🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dc5gjINNa24@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.090403.6194@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>The majority of economists believe that a pollution tax would cut pollution
>>quickly and efficiently. Air care is sort of a tax, but not really:
>>you either pass and get your insurance, or don't pass, and no insurance.
>
>Taxes do nothing constructive to cut polution.  The taxes on gasoline
>prove this.  Cars that cause a great deal of polution would probably be
>sold/scrapped before long, so the taxes would have to be *quite* high
>to make repairing or scrapping the car cheaper. 
>

You are dead wrong there. The a tax on pollution creates a market incentive
to get people stopping pollution, and finding better, more efficient.
Before, people were polluting, and doing it for free, a tax would make them
pay for doing that. (I believe that taxes should be charged who most make
use of a system, current taxes tend to spread things around to people who
least use the system). But anyway, lets avoid the market vs interventionist
arguments temporarily.


Anyway, why do most economists advocate pollution taxes? This isn't a left
right issue, it's a matter of letting people make rational economic decisions
based on clear, and rational market signals. The polluter pays, what could
be more simple?

I don't know what gasoline taxes prove, since the revenue is not directly
spent on either: building and maintaining roads, cleaning pollution, etc.
Unfortunately, taxes in most countries have no relation to what a person
consumes in government services, or public natural resources.
Present gas taxes are bad in that both clean and polluting cars are 
taxed equally; which doesn't exactly encourage people to fix old cars, or
buy new ones. Of course AirCare will do this now, but it's more complicated
than a cross the board pollution tax.  If you use a service, you should pay
for it. Therefore, if you use up clean air, and produce pollution, you 
should pay for that. Having to pay for that causes a direct incentive for
people to STOP doing that, without hundreds of ruls and regulations.

>>emmissions. Ie, a car with x% of NOx or CO or whatever, would have to
>>pay $50 or $100 or whatever. More pollution, more tax.
>
>Air Care is an anti-pollution measure, not a profit making venture.  (at
>least, not for the government.)
>

It's not a matter of profit motive, but of allowing the market (ie all
the people with old cars) to make rational decisions about whether they
should a: fix the car, b: buy a new one, c: pay a tax for 1 or 2 more years
until they can reasonably pick a or b. Nobody is shutting down the pulp
mills, why should ordinary people have to sink hundreds of dollars into
car repairs, so *soon* after a new system of pollution management is 
introduced.

>>I also think it's very inconsistent to be basing the tests on the year of
>>the car. Either x% of pollution is bad, or it's not. I don't think a car
>
>I do, too.  For instance, your '91 should also be tested.  But *most*
>of the cars causing the worst polution will be from older years, so
>it makes sense to have a cut-off based on the model year.

True, for sake expediency. But after all, the automaker has already tested
the vehicle, and it is within spec. So for a '91 car, the car has already
been tested, but not by AirCare.

>
>>should be allowed to pass just because it meets specs at the time the
>>car was made.
>
>This is the *only* workable expection.  To insist that all cars must
>adhere to the 1992 standards would be the equivalent of saying "We will
>not licence *any* car more than 5 years old," because even a brand new
>5 year old car would probably not pass current standards.  This in itself
>would *cause* pollution as people were forced to scrap their old car
>(causing pollution) and purchase a new one (whose producition would cause
>pollution).  And 5 years from now they would have to do it all over
>again because of the changing standards.

No it isn't.

Go back and read the bit about "the polluter pays". The pollution tax
would not deny a license to anyone, it would make them pay a proportional
amount based on how bad there car is. The driver could then decide whether
or not it is worth it to pay $50 or a $100 or whatever a year (and face
the possibilty that his car will get worse as it gets older). That kind
of consistency lets people plan ahead. It lets them compare the cost
of a newer, or fixed car, with the projected depreciation of the car
(the tax would in fact depreciate the car sooner than normal, and it would
be economical to write off the car after a certain time.)

This would not ' *cause* ' pollution, since the car would have been scrapped
anyway. Since the old car, with old pollution standards causes around 10
times more pollution than a newer (not NEW, but newER) car. If the 
environment is so precious, then these are EXACTLY the cars that need an
incentive of some kind to get them scrapped sooner than later. ANd the
longer the life of the old car gets dragged, on, the longer you would
allow it pollute at it old specs.

Is this too complicated to follow? Or doesn't anyone learn any accounting?

>
>And actually, cars that were too old would be sold in Alberta and Washington
>adding to pollution problems there.  It wouldn't produce a desirable effect.
>

that's their problem, if they are dumb enough to accept them. At least
the pollution wouldn't be here (and still no net change)

>>Also, why are ordinary citizens forced into one pollution class, and yet
>>(as far as I know) commercial trucks, busses, farm equipment are exempt?? 
>
>Studies show that cars produce the most pollution.  Commercial vehicles
>are generally kept in better running condition.  The particulates produced
>by diesel exhaust are more tangible (to the eyes and the nose) but less
>harmful to the environment.
>

I would be interested in seeing this study. Anyway, I can smell and choke
on the diesel exhaust, so doesn't that count? I think I'm being fairly
charitable in accepting the notion of a Vancouver air pollution problem,
when monitoring stations consistently report 'GOOD' to at worst, "FAIR"
air quality. Perhaps in the lower mainland, diesel is a bigger harm to
our envoronment?

>>I heard that CO2 is one component they test for. But CO2 is harmless.
>
>CO2 is NOT harmless.  It is the most abundant "green-house" gas.  I don't
>remember whether they test for it.  They do test for NOx, CO, and hydro-
>carbons.

Hmm, I don't seem to be dieing on the CO2 I'm exhaling. Couldn't be a factor
in local pollution, can it? The support for the greenhouse effect is  pretty
tenuous. 
>
>Bill.
>-- 
>Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________