Introduction
One ubiquitous externality that affects societies all over the world is air pollution. The environment, ecology, and public health are all seriously threatened by it. The particular situation of vehicle emissions is urgently concerning in this context. Standard rules that may be ineffective and need more motivation for reducing emissions are frequently used in the present regulatory framework (Brunekreef & Holgate, 2002).In addressing the externality of automobile emissions, this essay suggests a market-based approach called transferable pollution permits or TEPs. Through the creation of a structure, TEPs promote the internalization of the social costs of pollution by enterprises and people, resulting in a healthier and more effective transportation sector.
Background: Car Emissions as an Externality Issue:
One of the main sources of ambient air pollution is automobile carbon dioxide emissions, and contact with those particles is linked to serious health problems. For example, nitrogen oxides have a role in the creation of small particles and ozone at the surface of the earth, both of which are harmful to breathing. Research by the Health Effects Institute (HEI, 2019) has demonstrated a direct correlation between contact with such contaminants and a higher prevalence of heart disease, respiratory ailments, and harmful negative health effects.
In cities with high motor traffic, the effect is most noticeable. Children and people who have already present medical disorders are among those categories that are particularly prone to wellness concerns posed by emissions from vehicles. The societal impact challenge arises when the more comprehensive public health costs imposed on society are not fully taken into account by the personal choice made by individuals who drive, such as selecting a certain model of automobile or how they drive (Van Woensel, Creten, & Vandaele, 2001).
Ecological Effects: Automobile emissions cause ecological damage in addition to acute health effects for a long time. As a result of NOx and VOC emissions, smog is created, which looks terrible and makes breathing more difficult. Dealing with sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides causes a pH imbalance, harming the environment, soil, and reservoirs.
There is immediate worry over the contribution of vehicle emissions to global warming. Using petroleum and coal in automobiles releases carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which significantly contributes to the greenhouse effect. Car owners do not include the external costs of climate change in their personal making choices, such as increasing sea levels, unpredictable weather, and ecological changes. The abuse of clean air, a shared natural resource, stems from this failure to internalize impacts, which reduces the good of society and allocates resources inefficiently.
The External Factors Challenge: The primary cause of the externality problem is that homeowners and users of vehicles do not fully pay for the harmful emissions that they produce. Whenever people decide how much to use their vehicles, they take into account personal expenses like gasoline, upkeep, and maybe tolls. The individuals who make decisions do not, however, directly bear the expenses of society as a whole, which include healthcare costs, environmental restoration, and the economic effects of warming temperatures(Greaver et al., 2012).
This difference between social and private costs causes a misallocation of resources. The market only accurately reflects the actual cost of vehicle emissions when imperfections are fully considered. Because of this, car owners have no motivation to switch to greener methods, cut down on their distance traveled, or spend money on other forms of mobility that might have a minor impact on the planet. Due to this failure, petroleum and coal are consumed excessively, and contaminants are released into the natural environment in excesses.
Present Policy: Traditional Regulation and Its Restrictions
Since vehicle emissions contribute significantly to air pollution, many countries have implemented regulations in response. The most common strategy entails setting car emission regulations, conducting regular inspections, and enforcing penalties for noncompliance. Although some progress has been made in reducing pollutants thanks to these regulations, several important drawbacks remain.
Insufficient Adaptability
The fundamental rigidity of old legislation is one of their main drawbacks. A one-size-fits-all approach is frequently used to develop emission regulations, which set uniform limitations for all cars regardless of their make, model, or usage habits. It does not consider the heterogeneous character of the automotive environment, wherein emissions are determined by variables including the kind of car, its age, and its use (Feng & Liao, 2016).
For instance, a general emission standard may need to adequately address the differences in emissions between a heavy-duty commercial vehicle and a compact, fuel-efficient car. The effectiveness of pollution reduction initiatives could be improved by the rigidity of regulatory standards, which makes it difficult to customize requirements for various vehicle classes. Consequently, the regulatory framework may need help to keep up with changes in vehicle use patterns and technological improvements, which would limit its ability to produce the best possible environmental results.
Control and Command Systems:
Traditional rules are primarily based on command-and-control systems, where certain emission thresholds are set, and observance is monitored and penalized. This method has helped establish a baseline for emission reduction, but it has several significant drawbacks.
First, the regulatory framework might not encourage companies and individuals to voluntarily go above and beyond the legally required criteria if it relies too heavily on strict standards. Beyond what is strictly necessary, innovation and the adoption of cleaner technologies are stifled by the need for positive reward mechanisms. The rigidity of command-and-control laws can obstruct the development of more environmentally friendly transportation options in a world where technology is advancing at a rapid pace.
Furthermore, it frequently takes many resources to implement these restrictions. Requirements such as periodic inspections, compliance monitoring, and penalization of non-compliant companies add to the regulatory process’s resource requirements. It puts pressure on regulatory bodies that are already struggling with a lack of resources and raises questions about how cost-effective these policies are (Zhang et al., 2021).
Play the Cat and Mouse Game:
Businesses looking to avoid or reduce compliance efforts and regulatory authorities may engage in a game of cat and mouse due to the enforcement of regulatory requirements. Effective enforcement must be improved by the dynamic nature of technical improvements and the possibility of legal loopholes in the regulatory framework.
Companies may use strategic behavior to avoid compliance to save expenses or obtain a competitive edge. It may entail taking advantage of regulatory ambiguities, manipulating emissions during inspections via devices, or bucking governmental scrutiny. Regulations must be updated and adjusted regularly to close new loopholes, which can distract regulatory resources and cause delays in addressing changing emission concerns.
Enforcement Requiring High Resources:
It can take many resources to enforce conventional guidelines, especially when doing so through fines and recurring examinations. Regulatory bodies must allocate lots of money to monitoring, compliance verification, and punishing non-compliant firms. This financial burden calls the legal approach’s affordability into doubt, particularly in light of the possible pressure on the nation’s scarce finances.
The resource-intensive nature of enforcement actions may make it challenging to stay current with how corporate practices and automotive technology are developing. Regulatory bodies may constantly strive to keep abreast of companies looking to exploit loopholes or engage in noncompliance as legislation becomes more complex to address new problems (Hahn & Stavins, 1991).
Tradable Emission Permits (TEPs): A proposed policy
As innovative and based on market solutions to the shortcomings of traditional regulatory methods to vehicular emissions, tradable emission permits (TEPs) are offered. This policy breakthrough aims to provide an adaptive structure that encourages the decrease of emissions while allowing both people and businesses to operate with liberty. To promote more effective resource allocation and creativity in the quest for clean transit, TEPs introduce a market mechanism for the control of emissions from cars (Wang et al., 2021).
Essential Elements of TEPs:
Cap on Emissions:
The TEP system first caps the sum of all admissible emissions from the transportation sector. Professional evaluations, ecological objectives, and long-term viability concerns set this ceiling.
Frequency of Permits:
Pollution licenses are initially issued to car operators and their owners according to pertinent requirements, such as fleet size, past greenhouse gases, or other relevant considerations. The goal of the allocating procedure is to be equitable and to consider each entity’s unique conditions.
Trade System:
Establishing a secondary market for emission permits is the fundamental characteristic of TEPs. Permit holders can purchase, sell, or exchange permits within this market. With the help of this system, exemptions can be distributed more effectively because those with lower abatement costs can purchase extra permits from those with higher prices (Morthorst, 2001).
Observation and Implementation:
A strong oversight and regulation system is essential to TEP performance. Ensuring that entities follow the terms of their permits is done through periodic surveillance. Participants are strongly encouraged to meet their emission targets because noncompliance carries fines corresponding to the excess emissions.
