ARE Final Exam

ARE Final Exam - ARE 3434 Final Exam 1 Please explain the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ARE: 3434 Final Exam 1. Please explain the concepts: unforeseen consequences, special interest consequences, and perverse consequences and give examples of each. Unforeseen: Lead added to gasoline in 1920’s to improve engine performance o Air pollution CFC’s used as refrigerants o Destruction of global ozone shield Increased chemical use after WWII o Unanticipated needs for safe disposal Public policy sometimes don't work as intended and produce Unforeseen Consequences Have resulted from o New technologies encouraged by the public NAAQS’s in 1970 CAA, create smokestacks to move point of emissions of some pollutants to higher altitudes Result in better ground conditions but worse higher up o Lack of information or resources to assess full impacts Pesticide use, DDT and others have resulted in problems o Organizational/Institutional factors CAA of 1990 requires addition of MTBE so more oxygenated gasoline at certain times of the year Leads to GW contamination Special interest: Statutes with objective of improving environmental quality can also contain provisions for special interest groups CAFÉ Standards o Mileage requirements on manufacturing of cars and light trucks Industry markets SUVs because cheaper to produce Example of NO special interest o Dollars have been targeted to worst hazardous waste sites o However, legal profession has benefitted from long, expensive litigation Perverse: Go directly to counter the objectives of policy or regulation Occur when policy makers try to dictate technical responses without considering behavioral responses o Ex. Childproof caps on medicine bottles
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
“Lulling effect”: People take less precautions because they feel safer and regulation may create illusions of safety Parent leave the tops off 2. How does the command and control approach lead to perverse consequences? How could the incentive approach resolve some of these issues? Difficult to obtain emissions and cost data o Accurate data needed by policy makers o Best source of data from polluters themselves o No incentive for accurate data Instead, inflate control costs and their impacts o “End of pipe” bias 2. Much easier than looking at firms’ internal operations 3. Best solution is to look at internal operation and prevent pollution from occurring o “Differentiated control” Regulators place different requirements on different sources in an industry New sources controlled more stringently Result in old inefficient plants in spite of NSR o CAFÉ standards Tried to control emissions Car manufacturers marketed SUVs more heavily Policy makers have relied on Command and Control o Don't consider how people modify their behavior o Human behavior and technology must be the new approach Incentive-based policies: provide incentive to polluters to identify,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Spring '11
  • altobello
  • Kyoto Protocol, policy makers, environmental impact analysis, global environmental problems, ozone layer depletion, Emissions trading plans

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 8

ARE Final Exam - ARE 3434 Final Exam 1 Please explain the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online