, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 869–877 | Cite as

Policy synergies between nutrient over-enrichment and climate change

  • Paul Faeth
  • Suzie Greenhalgh


Surplus nitrogen from agricultural production is a leading cause of water quality problems in the U.S. It is also a source of nitrous oxide, the largest category of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Any reduction in the amount of nitrogen lost from farming practices would produce significant benefits for both water quality and climate protection. Using a model of the U.S. agricultural sector we adapted to explore water quality and climate issues, we evaluate a variety of policy options for their impact on farm income and the environment. We find that policies to create markets for reductions in nitrogen lost to water or greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would increase farm income while producing cost-effective environmental benefits.


Soil Carbon Nonpoint Source Conservation Tillage Conservation Reserve Program Soil Carbon Sequestration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adler, R. W., J. C. Landman, andD. Cameron. 1993. The Clean Water Act 20 Years Later. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Administration Economic Analysis. 1998. The Kyoto Protocol and the President’s Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis. U.S. Government, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF). 1999. The Cost of Clean. AMSA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Bosch, D. andK. Napit. 1992. Economics of transporting poultry litter to achieve more effective use as fertilizer.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47:335–347.Google Scholar
  5. Bricker, S. B., C. G. Clement, D. E. Pirhalla, S. P. Orlando, andD. R. G. Farrow. 1999. National estuarine eutrophication assessment: A summary of conditions, historical trends, and future outlook. Special Projects Office in cooperation with National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science, National Ocean Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley andV. H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with P and N, Issues in Ecology. Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Eve, M. D., K. Paustian, R. Foliett, andE. T. Elliott. 2000. A national inventory of changes in soil carbon from National Resources Inventory data, p. 593–612.In R. Lal, J. M. Kimble, R. F. Follett, and B. A. Stewart (eds.), Methods of Assessment of Soil Carbon. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  8. Faeth, P. 1995. Growing Green: Enhancing the Economic and Environmental Performance of U.S. Agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Faeth, P. 2000. Fertile Ground: Nutrient Trading’s Potential to Cost-Effectively Improve Water Quality. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Feath, P. andS. Greenhalgh. 2000. A climate and environmental strategy for U.S. agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Kern, J. S. 1994. Spatial patterns of soil organic carbon in the contiguous United States.Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lai, R., J. M. Kimble, R. F. Follett, andC. V. Cole. 1998. The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan.Google Scholar
  13. Lander, C. H., D. Moffitt, andK. Alt. 1998. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative to Crop Growth Requirements, Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working Paper 98-I. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  14. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2001. Action plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council, Committee on Long-Range Soil and Water Conservation, Board on Agriculture. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Rabalais, N., R. E. Turner, D. Justić, Q. Dortch, andW. J. Wiseman, Jr. 1999. Characterization of hypoxia. Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  17. Sharpley, A. N. andJ. R. Williams (eds.). 1989. EPIC—Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 2, User Manual. Technical Bulletin No. 1768. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1996. Agricultural Conservation Program: 1995 Fiscal Year Statistical Summary. Farm Service Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Agricultural and Environmental Indicators, 1996–1997. Agricultural Handbook Number 712. Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics 1998. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998b. National Engineering Handbook Part 651: Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1998. Office of Policy, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Government. 2000. United States Submission on Land-Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. U.S. Government, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Senate. 1997. Animal waste pollution in America: Environmental risks in livestock production. Report Compiled by the Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ranking Member. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Sources of Unpublished Materials

  1. Rabalais, N. N. Personal Communication. 2002. Louisiana Universities Marsh Consortium, 8124 Highway 56, Chauvin, Louisiana 70344.Google Scholar
  2. Weideman, A. Personal Communication. 2001. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410 Severn Ave., Annapolis, Maryland 21403.Google Scholar
  3. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Economics and Statistics System. Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics Program at the World Resources InstituteWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations