The Canadian and US government spend billions annually to try to cut pollution problems and stabilize them.
The Canadian and US government spend billions annually to try to cut pollution problems and stabilize them. Numerous copies of environmental protection plans have been drafted through in hope to achieve an appropriate government intervention action between polluting companies and them. Three methods of anti pollution actions presented by the government are direct regulation, pollution taxes and tradable permits. It is true that government programs, such as direct regulation, pollution taxes and tradable permits have their advantages and disadvantages, but when benefits outweighing the negatives in a program, such as with tradable permits, industries will willingly comply and find the incentive to make an anti-pollution action effective.
Most governments, such as Canada, try to reduce the amount of pollution created in their country through setting pollution limits through a flimsy action called direct regulation. The first and most common form is the restriction amount on the quantity of emission that’s permitted to be given off per mile of a vehicle along with the number of harmful chemicals and other pollutants released into the air by factories and other machinery. The same standard is followed for all new automobiles no matter the brand. Even the reduction of carbon monoxide is the same as in Southern Ontario as it is rural Saskatchewan. The purpose of setting the same set of standards is to prevent provinces from relaxing in its emission standards in order to attract new industry. Another action that is part of direct regulation is the installment of mechanisms, such as “scrubbers,” in coal- fired utilities in order to decrease the amount of emission being released. The prohibition of specific behaviors, such as the burning of wood stoves and leaves in the backyard, are other characteristics of direct regulation. The largest advantage to direct regulation is that it ensures standards to limit the total quantity of pollution given in a certain area.
Despite the fact that it sets standards, direct regulation is not very useful. For starters, it is hard for the government to state an appropriate and exact amount on standards that should be set. Not only does it cut pollution but it also cuts jobs and businesses. Direct regulation over emissions produced by automobiles, are only effective with new cars and it is the older more poorly maintained cars that are the biggest offenders. In the US, 10% of cars on the road are responsible for creating half the number of pollutants caused by cars. $14 billion US in the US alone was spent in trying to control car emissions in 1988 with little result. Federal standards have been set on the amount of pollutants permitted per mile of a car but not the number of miles that can be driven. Same standards set throughout a geographical area also create a problem. For example, when looking back at the identical set amount of carbon monoxide regulation in Saskatchewan and Southern Ontario it is unfair to see that province specifications for quantity of emissions released throughout Canada are the same regardless of size or production of output needed to be generated. This causes an inefficiency problem since the percentage of emission reduction will always be smaller that it could be. Regulators estimate from the maximum output level then set the standard. Also, when they look at all firms collectively and since smaller firms can’t cut as big a percentage in emissions as bigger pollutant firms, and vice versa, it also explains the inefficient standards. What the actual focus should be to compose the standard is to look at each firm’s marginal cost curve individually and get the firm to reduce their unit pollution marginal. An additional reason that firms should be looked on individually is because direct regulation states the same amount must be cut all firms. Unfairness can be caused since often one firm over another firm is able to cut a pollutant source easier than another. There has even been a problem defining the standards set by the government. Regulations have been said to be overly severe and many firms have fought regulations with provincial governments rather than finding a solution to their pollution problem. Nickel Corporation in Sudbury, Ontario, has a common ongoing case against the Ontario Ministry of Environment to set more lenient standards. INCO, North America’s largest sulfur dioxide emission co., is one of the many firms who were successful in winning more lenient regulations. Initially, INCO was prohibited to have more than 15% of 1970 emissions in 1980. INCO slacked and by 1980, emissions were 65% over 1970’s level and guidelines instead permitted INCO’s emissions to be at a 30% level. Since this occured, criticism has been made about the ease in punishment taken to offenders. This system is lenient and has made potential polluters takes into account the probability of being caught and the severity of the penalty before deciding how to behave. This is not a good sign, and ultimately, an inefficiency is provided by direct regulations. Additionally, “regulators will often mandate today’s best technique tomorrow, even if something more efficient comes along.” 1 Thirdly, the expense in monitoring and enforcing regulations are too slow and costly as regulators must check all the places one by one while measuring how much and many of what type of pollutants are being given off with expensive equipment. After all this, regulating agencies must decide on a suitable punishment for the offenders and especially find an appropriate mechanism to punish polluters with. This costly procedure of checking reduces the effectiveness of the controls. In 1988, $100 billion US was invested on direct regulation in the States and although there were marginal results, the pollution decline was far from full.
