This issue affects anyone who lives in the vicinity of an area of traffic flow. Over 74 million people are exposed to high levels of at least one of the pollutants found in emissions, which include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead (1). All of these can have adverse health effects, and some other lower level pollutants from vehicles are known carcinogens such as benzene and formaldehyde.
In this case, the losers are everyone who is exposed to these toxins and runs the risk of having adverse health effects from the exposure. The winners would be the companies that continue to manufacture vehicles irresponsibly and don't have to put any research and development money into creating more efficient cars to reduce emissions. A domino effect would also create another group of losers, petroleum companies, who would see a decline in sales as automobiles become more efficient. These companies have lots of lobbying dollars that they put to good use, delaying or defeating any bill that would cost them sales.
The economic costs of this issue lie with the government and automobile manufacturers. The government spends money funding agencies devoted to testing products and air quality every year. The EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI tests over 1,000 vehicles every year to certify them. With 500 employees and utility costs over $1,000,000 every year, this comes at a pretty steep price (1). Automobile manufacturers are also bearing some of the economic responsibility, as previously mentioned, now that there are heavier government mandates for emissions they must spend money improving their vehicles. Some companies just meet the bare minimum, while others invest more in creating more efficient vehicles and can use this as a marketing pitch for the concerned consumer. Additional economic strain could be felt by those families that are unfortunate enough to develop an illness because of the poor air quality, forcing them to seek expensive medical attention. If these people are uninsured, with our current health care system we may all feel the impact of this financially if the government is forced to raise taxes to support a failing health care system, among other things.Socially, the main issue that arises is the impact of having someone you know become ill from the air quality. Having a close friend or relative be struck with an illness can be devastatingly stressful and time consuming. We should not even have to consider this an issue, as it should be a given that we need to have the cleanest air possible and not have to think twice about breathing it in for fear we may become ill. We would all benefit from tighter legislation and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. It is our responsibility to each other to buy the best vehicle emission-wise so we do not harm each other, or the environment.
The barriers to solving this issue include economic, social, and political hurdles. Economically, it is very expensive to fund and research new technological advances to take the next step in reducing emissions. It is very expensive to fund this research, and often vehicle manufacturers are not willing to foot the bill, and most certainly petroleum companies couldn't care less. The government, as previously pointed out, must spend millions a year on testing these vehicles to make sure they are meeting the requirements. This would not be necessary if we could trust manufactures to do their job and be responsible. Socially, the boundaries are that even though there is an increase in efficient vehicles and new technology, more and more people every year are driving cars. With the population growing, it only makes sense that there would be more cars on the road (3). With people job hunting and taking jobs farther away from where they live in order to make ends meet in a recession, you can see that traveling farther distances has an effect on emissions too. One smart way that I found through my research that cities are reducing pollution is the installation of roundabouts, which reduce the need to come to complete stops and then accelerate, creating better fuel efficiency (3). Politically, barriers must be overcome ignoring political differences to make new standards. It has been over 20 years since a new Clean Air Act, and since then there have been many changes to the market infrastructure.
The main resource needed for this issue is money. Everything boils down to affordability. Companies have to be able to afford to research better technology, while we have to be able to afford the vehicles they are putting onto the production line. There is a delicate balance of interaction between all components, and currently things are not in balance.
Historically, a lot has been done to bring down the levels of air pollution for motor vehicles successfully. From implementing new technologies into vehicles to make them more fuel efficient, to creating more vehicle friendly roadways to reduce the need to stop or accelerate. Politically, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board are the top dogs in creating legislation and regulation for the issue, and have created lots of programs for the prevention of emissions polluting the atmosphere at any higher levels.
Nearly every group of people, businessmen, and politicians would support not only this bill, but the cause as a whole. People want to live in a safer and cleaner environment. Businessmen such as those who run the automobile companies, although they would have to spend more developing technology, would be able to offer a superior product and potentially see an increase in sales based on their vehicles being more responsible. Politicians should want what their supporters want, so that being said they should support these causes as well. The only group that would not support this bill would be petroleum companies. The bill would put more fuel-efficient vehicles onto the roads, getting rid of old gas guzzling vehicles that these companies have relied upon for some long to boost sales because of poor fuel-efficiency.
The policy needs to be voted in law so we can continue having options and incentives as consumers. Without such tax credits being offered, people may simply go for a cheaper car that doesn't have as good of fuel-efficiency. Some may not even know this is an issue until they are informed they can get these hybrid or electric vehicles for less, only then being told how irresponsible their old vehicle was compared to the new alternatives. Voting yes on this policy will assist the country financially and environmentally.
Sources:
(1) EPA Powerpoint. <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zA5E9LvcUckJ:www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/fapmve2.ppt+current+legislation+on+air+pollution+from+motor+vehicle+emissions&hl=en&gl=us>
(2) Maine Department of Health <http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/lev4me/effects.htm>
(3) Sovacool, B.K. and Hirsh, R.F. (2009). Beyond batteries: An examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition. Energy Policy. 37:1095-1103.
Well thought out!!! Great job.
ReplyDelete