Comparable Strategies and Empirical Proof:
The United States Acid Rain Program:
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 introduced the Acid Rain Program, which provides an example of the efficacy of market-based solutions. The program produced considerable decreases in pollution while providing reduced expenses compared to standard regulatory techniques by capping sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollutants and permitting the trading of emission allowances (Ellerman et al., 2000).
The EU ETS, or European Union Emissions Trading System,An effective illustration of a limit-and-trade scheme operating on a larger scale is the EU ETS, launched in 2005. The EU ETS has aided in reducing emissions and encouraged the development of low-carbon innovation across several industries, especially electricity generation and industrial processes (Martin et al., 2016).
TEPs’ projected performance:
Financial Rewards:
TEPs provide financial rewards for lowering emissions. Entities are encouraged to use greener technology and practices to reduce emissions by permitting the trade of licenses. It is done not only to comply with regulations but also to profit financially from selling extra licenses.
Creativity:
TEPs’ market-driven structure encourages development. Better technology companies can make money by selling extra licenses they develop and use, which positively feeds into the automobile industry’s technical growth cycle (Chestnut & Mills, 2005).
Adaptability
TEPs provide regulatory freedom. Corporations can select how to fulfill their emission reduction goals instead of being forced to follow strict regulations, encouraging efficiency and adaptability to various operating circumstances.
Economy of scale:
Market-driven systems can reduce emissions at less expense than command-and-control techniques, supported by empirical evidence from cap-and-trade schemes in various industries (Ellerman et al., 2000; Keohane & Revesz, 2007).
Restrictions and Alleviation:
First Allocation:
The first allocation of licenses in a just and equitable manner is essential. Early equity concerns can be reduced by carefully studying allocation techniques, including past emissions and fleet size.
Collusion and Market Power:
There may be worries about market dominance and cooperation between permit holders. Antitrust laws that are put into place and rigorously enforced can help reduce these dangers and guarantee an open, honest, and robust market.
Expenses for administration:
Costs related to administration are associated with setting up and running a TEP system. Nevertheless, the total economic and environmental benefits frequently offset these expenses. Using technology and optimizing administrative procedures can help control expenses.
Challenges of Transition (Kampa & Castanas, 2008):
Shifting from conventional norms to TEPs may encounter opposition and necessitate cautious handling. Stakeholder involvement and outreach initiatives can facilitate the changeover and increase support for the new strategy.
Drawbacks and Countermeasures for Tradable Emission Permits (TEPs):
Limitation:
To guarantee that the procedure is viewed as just and efficient, the distribution of emission permits during the first stage of TEP deployment must be equal and fair. Inequitable results could result from poorly thought-out distribution methods, favoring some businesses over others (Hu et al., 2014).
Mitigation Strategy:
Careful thought must be given to the standards for the initial license handing to meet this constraint. An equitable distribution can be achieved by an open and broad approach that may consider past emissions, fleet size, or other pertinent considerations. It is imperative to conduct regular reviews of the allocation process and have the flexibility to modify it in response to new information or shifts in the transport environment. Corrections actions, such as specific modifications or additional allocations, may be taken to fix the distribution at the start if disparities continue.
Limitations: Competition and cooperation among license holders may give rise to worries, which could result in biased market results. The intended effectiveness and equity of the trading system may be compromised if some firms obtain an adequate amount of authorizations, giving them the ability to modify decisions unjustly.
Mitigation Approach: A strong framework for regulation is necessary to reduce the possibility of market power and cooperation. Anti-competitive conduct can be stopped by implementing and aggressively enforcing antitrust regulations within the TEP system (Tietenberg, 2005). Any efforts at collusion will be easier to spot and deal with with the support of ongoing market activity inspections and observation. Furthermore, limiting the number of licenses one organization can own can help avoid market dominance centralization. An open and dynamic marketplace will be sustained by regular evaluations of market dynamics and the flexibility to modify laws and regulations in response to these evaluations.
