different sized PM fraction. Among the species, Pinus tabulaeformis, Magnolia denudate, Ulmus pumila, Catalpa speciosa, Liriodendron chinense, Populus tomentosa, Metasequoia glyptostrodoides, and Eucommia ulmoides showed high PM collection. TSP accumulation was over 200 mg cm2 day− 1 for Magnolia denudata, U. pumila, L. chinense, and Fraxinus pennsylvanica. The study also identified some shrubs and lianas in capturing PM compared to some trees, suggesting that shrub and lianas should be explored more for pollution abatement. Among shrubs, Sorbaria sorbifolia and Ilex chinensis showed the highest capturing potential of all PM fractions (Chen et al., 2016). Mukherjee and Agrawal (2018a) found C. sappan, P. guajava, A. lebbeck, M. indica, and Anthocephalus chinensis to be the most tolerant and useful trees for urban green belt development in Varanasi city. Apart from their tolerance, canopy shape, structure and leaf texture are ideal for dust capturing around urban streets.
6.2.1 Recommendation and future perspective
Urban greenery and its role in pollution abatement is a fascinating and emerging branch which requires collaborative work from experts from different fields as it is directly linked with urban planning. However, in Asia, only a few studies have assessed large-scale pollution reduction or improvement by plants such as city-wise pollution capture or health improvement through vegetation. Considering future urban growth studies such as the green wall, mixed plantation around streets, selection of appropriate vegetation, the role of ground cover in air pollution abatement, rooftop greening, canopy modeling, and green infrastructure development should be of high priority.
4.3.1 Pigouvian Pricing Mechanisms for Controlling Emissions
Pigouvian or direct pricing mechanisms are the pollution abatement methods preferred by economists. Unfortunately, they are not feasible for vehicle emissions. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile identifying the advantages of these methods. As we will see, because they cannot be applied to vehicle emissions, abatement policies for those emissions might be considered to be within the realm of second-best policies. In order to understand the considerations that make such policies second best, it is helpful to understand the theoretical advantages of what are generally considered first-best abatement policies.
Pigouvian taxes are taxes or charges levied directly upon any externality. They were first proposed by Pigou [30]. The idea is to force polluters or producers of any other externality to internalize the costs they impose on society by being charged a fee equal to the (negative) value of the externality. Because the Pigouvian charge is direct and proportional to the level of the externality activity, it is generally regarded as the most efficient method for controlling the externality. Polluters will strive to minimize the payout for this charge in exactly the same way that they try to minimize any other costs of production or consumption. If the charge is directly related to the quantity of emissions and adequately enforced, the only way to avoid its payment is to avoid emission in the first place. As long as the costs of abatement are lower than the emission charge or tax itself, polluters have incentive to spend those costs to reduce the pollution. This is true of both vehicle users and industry in theory.
Because the direct Pigouvian charge is levied on the emissions themselves, there is no interference other microdecisions by the polluter. Indeed, the full scope of the creativity and imagination of the polluter will be focused by the incentives upon abatement itself. Regulators do not need to dictate how to reduce emissions, only that their reduction is desirable and profitable. If reducing fuel consumption or if using public transit is the best way to do so, there are now incentives in place to reduce such consumption; but if there are better or cheaper ways to do so, then these will be selected. Decisions regarding which method should be utilized will be made at the level of individuals, not collectively by government bureaucrats and politicians.
Under direct pricing, different polluters may select different methods for achieving abatement, unlike the “one method fits all” abatement systems dictated under administrative policies. By concentrating the minds of individual vehicle users and other polluters on emissions abatement, the ingenuity of these same people is unleashed in a way that would be impossible under administrative command and control systems.
