the only influence. Political and economic considerations also play a role and can make for situations where environmental damage is accepted
despite preventability. Monitoring alone cannot
deliver sustainability without policy and practices
in accordance with the information it yields.
Concentration Standards Assessing compliance with standards is the primary goal of the
majority of air pollution monitoring [92]. These
standards are in the form of maximum allowable
concentrations of air pollutants. Table 6 gives
standards for some major world regions, which
are often expressed as an average concentration
over a specific time period, for some major world
regions.
Emissions Standards Figure 4 shows how emissions reduction programs play a part in achieving
concentration standards once air quality goals are
established. Emission reduction programs can
involve encouragement of energy efficiency,
changes in practices (e.g., switching to cleaner
fuels, use of emissions controls technology), and
redesign of processes. They can also include setting of emissions standards, which limit emissions
from particular sources or classes of sources. For
example, vehicles in Europe must not exceed the
allowable emissions under the “Euro” class of
emissions standards for CO, NO x , certain classes
of hydrocarbons, and PM [93].
Monitoring is integral to the “Establishment of
Air Quality Goals” and “Track and Evaluate Progress” stages of Fig. 4 and informs the understanding of “Current Ambient Air Quality.”
Monitoring not only informs policy development,
but also the assessment of policy effectiveness.
Non-environmental Considerations in the Setting of Standards Air pollution monitoring is
one influence on policy and concentration standards, but politics, economics, and other considerations also play a role [14]. There are at times
differences between what the scientific data recommend as the concentration standard and what
the concentration standard is in law. The usage of
“critical loads” and “target loads” in the in the
Eastern Canada Acid Rain Programs is a telling
example of the difference between the two
terms. A critical load is what has been determined to be close to the maximum amount of
pollution an ecosystem can tolerate. (In the case
of Environment Canada’s Acid Rain critical
loads, the aim is to protect 95% of lakes, based
on surface area, from acidification beyond critical levels.). A target load, the pollutant load
aimed for in policy, is the load deemed achievable once “other factors (such as ethics, scientific uncertainties, and social and economic
effects) are balanced with environmental
considerations.”[1]. Though the Canada-Wide
Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 set the longterm goal of meeting the critical load, in the
short term this system of standard setting determines a level of pollution slightly more than
what could be sustained (the critical load) and
aims to allow more pollution than that
(by aiming for the target load). The critical and
target load system has also been applied in areas
of Europe. The different grades of Chinese air
quality standards in Table 6 are another example
of standards not based on the recommendations
of the air pollution monitoring community or on
the basis of sustainability. The different grades
are assigned based on land use (e.g., residential
vs industrial) and the economic realities of those
areas, not on changes in the definition of sustainability from area to area. Policy-makers consider much more than what is sustainable when
setting standards, and when doing so, the tendency is to make standards less stringent, meaning sustainability is sacrificed further.
Polluters can also play a role in affecting air
quality standards. There are concerns that setting
stringent air pollution standards will cause polluting industries to relocate to “pollution haven”
countries where standards are more lax, though
the idea that moving to one of these havens actually benefits businesses is dubious [96]. Fear of
such moves can erode the economic base of a
policy-maker’s purview, providing an incentive
to weaken standards. Fredriksson and Gaston
[97] review a number of cases in which environmental policy was weakened by business lobbies
representing polluters. Clearly, pollution policy
Air Pollution Monitoring and Sustainability
403
despite preventability. Monitoring alone cannot
deliver sustainability without policy and practices
in accordance with the information it yields.
Concentration Standards Assessing compliance with standards is the primary goal of the
majority of air pollution monitoring [92]. These
standards are in the form of maximum allowable
concentrations of air pollutants. Table 6 gives
standards for some major world regions, which
are often expressed as an average concentration
over a specific time period, for some major world
regions.
Emissions Standards Figure 4 shows how emissions reduction programs play a part in achieving
concentration standards once air quality goals are
established. Emission reduction programs can
involve encouragement of energy efficiency,
changes in practices (e.g., switching to cleaner
fuels, use of emissions controls technology), and
redesign of processes. They can also include setting of emissions standards, which limit emissions
from particular sources or classes of sources. For
example, vehicles in Europe must not exceed the
allowable emissions under the “Euro” class of
emissions standards for CO, NO x , certain classes
of hydrocarbons, and PM [93].
Monitoring is integral to the “Establishment of
Air Quality Goals” and “Track and Evaluate Progress” stages of Fig. 4 and informs the understanding of “Current Ambient Air Quality.”
Monitoring not only informs policy development,
but also the assessment of policy effectiveness.
Non-environmental Considerations in the Setting of Standards Air pollution monitoring is
one influence on policy and concentration standards, but politics, economics, and other considerations also play a role [14]. There are at times
differences between what the scientific data recommend as the concentration standard and what
the concentration standard is in law. The usage of
“critical loads” and “target loads” in the in the
Eastern Canada Acid Rain Programs is a telling
example of the difference between the two
terms. A critical load is what has been determined to be close to the maximum amount of
pollution an ecosystem can tolerate. (In the case
of Environment Canada’s Acid Rain critical
loads, the aim is to protect 95% of lakes, based
on surface area, from acidification beyond critical levels.). A target load, the pollutant load
aimed for in policy, is the load deemed achievable once “other factors (such as ethics, scientific uncertainties, and social and economic
effects) are balanced with environmental
considerations.”[1]. Though the Canada-Wide
Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 set the longterm goal of meeting the critical load, in the
short term this system of standard setting determines a level of pollution slightly more than
what could be sustained (the critical load) and
aims to allow more pollution than that
(by aiming for the target load). The critical and
target load system has also been applied in areas
of Europe. The different grades of Chinese air
quality standards in Table 6 are another example
of standards not based on the recommendations
of the air pollution monitoring community or on
the basis of sustainability. The different grades
are assigned based on land use (e.g., residential
vs industrial) and the economic realities of those
areas, not on changes in the definition of sustainability from area to area. Policy-makers consider much more than what is sustainable when
setting standards, and when doing so, the tendency is to make standards less stringent, meaning sustainability is sacrificed further.
Polluters can also play a role in affecting air
quality standards. There are concerns that setting
stringent air pollution standards will cause polluting industries to relocate to “pollution haven”
countries where standards are more lax, though
the idea that moving to one of these havens actually benefits businesses is dubious [96]. Fear of
such moves can erode the economic base of a
policy-maker’s purview, providing an incentive
to weaken standards. Fredriksson and Gaston
[97] review a number of cases in which environmental policy was weakened by business lobbies
representing polluters. Clearly, pollution policy
Air Pollution Monitoring and Sustainability
403