The amount of pollution a facility actually reduces can vary depending on things such as rainfall and the consistency with which anti-pollution measures are applied, but the awarding of credits might not. Skeptics say that’s a big “if.” It will be difficult to trust that pollution reductions recorded on paper reflect real-world cuts. A May study from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which represents the general assemblies of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, estimated that such a program applied across the bay’s watershed could reduce cleanup costs by as much as 36 percent - if properly executed. The farmer makes money, the plant saves money and the EPA’s pollution cap is met efficiently.
CARTOONS ON THE BAY 2012 INSTALL
A farmer who can cheaply cut his runoff beyond what regulators require could be awarded credits and sell those to a nearby water treatment plant that would have to install very expensive equipment to meet its required cuts in pollution. Pollution trading takes advantage of the fact that it is easier to cut pollution in some places than in others.
But, in advance of a review this fall, the move is splitting environmentalists. Now, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supervising the cleanup, four of the states in the bay’s watershed, including Maryland and Virginia, are trying something with promise: pollution trading.
This is the state of affairs after decades of one official after another promising better. These nutrients, which flow with other sediment from farms, storm drains, water treatment plants and other sources, encourage algae growth, sap the bay’s oxygen and suffocate its sea life, including its famous crabs.
In a year with a lot of rain, such as 2011, the totals increase. IN AN AVERAGE year, more than 250 million pounds of nitrogen and nearly 20 million pounds of phosphorous enter the Chesapeake Bay.