A Brief Note On The Environmental Protection Agencies

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.

Introduction Automobile usage has increased in America and elsewhere in the world. In a research done by Sutherland, J., et al. (2004) “The US has a contributed to 200 million passengers in cars and light truck over the past few years. Further in 1990, studies showed that US cars increased six times faster than human population. The leaders in the automotive industry must adopt some key elements to ensure success in this fast-moving environment. They must invest in knowing their markets, building brands, adapting product strategies and taking long-term view on their goals and objectives. This paper outlines some of the key factors which should be considered. Environmental factors automotive designers and engineers have always said the main threats in the American Automotive industry are the environmental factors such as fuel economy and the clean air regulations. Automotive Emission posed different problems than manufacturing discharges such as coal smoke. Increased fossil-fuel emission has resulted from the million car increase. Irritation smog, which is comprised of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxide and other various chemical mixtures are cited in major cities such as Los Angeles. These auto emissions are also said to cause headaches, visual pollutions, contribute to lung cancers and other respiratory disease. In the end, the engineers have designed cars that are better environmental performers, cost effective and fuel efficient to reduce the environmental

In the 1970’s there was growing confusion regarding environmental policy due to certain states creating environmental protection laws which were largely ineffective. To ease confusion, fix national guidelines, and monitor and enforce them President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA functions under three federal departments: the Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education and Welfare departments. The original role of the EPA was to administrate the Clean Air Act which was enacted to reduce the air pollution caused by vehicles and industry. The EPA has since grown to enforce at least 12 major statutes such as: ocean dumping laws, safe drinking water, insecticides, and asbestos hazards in

An added twist on the cap policy allows firms to trade emission allotments between themselves based on the buyer of allotment bargaining with the seller over the proper price to pay for the extra allotment. A two-panel diagram is needed to better understand the logic of trading emission allotments. Figure 4 illustrates the marginal cost of reducing emissions of two firms. One firm is run on older technology with high abatement costs that goes from right to left with zero costs represented at the lower right-hand corner of the diagram. The other firm has newer technology in its plant with lower abatement costs that goes left to right with zero costs represented at the lower left-hand corner of the diagram. The width of the horizontal axis is the reduction in emissions that must be achieved overall to an efficient level.

For example, in an effort to lower the carbon footprint from factory smoke stacks, the government can mandate a new expensive piece of equipment to be installed. If this equipment poses a financial burden on the regulated firm, the regulation can be inefficient; however, if regulated factories are able to reduce their footprint through other lower cost options such as using less harmful raw materials or installing solar panels; then that would be an efficient way of utilizing resources and enforcing the

A cap puts a maximum tolerable level of pollution and makes companies that go beyond this limit to pay. This is a sure way of guaranteeing lower emissions. The cap is usually measured in billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year. It covers economy wide emissions including natural gas generation, electricity generation, large manufacturers and transportation. Emitters are only allowed to release a set limit of pollution. Permits are issued to emitters and operating without a permit is against the law.

A cap-and-trade program sets a maximum level of pollution, and distributes emission permits among firms that produce emissions (Carbon Tax, 2013). The purpose of which is regulation of specific emissions by stationary and mobile sources, and setting a specific level which all emitters are re-quired to meet. Cap-and-trade possibly has less of a direct economic component to it than the other alternatives to reducing emissions described due to the ability to trade permits versus the expendi-ture of resources improving technology, with some arguing it is to the detriment of the environment. As stated in the article found in Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda, by Ashford, N. et al., 2008, “being a market-based instrument, ‘the cap-and-trade option suggests that at least this form of MBI may be more environmentally effective than the usual command-and-control alternatives, in addition to being more economically efficient.” (Ashford, N. and Caldart, C., 2008, p. 908).

The cap on the market is set on carbon emissions, creating scarcity within the market. At the end of each year businesses within the scheme are required to ensure they have enough allowances to account for their installation’s actual emissions. Those firms that do not comply and pollute without sufficient permits are hit with heavy fines. (Euro 100 per ton). The aim of carbon trading is to create a market in pollution permits and put a price on carbon. In this way, policy can help internalise external costs of firms’ production and encourage lower emissions to tackle climate change. In a cap and trade system, the volume permits would gradually decline and total emissions, in theory, will diminish. The model of such can be shown as

Scattered with flowing rivers, lush forests, and everlasting plains, the environment is extraordinary, but is it a place for the government? Since December 2, 1970, the EPA has been restricting the use of our planet and taking our rights away.

Due to advancement in technology, there has been an increase in emission of pollutants from the vehicles. Electric cars do not produce pollutants which are very important for the cities to stay green and pollution free as the air quality has deteriorated a lot.

Cap and trade is a system aimed at diminishing the rate at which carbon is emitted into the atmosphere by creating an economic system based on meeting a certain minimal threshold or paying low-emitting companies for the right to emit in their place. For example, if company A only emits half of the emissions cap, that company can sell (or trade) the remaining credits to company B, should company B choose to emit one-and-a-half times the cap. A main objection to the cap and trade system is that it is not a strong enough means by which to curb emissions of fossil fuels and is inferior to specifically stronger carbon taxes. While initially appealing, the notion of simply strengthening carbon taxes fails to properly stifle carbon emissions and to adequately incentivize “green” development in comparison to the cap and trade system, preventing carbon taxes from occupying a central role to mitigate carbon emissions.

Cap-and-trade is a program which uses a market-based mechanism to control greenhouse gas emissions, the primary driver of global warming. The “cap” sets a limit on emissions, which is lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. It limits emissions in electric power generation, natural gas, transportation, and large manufacturers. The “trade” creates a market for carbon allowances, leading to more cost-effective pollution cuts, and incentive to invest in cleaner technology. The less they emit, the less they pay, so it is in their economic incentive to pollute less. Each allowance (typically equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide) are auctioned or allocated to regulated emitters on a regular basis.

Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

The amount of factories and industries has grown immensely through the previous years which has resulted in an expansion in the consumption of petroleum products. Innovation has begun to increase and has promoted the expansion of the production of cars. As stated by the Air Quality Research Center, “Air pollution is one of the most dangerous environmental problems, causing many adverse health effects and responsible for 50,000 deaths in the U.S. each year” (Air Pollution and Health – Air Quality Research Center.). The smog and

 There is a serious problem facing the world right now.  It is air pollution.  The number one contributor to this epidemic is automobile emissions.  We have all heard of the issues that are involved with air pollution including the depletion of the o-zone layer, the green house effect, and acid rain.  The problem has been scoped from every imaginable angle, and now it is time to solve the problem.  I propose that each of the ‘Big Three’ (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) car manufacturers be required to have 10% of their product line as EV’s By the year 2010.  I propose this because it will be the start of cleaner air, EV advancement, and awareness of EV’s and how they work.