Theoretically, direct pricing can be set in such a way that the conditions for achieving optimal abatement, as discussed in Part II, are automatically met. These conditions are achieved simply by setting the pollution tax or charge equal to that level where the marginal social benefits curve equals the marginal social costs curve in Figure 4.1. At the optimum charge, emissions should be eliminated as long as the costs of abatement are less than the social value of abatement. When costs of abatement exceed this level, it is undesirable for the abatement to take place and so it will not. Polluters can be motivated to achieve exactly the optimal levels of abatement by setting the emissions charge equal to this level. Rational polluters will then take steps to avoid emissions as long as the costs of these steps are less than the emissions charge. (For recent analyses of the efficiency of Pigouvian taxes in different contexts, see Barthold [31], Carlton and Loury [32], Folmer et al. [11], Goulder [22], Johansson [33], Lee [7], Mills [13], Parry [24], Roberts and Spence [21], Tahvonen [26], Tietenberg [17, 18, 19 20], Wirl [34], and Xepapadeas [35,36].) These steps will include all choices that result in lower emissions, including such remote choices as using public transit more intensively or keeping vehicles tuned.
A variant on the notion of Pigouvian direct charges that has attracted considerable attention in recent years has been the idea of marketable emissions permits. Here the regulator distributes or auctions permits that allow polluters to emit a certain level of pollutant, and these permits then become transferable and marketable. Potential polluters can buy and sell them. The permits are then priced by the market, rather than by the regulator. In reality, they closely resemble Pigouvian taxes, except that the tax level is market determined rather than regulator selected.
Assertions of the optimality of Pigouvian taxes in environmental contexts under at least some circumstances can be found in Baumol and Oates [9], Carlton and Loury [32], Downing and White [10], Hahn [12], and Xepapadeas [34,35]. While marketable and tradable emissions permits have recently captured the imagination of environmental economists, these too can be shown (Baumol and Oates [9]) to be equivalent to direct emissions charges, at least under certainty, and so will be regarded here as a variation on the theme of direct environmental policy alternatives. The principal difference is that under traded emissions permits, the market in effect sets the emissions tax, not policy makers, who set the quantity of emissions permitted. Tradable emissions permits are discussed in Atkinson and Tietenberg [18], Carson [37], Downing and White [10], Hahn and Noll [38], Maleug [39], Montgomery [40], Roberts and Spence [21], and Tietenberg [17]. There have been extensive experiments with such pollution emissions license marketing in the United States and some other countries. (For discussion, see Carson [37], Downing and White [10], Hahn [12], Kort [41], and Ledyard and Szakaly-Moore [42].)
Under direct pricing methods, the prices of emission, that is, the taxes or charges on emission, are themselves market determined. Policy makers can determine what the permissible maximum global emission of some pollutant may be in their jurisdiction and then auction off “polluting licenses.” Market demand will then determine what the proper price should be for any “license to pollute.” Similarly, policy makers could allot such licenses according to some formula believed to be fair, and then allow secondary trading in the same licenses. The recipient of a license or “pollution quota” could then sell it, for example, to someone else for whom the costs of pollution abatement are lower (and, hence, the license is more valuable). (For analyses of trading in marketable emissions permits, see Atkinson and Tietenberg [43], Baumol and Oates [9], Hahn [12], Hahn and Noll [38], Kort [41], Ledyard and Szakaly-Moore [42], Maleug [39], Montgomery [40], Shapiro and Warhit [25], and Tietenberg [17, 18].)
It should be noted that direct methods, including Pigouvian charges and marketable emissions permits, are all but irrelevant for vehicle emissions because of the impracticality of direct emissions monitoring and charges for vehicles, at least using current technology. (There have been some experiments with tradable permits within the framework of CAFE fuel efficiency standards by vehicle manufacturers.) But there are no practical ways to impose emissions taxes on vehicle users. This means that vehicle emissions control and abatement must be achieved through either administrative command-and-control methods or indirect pricing methods. Both of these alternatives are generally considered by economists and planners to be second best and inferior to Pigouvian and direct methods. The best of these second-best policies would be those that approximate as closely as possible the externality-correcting incentive structures of direct or Pigouvian policies.
