Air pollution and a case for government (long)

[CallMeIshmael]

Im interested in hearing what some of the ACers have to say about this. But wont be around for a bit, so I wont be able to respond until like tomorrow.

(Most interested in hearing WillMagic's thoughts, since from pervious experience I know he's intelligent and comments in the other threads show he is more intested in debate than e-yelling and trolling like some others)


I will state all assumptions I make in bold.


Assumption 1: People prefer less pollution to more.

Assumption 2: Even though it is not done consciously, we convert pollution to utility.


Ie. if someone were presented with the hypothetical "I will offer you $x, but it means that the pollution level where you live will increase to [insert description of pollution increase], the person will not conclude that they cannot compare pollution to money. They, rather, will weigh the amount of money offered versus the described pollution increase, and decide which they prefer.


For example, if someone were offered $1 million dollars in exchange for a very small increase in sulfide concentrations, it is reasonable to assume the money is worth more than the cost of the pollution increase.


However, if the same person was to be offered $2 in exchnage for a major increase in pollution, it is reasonable to assume that they would turn down the money.


Now, I will relate this to an actual situation. Many years ago (I'll ballpark it at 10-12) the Ontario government introduced a law that stated all cars must go in to a mechanic shop, and get a clean air test. If the car failed the clean air test, it was required that they get some procedure done to the car so that its emission levels were below a threshold value determined by the government.


Assumption 3: this emission lowering thing costs $200. (im car handicapped, so Im not sure if this is accurate, but it seems decent)

Now, in a hypotheical world in which there was no law to require this, each person would decide whether or not they want to get the procedure done. I propose the following model for how they made this decision:



Assumption 4: Costs: $200 + time lost


Not only does it cost us money but we also have to do go through the hassles of going to the mechanic.

Assumption 5: Benefits: Less pollution(you) + population*less pollution(others)



The Less pollution(you) and (population-1)*less pollution(others) needs some explanation.

In an area, of say 500, when one person pollutes it(eventually) affects all of the other 499 people equally, since the pollution disperses into the area. (though not exactly true, more accurately modeling this doesnt change conclusions)

Assumption 6: The human condition has evolved so that I care far more about my health than I do about those who
live 10 blocks away and that I have never met.

Thus, Less pollution(you) is how much you value the decreased pollution you get by driving a low emision car. (interestingly, sociobiology predicts (correctly) that the younger you are the more you should care about pollution. This is because you have more to lose).




(population-1)*less pollution(others) represents the benefit of decreased pollution to your fellow citizens, as seen through your eyes. Certainly, you would prefer a random person not having to endure pollution (even if it is in a place you will never be, and thus it has 0 affect on your health).


From these assumptions, it follows that a given person will opt to get the procedure when:



Less pollution(you) + (population-1)*less pollution(others) > $200 + time lost





Now, everyone has different numbers. $200 means more to some than others, Less pollution means more to some than others. But, I propose that you can have a group of individuals all of who adhere to rational decision making that produces a bad result.




If you assume that each of the 500 people in the area have these values:

Less pollution(you) = $0.50
Less pollution(others) = $0.40 per person
time lost = $10

Each person prefers keeping their money ($210) to getting their car fixed ($200.01).


So, what happens? Everyone pollutes.

Thus, you actually feel the pollution worth $0.50*500 = $250. All so you could save $210.




What has happened, is that if a person is given a choice between polluting or not polluting, they prefer to pollute. BUT, if a person is given the choice between everyone polluting or not polluting (including themselves) they would prefer everyone to not pollute.



Someone in another thread made a comment in response to a statement that individuals cant produce roads by saying that "governments arent made of inidividuals??" In fact, yes governments are made of humans. But (at least in theory) a government is most happy when they maximize the happiness of all members of the group it governs. Indiviuals are happy when they maximize THEIR happiness.




In the example, the government does not have a conceptual differnce between "me" and "everyone else" that every person does. Thus, they assess the situation and pass a law that forces everyone to get the procedure done. Even though every person is upset because it appears they are forced to pay more for something than it is worth to them, they are happier than when the law wasnt passed.




Just to note: I dont claim that the numbers I used are necessarily good estimates. Im simply illustrating that there are situations in which a group of individuals acting for themselves are worse off than when a body acts for the good of the group. Nor am I claiming any government is necessarily doing this (though I think they are). Im just saying that in theory a government can be a benefit.

[Copernicus]

Two comments, one of which has nothing to do with your main hypothesis. The one that is relevant is the $.40 value that your consumer has place on others pollution..only a 20 cent discount from his own value. Robert Kennedy is ample proof that individuals care far less for others discomfort when it is inconevenient for themselves.

The non-relevant one is that younger people care more about pollution because they have longer to suffer from it. Young people suffer from a feeling of invincibility and long term risks are the furthest thing from their minds. (Look at the prevelance of tobacco use amongst teens. Cigarettes too noticeable by mom and dad? they move to tins).

The reason that you find youth rallying around green causes is because of their lack of understanding (because they havent been there yet) of the tradeoffs and personal costs of the causes they support.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Two comments, one of which has nothing to do with your main hypothesis. The one that is relevant is the $.40 value that your consumer has place on others pollution..

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I made them close so I didnt get the "but people donnt discount that much" argument.


Ill post my thoughts on your second point later. Probably tomorrow.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two comments, one of which has nothing to do with your main hypothesis. The one that is relevant is the $.40 value that your consumer has place on others pollution..

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I made them close so I didnt get the "but people donnt discount that much" argument.



[/ QUOTE ]

But you wouldnt get that argument from the naysayers because the more you discount the less your equation supports your premise.


Also I forgot to comment on this:

"In the example, the government does not have a conceptual differnce between "me" and "everyone else" that every person does. Thus, they assess the situation and pass a law that forces everyone to get the procedure done."

In the real world the government is just as "nimby" as individuals, either because the representative places his own welfare over his professed the beliefs and the desires of his constituency (Robert Kennedy) , or the constituency itself has discounted the detriment to others over their own selfish concerns or unfounded fears (the anti-nuclear energy crowd, endless blocks to development using environmental fanaticism etc).

[WillMagic]

Ish,

There are two fundamental problems with your case.

Your first is that you fail to try and analyze how pollution might be mitigated in an AC society, and just assume it would be the status quo minus the clean air act or something. IMO this will very likely not be the case. Borodog has written extensively on this topic before, but in broad strokes - if you pollute, and your pollution damages someone else's property, then that property owner has grounds to sue. And since companies are in business to make money, and it will almost certainly be good business to reach a settlement rather than spend tons of money getting a fixed judgment that no one will respect, then you have a natural disincentive to pollute, without any coercion.

But more importantly - the comparisons you make in your study both contain government as part of the situation. It seems quite silly to me to say that because one set of governmental policies is better than another that therefore government is necessary.

The second problem is that you use solely a utilitarian calculus to determine whether or not your policy is good. Honestly you could show me all the graphs and equations you want and I wouldn't care...because the policy you would have the government enact isn't moral. It fundamentally violates the basic rights of self-ownership, the right of each person to his justly acquired property.

And finally, something to blow your mind: Negative externalities are a phenomenon created almost solely by the concept of public property. Privatize public property and you can eliminate negative externalities and any case for government intervention.