Expenses for Administration:
Limitation: Administrative costs are involved in setting up and keeping up a TEP system. Even though the system as a whole benefits—both financially and environmentally—often exceed these costs, ineffective administrative procedures might make it less successful.
Prevention Method: Managerial processes must be streamlined. Administration costs can be greatly decreased by utilizing technology, such as trading websites and computerized license monitoring. Using statistical analysis of data in compliance and tracking, along with developing participant-friendly connections, can improve the efficacy of the administrative infrastructure. Efficiency will be enhanced by ongoing review and improvement of administrative procedures based on industry standards and new technological developments (Villegas-Palacio & Coria, 2010).
Transitional Difficulties:
Limitation: Adopting TEPs in place of traditional regulatory procedures may encounter opposition and call for a carefully planned phase-in period. The effective implementation of the new system depends on its reception and comprehension of stakeholders.
Mitigation Strategy: Public awareness campaigns should be launched to inform participants about the advantages of TEPs and how they vary from traditional rules to facilitate migration. Interacting with members of the industry, environmental groups, and the general public via dialogues and survey platforms can yield significant insights and mitigate concerns. Implementing a plan in stages with distinct deadlines enables stakeholders to adjust progressively. Offering rewards, like tax credits or aid schemes, might encourage people and companies to adopt the new method. An easier transition can be achieved by being flexible at the beginning and having the capacity to change parameters in response to feedback from reality.
Considering Environmental Justice:
Limitation: If the initial allocation of licenses does not consider the social and economic gaps among various regions or demographic groups, there is a chance that vulnerable communities will be subjected to excessive pollution.
Mitigation Plan: The process of allocating permits must consider ecological fairness. Authorities should consider the possible effects on different regions when allocating permits. Furthermore, it is possible to ensure that the TEP system does not aggravate environmental inequality through regular assessments and continuing supervision.
Global Collaboration:
Limitation: For TEPs to be useful in the event of cross-border transit, worldwide collaboration is necessary. States that do not coordinate well may have leakage, which causes pollutants to shift instead of decrease.
The establishment of international agreements and cooperation frameworks is seen as vital as a means of reducing emissions. Transferring emissions from one jurisdiction to another can be avoided by harmonizing TEP systems internationally or, at the very least, matching emission reduction targets. Globally organized action can be framed by cooperation through international organizations or accords like the Paris Agreement (Sartzetakis, 1997).
Scientific Developments:
Limitations include some licenses that may become obsolete or irrelevant due to rapid technological breakthroughs surpassing the TEP system. It may result in organizations needing more reasons to spend money on cutting-edge technology.
The Mitigation Strategy includes integrating new technologies. The TEP system must be reviewed and updated regularly. To ensure that organizations are continuously encouraged to adopt the newest and purest innovations, the greenhouse gas cap and the distribution of permits should be modified to reflect technological advancements (Morthorst, 2001). Furthermore, because of the TEP system’s flexibility, entities can adjust to technological advancements without being hindered by antiquated rules.
Views and Recognition by the Public:
Limitations: Public acceptability and collaboration are essential to the success of TEPs. The system may encounter resistance if its constituents—businesses and the rest of the public—do not comprehend or have faith in it.
Mitigation Strategy: Having thorough and open ways of interacting is critical. Programs for general knowledge should address misunderstandings and concerns and provide information about the advantages of TEPs (Beckerman & Pasek, 1995). Including stakeholders in the preparation and selection phases promotes understanding and a sense of ownership. Before a full-scale rollout, the TEP system can be piloted in particular areas to enable real-world testing and experience-based learning.
Rebound Intentions:
Limitation: Rebound effects provide a concern whereby organizations may choose to increase their overall emissions rather than actively reduce them, spurred on by the opportunity to trade licenses.