Intangible Benefits
- • Good public relations and an improved industrial image after installation of pollution abatement devices
- • Improved mental health of citizens in the area confident of having adequate waste treatment and clean waters
- • Improved conservation practices, which will eventually yield payoffs in the form of more clean water for more people for more years
- • Renewal and preservation of scenic beauty and historical sites
- • Residential development potential for land areas nearby because of the presence of clean recreational waters
- • Elimination of relocation costs (for persons, groups, and establishments) because of impure waters
- • Removal of potential physical health hazards of using polluted water for recreation
- • Industrial capital investment assures permanence of the plant in the area, thus lending confidence to other firms and citizens depending on the output produced by the industry
- • Technological progress, resulting from the conception, design, construction, and operation of industrial waste treatment facilities
The most obvious and prominent observation from the listing of benefits is that one must quantify these in some manner in order to arrive at a specific level of justifiable expenditure. I have made an attempt to do just that above in the Case Study of Economic Proof of Industrial Complexes. However, at this point I would like to express my opposition to the view expressed by some that all industrial waste treatment costs are justifiable to protect the stream resources. Advocates of this position make light of any attempt to quantify benefits because of their foregone conclusions. These advocates further believe that wastewater resources engineers are “poaching” on other fields in applying economic measures to treatment decisions. What these over exuberant conservationists fail to consider is that our economic ability to ameliorate society’s ills is limited by not being able to afford to do everything to improve the environment instantly. Therefore, someone has to establish priorities setting forth the proper amount of waste treatment required. We are obliged to provide government with formulas or at least methods for making more objective decisions in pollution abatement situations.
Efforts to reduce environmental hazards almost inevitably involve trading-off expenditures on pollution abatement efforts with expenditures on other desired goods and services. As a result, many governments now require that agencies formally assess the impacts of their major environmental regulations, to determine whether the benefits of the resulting actions are likely to be commensurate with the costs. For example, when selecting among air pollution standards that vary in stringency, agencies may estimate the value of the associated mortality and morbidity risk reductions as well as the effects on the natural and built environment. These benefits can then be compared to the government and private industry expenditures required to comply with each set of standards. Such analyses may also present information on impacts that cannot be quantified or monetized and explore the uncertainty in the results. In addition, they can provide information on how the impacts are distributed across population subgroups, so that decision makers can weigh the equity implications of the options as well as their economic efficiency. These analyses are one of the many inputs into regulatory decisions, which must comply with legal requirements and often include substantial public involvement.
Over the past two decades, Hong Kong and its adjacent Pearl River Delta of Guangdong Province have experienced booming economic growth. However, pollution abatement can not keep pace with the growth in population, economy, and industry. Particulate matter (PM), emitted directly to or formed secondarily in the atmosphere, can impact human health, visibility, and climate. The threat of PM, especially fine PM (PM2.5), which is primarily emitted from combustion sources and enriched in toxic chemical species, is well known. PM in Hong Kong has strong seasonality, with a low level in summer whereas a much higher level in colder seasons, since both local and regional sources contribute to the elevated levels. Motor vehicles, especially exhaust from diesel-powered vehicles, contribute significantly to PM pollution in Hong Kong and pose bigger health impacts due to the proximity of emission sources to the population. The urgent need to collaborate with its immediate neighborhood, Guangdong Province, to remedy Hong Kong’s serious air pollution problem has been fully recognized. Such collaboration has already started, and the regional air quality monitoring network has been established.
Impact on Environmental Performance
A concern with voluntary programs is the potential for participating and nonparticipating firms to free-ride and gain benefits from the program without undertaking actual pollution abatement. If participation by itself improves goodwill and provides insurance against stakeholder pressure, then the voluntary approaches may even weaken incentives to actually reduce pollution. Incentives to free-ride may also arise in the case of voluntary programs with an industry-wide abatement target that is established to preempt an industry-wide regulatory threat. In this case, firms have the incentive to free-ride because all firms benefit if the target is met, while only the firms that abate bear costs. Incentives for such free-riding behavior with voluntary programs can be reduced if the program has explicit sanctions or if there is a credible threat of regulation if the voluntary approach fails, which would make it in the self-interest of at least a few firms to compensate for free-riding behavior by others to ensure the success of the voluntary program. Additionally, by limiting the benefits of voluntary approaches, such as public recognition, technical assistance, and brand enhancement to members only, voluntary programs can create incentives for members to make environmental improvements and enhance the benefits from their membership.
