You might not realise it, but this dramatically affects YOU.
Non pollution science people (almost everyone) confuse efficiency regulations and pollution regulations.
Energy and resource efficiency is not the same thing as pollution reduction.
In most cases, its usually most resource efficient to be highly polluting.
For resource efficiency, life cycle cost is the easiest and probably most accurate way to measure.
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
by "resource" I mean all natural resources: land, people, animals, plants, minerals, water, energy, and time.
Efficiency can cost more than its worth. Think about it this way...
Would you pay $1MM for an average commuter car that got 50,000mi/gal?
Would you pay $500k for an average commuter car that was powered only by magic faery dust that never needed to be refilled?
The reasonable answer is "no" and "no". Even though its super efficient, or magically powered, those options aren't a good return on investment compared to the cost of owning a car for 200k miles.
When one thinks even deeper about manufacturing, production, markets, and product cost; one realises that money represents resources of any nature. And that the product life cycle cost represents the resource cost.
Therefore, in the example of the magically powered car, the $500k cost measures the resources used somewhere to build it. Compared to standard car, it is trading resources consumed over the lifetime for resources consumed at the upfront manufacturing. This is why most hybrid and electric cars are NOT more resource efficient compared to an equivalent standard car.
POLLUTION
by "pollution" I mean chemicals that kill/poison animals, plants, and humans. Causes acid rain, destroys ozone, or renders the enviroment radioactive.
For pollution (real pollution, not global warming), we have a problem of the commons. Usually best solved by making it non-public. For example, saving endangered elephants by making them legal hunted animals: some one owns them so they are thoroughly protected and bred to increase profit. Or saving endangered bison by making them part of the farmed food supply. For land this is easily done by making any polluted land private property.
Unfortunately some things are impossible to take private ownership, i.e. rivers and air. So the human cost or repair cost should be built into the pollution created.
On the other hand, consider that the biggest cause of premature death in this world is poverty. And every step in pollution regulation decreases resource efficiency and increases poverty. This is all real and measurable policy effects.
In conclusion, we must choose between wealth (which buys food, healthcare, and things that prolong life) and the cleanliness of our world (which can also poison us).
Considering both pollution and resources in balance...
From that choice, I conclude that environmental policy should be based on balancing the human cost of poverty and balancing the human cost of pollution.
Which would be pretty straight forward and more freedom orientated. A standard tax on certain kinds of pollution would drive the right actions. The market would be free to pick and choose where it was willing to be very pollution efficient, and where it needed to be most resource efficient. The result would be a self aligning system that would optimize these two important goals.
REALITY
But our pollution regulations are not written from that point of view at all, just the opposite...
Instead they just pick an arbitrary value and declare all cars, industry, and machinery must conform to that value. It has zero basis on what harm or benefit the regulation provides. It is not even carefully overseen by congress. Which by the way, is composed mostly of lawyers, not scientists or engineers or even economists. So they just delegated the whole business to the executive branch.
From my experience, the EPA has no clue what its doing.
Don't get me wrong...
The tragedy of the commons (air and river pollution) requires some authority intrusion to manage these resources.
But like all big gov'ts of the world, they still fail at life.
Specifically, Congress shirks its responsibility to directly manage the regulations. And the regulations themselves are so poorly written that companies that follow the law, still get in trouble because the EPA can just make rules up as it goes along. Or they are written where the company is always at risk no matter how hard they try.
For example, the OBD regs require that a check engine light comes on if for any reason emissions equipment fails or emissions control is lost. The software design and components are tested and certified by the EPA. But that doesn't matter. If for some reason, 10years later, someone finds some rare situation where the design doesn't work quite right, the company is liable. I know of some companies that have been fined $10's of millions due to this very case.
In another example, the EPA has been writing diesel emissions regs for over 20 years yet I find that they still can't design their test procedures correctly. The companies have to go to the EPA and plead with them to fix their errors.
A fuel tax does not equal a tax on emissions. A tax on emissions would look more like this...
manufacturer A tests equipment and provides typical in use emissions results:
100g/hr of NOx
20g/hr of PM
etc
manufacturer B tests equipment and provides typical in use emissions results:
30g/hr of NOx
5g/hr of PM
etc
The EPA taxes that equipment soley on what actual emissions are...
$50/g of NOx per engine
$75/g of PM
Therefore, manufacturer A can make worse emissions, but they have to pay through the nose for it (passed on to the consumer). OR manufacturer B can make low emissions, but they have to put in expensive technology and slightly worse fuel economy (passed on to the consumer).
The right balance can be found by the free market. The right balance of complex technology, reliability, fuel economy, emissions, and durability.
The price of emissions wouldn't be arbitrary. It would be driven by the balance between poverty and pollution.
It could be changed occasionally. In bad economic years, the cost can come down since everybody is working less and polluting less. Or in good economic years, the price would rise as everyone pollutes more. And there are important structural details, so that the regulating agency has neutral incentives. (Example, police agencies which are funded by speeding tickets provides plenty of incentive for corruption. And does indeed cause it.)
That is my basic idea of how to improve the system. If anyone here cares.
Why does this affect you?
Because you pay for this whole game. When you buy gas, buy a car, buy food, turn on the a/c, turn on the heat, go to work, pour concrete, buy a computer, use water, and use electricity. Everything you do is now directly and specifically regulated by the federal government. Even the toilet you sit on.
Happy 4th of July!
Energy and resource efficiency is not the same thing as pollution reduction.
