a waste of green
by Carl Fitch
Published: May 10, 2008
Last Thursday, Governor Schwarzenegger met with six executives from the world’s largest auto manufacturers regarding his mandate that all vehicles sold in California after January 1, 2009 be equipped with technology that will help the state reach it’s goal of reducing auto-related greenhouse gases by 30% by the year 2016. The Governor’s antagonism towards the auto industry has made him a darling of the green movement and led to attempts by other states, as far away as Minnesota, to mimic the California initiative. Arnold’s mad and his lawsuit against the EPA for not signing off on his bold eco-adventure proves that he’s not going to take it anymore.
It sounds like the makings of a great movie, complete with bad guys, toxins, a superhero and a high-noon deadline. If it weren’t for the fact that I already know what’s going to happen, I’d say I can’t wait to see what happens.
If it were a script, here’s how the story would develop:
The big bad auto industry and it’s cronies in the EPA make use of a slow-moving bureaucracy and old-fashioned corruption to impede the populist leader’s impassioned movement. But against all odds, the populist is able to rally enough grass-roots support that he succeeds in bringing the capitalist pigs and the corrupt government agency to their knees. In time, legislation, though watered down, is passed that imposes California’s will on Michigan’s economy. The final scene in the script contains a flash-forward to the year 2016 where a father and his son stand atop the San Bernadino Mountains in Southern California and can see all the way to Santa Monica beach.
It makes for a great story, or more appropriately - a great fairy tale.
Here are two versions of what really happens when the government mandates the use of a specific technology:
The Short Version - The new technology does reduce pollution. This creates the illusion that the time and money spent on the technology did not create enormous amounts of waste. The end.
The Long Version - The Clean Air Act Ammendments of 1990. In these Acts, the government both tightened the new car emission standards and expanded the state inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs. In the interest of time, we’ll focus on the I&M programs.
A major study done in Arizona a number of years after the implementation of the I&M program showed that roughly 12% of the vehicles inspected did not pass. Of course, included in that 12% are vehicles that passed the emissions portion of the test but failed in other areas. Therefore, the number of vehicles that did not meet the minimum standards for emissions is some number less than 12%. Or, in other words, hundreds of millions of dollars were and are spent every year only to tell millions of Americans that their car is just fine. Hundreds of millions spent, and the sky’s aren’t a bit clearer for it. 8.3 cars are inspected before we find the one non-conformer causing all the trouble.
Now, let’s frame this scenario in a different context to see if America is getting the most bang for its eco-buck. What would life be like if the average American had to pay 8.3 plumbers before she found one who could fix her sink? What if 8.3 caterers needed to be hired before the bride could be reasonably assured of the quality of the food at her wedding? Speaking of brides, how about the idea of purchasing 8.3 diamonds before you could feel confident that the love of your life would say yes? The phrase “diamonds are forever” would take on a whole new meaning if that were the case.
It turns out that the best way to save the environment from pollution is to charge polluters in such a way that leaves them free to adjust their production practices as they best see fit - given a new emission standard. The industry term for that is the Equimarginal Principal. In the case of auto emissions, the Equimarginal Principle would show the law imposing I&M inspections on everyone for what it really is - stupid.
Instead of charging all Chevy Tahoe owners the same rate at the time they renew their registration, check their mileage during the last year and charge them accordingly, giving discounts to those classes of cars that are easier on the atmosphere. This will have two effects: car owners will internalize the damage the use of their vehicle does to the environment, which will reduce careless use of their vehicles; and the auto industry will have a market-based incentive to produce low-emitting vehicles. Why? Because the relatively higher costs of registering a high-polluting vehicle will make low-polluting vehicles more attractive to consumers.
But logic and sound economics aside, the fact remains that there is no hero’s welcome for the politician who stands up in front of the microphone and says, “Attention drivers, we will now bill you directly for the damage you do to the environment.” This one might be even worse: “My fellow Americans, we’ve decided to leave it up to the Big Three to figure out how they can best meet our new emission standards.”
So I recognize defeat in the face of feel-good legislation. But if I must go down, I’m going down swinging. So as you government-mandate-loving, resource-wasting wannabee greenies pay your I&M bill, ask yourself this: how often do you hear of someone failing the emissions test?
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