Theoretical studies suggest that the provision of regulatory relief for firms that participate in voluntary approaches and improve their environmental performance can increase the effectiveness of such approaches. The effectiveness of such approaches in reducing emissions will depend on several factors such as the extent to which the voluntary approach leads to lower costs of abatement relative to the mandatory regulations and the credible likelihood of regulation being imposed if the voluntary approach is not effective. In the case of negotiated voluntary agreements, the bargaining power of the firm relative to the regulator to negotiate the minimum reduction needed to preempt more stringent regulations and the extent to which regulators are willing to subsidize pollution reduction can also affect the abatement that would be achieved by a voluntary approach relative to mandatory regulations. Voluntary approaches may lead to higher levels of abatement than expected under mandatory standards, taxes, or minimum quality standards if the threat of regulation is strong and regulators have bargaining power. Firms may also be willing to exceed minimum quality standards and voluntarily abate more if doing so enables them to differentiate their product from those of other firms and if consumers are willing to pay more for products from environmentally friendly firms.
Several empirical studies have examined the effectiveness of voluntary approaches in reducing toxic releases, fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions, inducing adoption of pollution prevention techniques to reduce toxic releases, and increasing the likelihood of compliance with various environmental regulations. The impact of a voluntary approach may differ across different types of programs and even across different samples of firms participating in the same program. In general, the literature shows that some public voluntary programs such as the 33/50 program, third-party certification programs such as ISO 9000 and ISO 14001, as well as some firm-structured EMSs do improve environmental performance. More specifically, the 33/50 program appears to have reduced aggregate emissions of 17 high-priority toxic chemicals, although different studies find varying effects across industries, samples of firms analyzed, and chemicals targeted by the program. A majority of studies analyzing this program find that the program was effective in reducing releases of the targeted chemicals and inducing the adoption of environmentally friendly management practices and the adoption of pollution prevention practices. There is some evidence that the impact of the program was the strongest in the early years of the program, suggesting that late participants may have been free-riding off the reductions achieved by early participants and the reputation they developed for the program.
Private certification programs such as ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 were also found to improve environmental performance across a number of different dimensions. Facilities participating in ISO 9000 were found to generate less waste at the source and have lower emissions than noncertified facilities suggesting the potential for ‘lean and green.’ ISO 14001certification has also been found to improve firms’ compliance with mandatory regulations as well as to lead to a reduction in natural resource use, waste generation, wastewater effluents, and emissions of toxic chemicals. These positive effects may be due to the program’s requirement for third-party audits, which potentially reduced willful violations of environmental regulations and limited shirking behavior on the part of firms, as well as due to the adoption of environmental management standards, which may have reduced waste generation at the source. A few studies show that adoption of firm-structured EMSs, even in the absence of third-party certification, led firms to improve compliance with environmental regulations and had significant negative impacts on toxic release intensity, particularly for firms with inferior past environmental records.
On the other hand, other public voluntary programs, particularly those targeting greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the United States, were not found to have significant long-term effects on emissions, whereas those in Europe had modest impacts. Similarly, industry association programs, such as the chemical industry’s Responsible Care program, did not have a significant impact on environmental performance.
What explains differences in the performance of different voluntary approaches? There are several reasons why programs focused on toxic release reduction were more likely to be effective than those related to energy or energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. First, the threat of regulation of toxic releases was imminent and credible as compared to the threat of regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Second, public concerns are likely to be much greater for toxic releases than for greenhouse gas emissions because the former have a direct and immediate effect on human health, and thus, market-based pressures are likely to create incentives for reducing toxic releases. Third, toxic releases of firms were disclosed to the public through the Toxic Release Inventory, and thus, the performance of firms participating in voluntary programs could be tracked and monitored. In contrast, firms were not required to report greenhouse gas emissions, and hence, the performance of participants could not be compared over time. Furthermore, reductions in energy-related greenhouse gas emissions generally require reductions in energy use or substitutes for energy; opportunities for this may have been more costly as compared to those for substitutions across hundreds of toxic chemicals.
