Lecture! Flashcards
What is the second negative impact (tax breaks and subsidies) of direct government regulation of energy?
Companies spring up that exist not because of the skills and intelligence of the workers but because the government is handing out money. When this stopd, companies can not survive on their own and go bankrupt. Result: money waste, consumer stuck with technology that cant be repaired because the company is gone.
What is energy policy and what 4 ways does government regulate it?
Increasing economic productivity or the supply of energy by gov regulation of
1) price (ceiling or base)
2) production (helping businesses developing new stuff with $)
3) consumption (give $ to consumers for less)
4) tax breaks (not only to producers, but consumers, too for using less energy/making alterations to be more energy efficient)
We should abolish the department of energy because there are only 5 reasons why government should intervene in an area, which are?
1) market failure
2) enforce rules of game
3) fix negative externalities
4) fix social/moral injustices
5) if possitive externalities can be created
if we run out of energy…
price will go up for traditional energy, so people will start developing alternatives
first negative impact of direct government regualtion (money)
the money that the government is spending on energy should be directed somewhere that actually has market failure or that can produce positive externalitiies like defense, education, or even welfare
the third negative impact of direct government regulation of energy (immoral climate)
rent seeking and cheating occurs in a variety of energy scams so that people can just get government money instead of actually trying to better energy production/consumption
the fourth negative impact of direct government regulation of energy (future)
government has no idea what the most efficient energy of the future will be. the marketplace will find out eventually even though it is not near a decision
3 ways to deal with negative externalities directly
1) defense or economic: have a petroleum stockpile
2) welfare policy: give people money or voucher to buy energy
3) environmental: impose sanctions for pollutions
once the market determines the new form of energy through R and D, then the government can step in to:
make an infastructure for it
Environmental Policy
reducing pollution (which is a case of market failure).
the goal is to have clean: air, water, food, and for the Eath to be visually attractive
Command and control approach to environmental policy
most popular around the world-imposing specific standards
hybrid…. aka cap and trade…approach to environmental policy
most popular in the US because it is politically feasible
market incentives approach to environmental regulation
POLLUTION TAX
Historical developments in water pollution (4 stages)
1) refuse act in 1899 that limited debris in streams for boats and drinking purposes
2) 1948 to 1966 state reinforcement with federal funding
3) clean waters restoration act- 1966 made it a federal issue with department of interior
4) water pollution control act amendments - 1972 had all unattainable goals but still conditions improved.
historical developments in air pollution (8)
1) federal funding for research from 55 to 65
2) motor vehicle air pollution control act - 1965 that set emission standard
3) clean air act amendments- 1970 had a ridiculous goal of eliminating air pollution in 7 years
4) national environmental policy act- 1970 was impact statements
5) environmental protection agency- 1970 was the combing of offices into this group
6) CERCLA- 1980 created superfund to give EPA money
7) bubble concept- 1980s was to have one standard for the hwole company, not just one smokestack
8) clean air act amendments - 1990 had tougher standards for cars, phased out CFCs, and CAP AND TRADE ON SULFUR DIOXIDE!