Mitigation Strategy: Strict control and enforcement procedures must be in place to stop organizations from taking advantage of the trading system’s shortcomings to raise emissions. A path of constant reduction is ensured by gradually lowering the cap on total emissions. Frequent evaluations of total emission levels and the TEP system’s efficacy can assist in locating and quickly addressing any rebounding impacts.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, a convincing and feasible answer to the impact of vehicle emissions is provided via marketable pollution licenses. By utilizing market forces to encourage reductions in emissions, the suggested approach builds on the achievements of previous initiatives aimed at tackling ecological problems. Practical information from other industries’ cap-and-trade initiatives demonstrates the viability and efficiency of TEPs (Steidlmeier, 1993). However, possible drawbacks can be lessened with careful planning, close observation, and flexible governance. Putting TEPs into practice is a proactive step toward developing effective and environmentally friendly transit systems while reducing the harmful effects of pollutants in the air on the ecosystem and people’s well-being.
References
Brunekreef, B., & Holgate, S. T. (2002). Air pollution and health. The Lancet, 360(9341), 1233-1242. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)11274-8/fulltext
Chestnut, L. G., & Mills, D. M. (2005). A fresh look at the benefits and costs of the US acid rain program. Journal of Environmental Management, 77(3), 252–266. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479705002124
Feng, L., & Liao, W. (2016). Legislation, plans, and policies for preventing and controlling air pollution in China: achievements, challenges, and improvements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1549-1558. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652615011026
Greaver, T. L., Sullivan, T. J., Herrick, J. D., Barber, M. C., Baron, J. S., Cosby, B. J., … & Novak, K. J. (2012). Ecological effects of nitrogen and sulfur air pollution in the US: what do we know? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(7), 365–372. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/110049
Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (1991). Incentive-based environmental regulation: A new era from an old idea. Ecology LQ, 18, 1. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/eclawq18&div=8&id=&page=
Hu, H., Jin, Q., & Kavan, P. (2014). A study of heavy metal pollution in China: Current status, pollution-control policies, and countermeasures. Sustainability, 6(9), 5820-5838. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/9/5820
Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental pollution, 151(2), 362-367. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107002849
Morthorst, P. E. (2001). Interactions of a tradable green certificate market with a tradable permits market. Energy policy, 29(5), 345-353. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421500001336
Van Woensel, T., Creten, R., & Vandaele, N. (2001). Managing the environmental externalities of traffic logistics: The issue of emissions. Production and Operations Management, 10(2), 207-223. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00079.x
Wang, G., Zhang, Q., Su, B., Shen, B., Li, Y., & Li, Z. (2021). Coordination of tradable carbon emission permits and renewable electricity certificates market in China. Energy Economics, 93, 105038. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988320303789
Zhang, G., Jia, Y., Su, B., & Xiu, J. (2021). Environmental regulation, economic development and air pollution in the cities of China: Spatial econometric analysis based on policy scoring and satellite data. Journal of Cleaner Production, p. 328, 129496. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652621036751
Tietenberg, T. (2005). Tradable permits in principle and practice. Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev., 14, 251. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/pensaenlar14&div=17&id=&page=
Villegas-Palacio, C., & Coria, J. (2010). On the interaction between imperfect compliance and technology adoption: taxes versus tradable emissions permits. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38, 274-291.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11149-010-9125-0
Sartzetakis, E. S. (1997). Tradeable emission permits regulations in imperfectly competitive product markets: welfare implications. Environmental and Resource Economics, 9, 65-81. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026435019938
Morthorst, P. E. (2001). Interactions of a tradable green certificate market with a tradable permits market. Energy policy, 29(5), 345-353. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421500001336
Beckerman, W., & Pasek, J. (1995). The equitable international allocation of tradable carbon emission permits. Global Environmental Change, 5(5), 405-413. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/095937809500054R
Steidlmeier, P. (1993). The morality of pollution permits. Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 133-150. https://www.pdcnet.org/enviroethics/content/enviroethics_1993_0015_0002_0133_0150
write