The observed effectiveness of ISO 14001 could be due to its requirements for third-party auditing and its reliance on certification to limit benefits to members only. In an effort to gain from the reputation of the club, members are likely to have the incentive to maintain superior environmental performance. In contrast, some green clubs such as Responsible Care were less effective because they lacked mechanisms to enforce the codes of conduct established by the program. Other voluntary efforts, such as firm-structured EMSs, could have been effective because they were adopted primarily to obtain internal efficiency gains. In this case, incentives for shirking and free-riding may have been less pervasive because firms were adopting these management practices and possibly improving their environmental outcomes simply for private gains.
In general, the findings from the empirical literature suggest that the lack of enforceability of voluntary approaches, the weak legislative threats that accompany them, and the difficulties in public scrutiny of environmental outcomes achieved by participants and nonparticipants can limit effectiveness of these approaches in improving environmental performance.
Norway
The decline in North Sea oil output has turned Norwegians’ attention toward the development of Arctic resources. Norway is internationally acknowledged as a leader in pollution abatement and accident preparedness. Norwegian policy promotes an environmentally focused resource management approach between governments, petroleum corporations, and Arctic residents. The Petroleum Act provides legal governance of all Norwegian petroleum activities, including the Arctic. Norway’s oil spill response equipment depots include 6 oil recovery vessels, 5 emergency towing vessels, surveillance aircraft, and 10 coast guard vessels with oil booms, skimmers, and pumping systems. These are managed by the Norwegian Coastal Administration and private companies.
President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History
Trump Admin Eliminates Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, off-cycle credits, start-stop feature
WASHINGTON – Alongside President Trump in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. In this final rule, EPA is saving American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion, eliminating both the Obama-era 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. The action also eliminates all off-cycle credits, including for the almost universally hated start-stop feature. EPA’s historic move restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks. This major deregulatory process included substantial public input and robust analysis of the law following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” said Administrator Zeldin. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream. As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers. As an added bonus, the off-cycle credit for the almost universally despised start-stop feature on vehicles has been removed.”
The 2009 Endangerment Finding was used to justify trillions of dollars in regulations, including the Obama and Biden Administrations’ illegal push towards Electric Vehicle (EV) mandates and compliance requirements, while simultaneously driving up the cost of vehicles for American families and small businesses— limiting economic mobility and the American Dream. The final rule will save Americans over $1.3 trillion by removing the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, and repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions, and reporting obligations that exist solely to support the vehicle GHG regulatory regime. Americans will have certainty, flexibility and regulatory relief, allowing companies to plan appropriately, and empowering American families.
Returning the Rule of Law to EPA Regulations
In finalizing this rule, EPA carefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the text of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in light of subsequent legal developments and court decisions. The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, and therefore has no legal basis for the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations. EPA firmly believes the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat “air pollution” that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress. Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be.
Creating Policy Rooted in Reality
The Endangerment Finding was a legal prerequisite used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to regulate GHG emissions. In the 16 years since the Endangerment Finding, many of the predictions and assumptions used to justify the rule did not materialize. Using the same types of models utilized by the previous administrations and climate change zealots, EPA now finds that even if the U.S. were to eliminate all GHG emissions from all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100. Therefore, maintaining GHG emission standards is not necessary for EPA to fulfill its core mission of protecting human health and the environment, but regardless, is not within the authority Congress entrusted to EPA. Today’s action is only related to GHG emissions and does not affect regulations that combat criteria pollutants and air toxics. The Trump EPA’s final rule dismantles the tactics and legal fictions used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to backdoor their ideological agendas on the American people.
Restoring the American Dream
Affordable vehicle ownership is essential to the American Dream and a primary driver of economic mobility out of poverty in the United States. The Endangerment Finding led to vehicle and engine regulations with an aggregate cost of more than $1 trillion and played a significant role in EPA’s justification of regulations of other sources beyond cars and trucks, resulting in additional costly burdens on American families and businesses. Americans rely on vehicles to reach jobs, education, health care, and essential services. This is especially true in rural areas and regions without robust public transit. The costs imposed by these climate policies have placed new cars out of reach for many American families and harmed Americans’ ability to climb out of poverty or reach essential services. The Trump EPA is expected to deliver Americans over $1.3 trillion in cost savings, which includes reduced costs for new vehicles and avoided costs of purchasing equipment related to EVs. This action will result in an average cost savings of over $2,400 per vehicle. By lowering vehicle and regulatory compliance costs, EPA is improving affordability and expanding consumer choice and ultimately advancing the American Dream by making it easier to reach jobs, grow small businesses, and participate fully in the transportation and logistics systems that power the U.S. economy.