In most cases, its usually most resource efficient to be highly polluting.
For resource efficiency, life cycle cost is the easiest and probably most accurate way to measure.
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
by "resource" I mean all natural resources: land, people, animals, plants, minerals, water, energy, and time.
Efficiency can cost more than its worth. Think about it this way...
Would you pay $1MM for an average commuter car that got 50,000mi/gal?
Would you pay $500k for an average commuter car that was powered only by magic faery dust that never needed to be refilled?
The reasonable answer is "no" and "no". Even though its super efficient, or magically powered, those options aren't a good return on investment compared to the cost of owning a car for 200k miles.
When one thinks even deeper about manufacturing, production, markets, and product cost; one realises that money represents resources of any nature. And that the product life cycle cost represents the resource cost.
Therefore, in the example of the magically powered car, the $500k cost measures the resources used somewhere to build it. Compared to standard car, it is trading resources consumed over the lifetime for resources consumed at the upfront manufacturing. This is why most hybrid and electric cars are NOT more resource efficient compared to an equivalent standard car.
POLLUTION
by "pollution" I mean chemicals that kill/poison animals, plants, and humans. Causes acid rain, destroys ozone, or renders the enviroment radioactive.
For pollution (real pollution, not global warming), we have a problem of the commons. Usually best solved by making it non-public. For example, saving endangered elephants by making them legal hunted animals: some one owns them so they are thoroughly protected and bred to increase profit. Or saving endangered bison by making them part of the farmed food supply. For land this is easily done by making any polluted land private property.
Unfortunately some things are impossible to take private ownership, i.e. rivers and air. So the human cost or repair cost should be built into the pollution created.
On the other hand, consider that the biggest cause of premature death in this world is poverty. And every step in pollution regulation decreases resource efficiency and increases poverty. This is all real and measurable policy effects.
In conclusion, we must choose between wealth (which buys food, healthcare, and things that prolong life) and the cleanliness of our world (which can also poison us).
Considering both pollution and resources in balance...
From that choice, I conclude that environmental policy should be based on balancing the human cost of poverty and balancing the human cost of pollution.
Which would be pretty straight forward and more freedom orientated. A standard tax on certain kinds of pollution would drive the right actions. The market would be free to pick and choose where it was willing to be very pollution efficient, and where it needed to be most resource efficient. The result would be a self aligning system that would optimize these two important goals.
REALITY
But our pollution regulations are not written from that point of view at all, just the opposite...
Instead they just pick an arbitrary value and declare all cars, industry, and machinery must conform to that value. It has zero basis on what harm or benefit the regulation provides. It is not even carefully overseen by congress. Which by the way, is composed mostly of lawyers, not scientists or engineers or even economists. So they just delegated the whole business to the executive branch.
From my experience, the EPA has no clue what its doing.
Don't get me wrong...
The tragedy of the commons (air and river pollution) requires some authority intrusion to manage these resources.
But like all big gov'ts of the world, they still fail at life.
Specifically, Congress shirks its responsibility to directly manage the regulations. And the regulations themselves are so poorly written that companies that follow the law, still get in trouble because the EPA can just make rules up as it goes along. Or they are written where the company is always at risk no matter how hard they try.
For example, the OBD regs require that a check engine light comes on if for any reason emissions equipment fails or emissions control is lost. The software design and components are tested and certified by the EPA. But that doesn't matter. If for some reason, 10years later, someone finds some rare situation where the design doesn't work quite right, the company is liable. I know of some companies that have been fined $10's of millions due to this very case.
In another example, the EPA has been writing diesel emissions regs for over 20 years yet I find that they still can't design their test procedures correctly. The companies have to go to the EPA and plead with them to fix their errors.
A fuel tax does not equal a tax on emissions. A tax on emissions would look more like this...
manufacturer A tests equipment and provides typical in use emissions results:
100g/hr of NOx
20g/hr of PM
etc
manufacturer B tests equipment and provides typical in use emissions results:
30g/hr of NOx
5g/hr of PM
etc
The EPA taxes that equipment soley on what actual emissions are...
$50/g of NOx per engine
$75/g of PM
Therefore, manufacturer A can make worse emissions, but they have to pay through the nose for it (passed on to the consumer). OR manufacturer B can make low emissions, but they have to put in expensive technology and slightly worse fuel economy (passed on to the consumer).
The right balance can be found by the free market. The right balance of complex technology, reliability, fuel economy, emissions, and durability.
The price of emissions wouldn't be arbitrary. It would be driven by the balance between poverty and pollution.
It could be changed occasionally. In bad economic years, the cost can come down since everybody is working less and polluting less. Or in good economic years, the price would rise as everyone pollutes more. And there are important structural details, so that the regulating agency has neutral incentives. (Example, police agencies which are funded by speeding tickets provides plenty of incentive for corruption. And does indeed cause it.)
That is my basic idea of how to improve the system. If anyone here cares.
Why does this affect you?
Because you pay for this whole game. When you buy gas, buy a car, buy food, turn on the a/c, turn on the heat, go to work, pour concrete, buy a computer, use water, and use electricity. Everything you do is now directly and specifically regulated by the federal government. Even the toilet you sit on.
Happy 4th of July!
Lauren
Jessica
Jena
Billy Mc
Dan
Josh
Stacie
Mandie
Jill
Paula
Caleb
Megan
Jonna
Olivia
Dani
Sarah
Kelly
My baby
Tabitha
wifelet