Prioritizing Consumer Choice
The Endangerment Finding enabled the Obama and Biden Administrations’ illegal push toward EV mandates. These mandates pressure the vehicle industry to phase down production of various models of traditional gasoline and diesel trucks and to reengineer their fleets towards uneconomic and infeasible electric technologies. The Obama and Biden Administrations also used the Endangerment Finding to support off-cycle credits to forcibly incentivize automakers into adopting unpopular systems, undermining consumer choice. An off-cycle credit is a government-created concept that let auto manufacturers meet federal GHG standards on paper, by adding features like the almost universally hated start-stop feature, resulting in questionable emission reductions. Automakers should not be forced to adopt or rewarded for technologies that are merely a climate participation trophy with no material benefit. The Trump EPA chooses consumer choice over posturing to climate change zealots every time. Today’s announcement ends all off-cycle credits, eliminates EPA incentives for the start-stop button, and restores consumer choice. Americans will be able to buy the car they want, including newer, more affordable cars with the most up to date safety standards and that emit fewer criteria and hazardous air pollutants.
Collecting Substantial Public Input
Understanding the importance of this action, EPA conducted a transparent and inclusive rulemaking process. The agency held an extended 52-day public comment period, which included four days of virtual public hearings where more than 600 individuals testified. EPA received about 572,000 public comments on the proposed rule and made substantial updates to the final rule in response to comments. A summary of public input and EPA’s responses to all comments can be found in the final rule preamble and accompanying documents, and all comments received, including entries summarizing several hundred mass-mailer campaigns, are available in the rulemaking docket.
For additional information on this rule and supporting analyses, please visit EPA’s website.
Background
Congress tasked EPA under Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA with prescribing emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines when the Administrator determines that emissions from a class or classes of new motor vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In an unprecedented move, the Obama EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles – in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don’t even emit – contribute an unknown amount to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that, in turn, play a role through varied causal chains that may endanger human health and welfare. These mental leaps were admittedly novel, as EPA had for decades understood that the “air pollution” targeted by the statute means pollution that harms health or the environment through local and regional exposure. However, this creative interpretation of the law was the only way the Obama-Biden Administration determined they could potentially access EPA’s authority to regulate under Section 202(a)(1). This flawed legal theory took the agency outside the scope of its statutory authority in multiple respects.
Additionally, major Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, have significantly clarified the scope of EPA’s authority under the CAA and made clear that the interpretive moves the Endangerment Finding used to launch an unprecedented course of regulation were unlawful. The decisions emphasized that statutes have a single, best meaning fixed at the time of enactment; that major policy determinations must be made by Congress, not by administrative agencies, and that agencies cannot bury their heads in the sand as to the consequences of their actions when considering regulations that impose immense costs.
President Trump’s Day One Executive Order 14154 “Unleashing American Energy” tasked EPA with submitting recommendations on the legality and continuing applicability of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in the first 30-Days of this term. On March 12, 2025, Administrator Zeldin announced that the agency was kicking off a formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget and other relevant agencies. Administrator Zeldin formally announced the agency’s proposal to reconsider these actions on July 29, 2025, at a truck dealership in Indiana.
Related Links
- Headquarters | Office of the Administrator (AO)
- Read other EPA News Releases about Administrator
- Read other EPA News Releases about Air and Radiation
- Read other EPA News Releases about Energy
- Read other EPA News Releases about Partnerships and Stewardship
- Read other EPA News Releases about Research
- Read other EPA News Releases about Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals
June 22nd, 2026
Flagstaff, Arizona
This is one of the words/ phrases you can’t say in the new Trump Regime. See a comprehensive list at the Forbidden Words Project.
image: bird of paradise © Holly Troy 6.2026
Share this:
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
Related
Discover more from holly troy ~ sacred folly
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.