{"id":329496,"date":"2024-05-21T08:14:55","date_gmt":"2024-05-21T06:14:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329496"},"modified":"2024-05-21T08:14:57","modified_gmt":"2024-05-21T06:14:57","slug":"why-unintended-consequences-from-pushing-green-energy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329496","title":{"rendered":"Why Unintended Consequences from Pushing Green\u00a0Energy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

We have been treated to multiple reports of negative consequences unforeseen by policymakers pushing the Green Energy agenda. A sample of the range:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ford ready to restrict UK sales of petrol models<\/strong> to hit electric targets, Financial Times<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why US offshore wind energy is struggling<\/strong>\u2014the good, the bad and the opportunity, Tech Xplore<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another solar farm destroyed by a hail storm<\/strong>\u2014this time in Texas, OK Energy Today<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Storm Ravages World\u2019s Largest Floating Solar Plant<\/strong>, Western Journal<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOE Finalizes Efficiency Standards for Clothes Washers and Dryers<\/strong>, Energy.Gov<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strict new EPA rules would force coal-fired power plants<\/strong> to capture emissions or shut down, AP news<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies Are Balking at the High Costs of Running Electric Trucks<\/strong>, Wall Street Journal<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landmark wind turbine noise ruling<\/strong> from High Court referred to attorney general, Irish Times<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Etc., Etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These reports point to regulators again attempting to force social and economic behavorial changes against human and physical forces opposing the goals. A detailed explanation of one such failure follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background Post:  Why Raising Auto Fuel (CAFE) Standards Failed<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

There are deeper reasons why US auto fuel efficiency standards are counterproductive and should be rolled back.  They were instituted in denial of regulatory experience and science.  First, a parallel from physics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the sub-atomic domain of quantum mechanics, Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, determined that our observations have an effect on the behavior of quanta (quantum particles).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle<\/strong>\u00a0states that it is impossible to know simultaneously the exact position and momentum of a particle. That is, the more exactly the position is determined, the less known the momentum, and vice versa. This principle is not a statement about the limits of technology, but a fundamental limit on what can be known about a particle at any given moment.\u00a0This uncertainty arises because the act of measuring affects the object being measured.<\/strong>\u00a0The only way to measure the position of something is using light, but, on the sub-atomic scale, the interaction of the light with the object inevitably changes the object\u2019s position and its direction of travel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Now skip to the world of governance and the effects of regulation. A similar finding shows that the act of regulating produces reactive behavior and unintended consequences contrary to the desired outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

US Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards Have Backfired<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An article at Financial Times explains about Energy Regulations Unintended Consequences  <\/strong><\/a>Excerpts below with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goodhart\u2019s Law <\/strong>holds that \u201cany observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes\u201d. Originally coined by the economist Charles Goodhart as a critique of the use of money supply measures to guide monetary policy<\/strong>, it has been adopted as a useful concept in many other fields. The general principle is that when any measure is used as a target for policy, it becomes unreliable<\/strong>. It is an observable phenomenon in healthcare, in financial regulation and, it seems, in energy efficiency standards.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When governments set efficiency regulations<\/strong> such as the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for vehicles, they are often what is called \u201cattribute-based\u201d, meaning that the rules take other characteristics into consideration when determining compliance. The Cafe standards, for example, vary according to the \u201cfootprint\u201d of the vehicle: the area enclosed by its wheels.<\/strong> In Japan, fuel economy standards are weight-based. Like all regulations, fuel economy standards create incentives to game the system<\/strong>, and where attributes are important, that can mean finding ways to exploit the variations in requirements. There have long been suspicions that the footprint-based Cafe standards would encourage manufacturers to make larger cars<\/strong> for the US market, but a paper this week from Koichiro Ito of the University of Chicago and James Sallee of the University of California Berkeley provided the strongest evidence yet that those fears are likely to be justified.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Mr Ito and Mr Sallee looked at Japan\u2019s experience with weight-based fuel economy standards, which changed in 2009, and concluded that \u201cthe Japanese car market has experienced a notable increase in weight in response to attribute-based regulation\u201d. In the US, the Cafe standards create a similar pressure, but expressed in terms of size rather than weight.<\/strong> Mr Ito suggested that in Ford\u2019s decision to end almost all car production in North America to focus on SUVs and trucks, \u201cpolicy plays a substantial role\u201d. It is not just that manufacturers are focusing on larger models; specific models are also getting bigger.<\/strong> Ford\u2019s move, Mr Ito wrote, should be seen as an \u201calarm bell\u201d warning of the flaws in the Cafe system. He suggests an alternative framework with a uniform standard and tradeable credits, as a more effective and lower-cost option. With the Trump administration now reviewing fuel economy and emissions standards, and facing challenges from California and many other states, the vehicle manufacturers appear to be in a state of confusion. An elegant idea for preserving plans for improving fuel economy while reducing the cost of compliance could be very welcome.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper is The Economics of Attribute-Based Regulation: Theory and Evidence from Fuel-Economy Standards <\/strong><\/a>Koichiro Ito, James M. Sallee NBER Working Paper No. 20500.  The authors explain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An attribute-based regulation is a regulation that aims to change one characteristic of a product<\/strong> related to the externality (the \u201ctargeted characteristic\u201d), but which takes some other characteristic<\/strong> (the \u201csecondary attribute\u201d) into consideration when determining compliance<\/strong>. For example, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in the United States recently adopted attribute-basing. Figure 1 shows that the new policy mandates a fuel-economy target that is a downward-sloping function of vehicle \u201cfootprint\u201d\u2014the square area trapped by a rectangle drawn to connect the vehicle\u2019s tires.  Under this schedule, firms that make larger vehicles are allowed to have lower fuel economy.<\/strong> This has the potential benefit of harmonizing marginal costs of regulatory compliance across firms, but it also creates a distortionary incentive for automakers to manipulate vehicle footprint.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attribute-basing is used in a variety of important economic policies.<\/strong> Fuel-economy regulations<\/strong> are attribute-based in China, Europe, Japan and the United States, which are the world\u2019s four largest car markets. Energy efficiency standards<\/strong> for appliances, which allow larger products to consume more energy, are attribute-based all over the world. Regulations such as the Clean Air Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the Affordable Care Act<\/strong> are attribute-based because they exempt some firms based on size. In all of these examples, attribute-basing is designed to provide a weaker regulation for products or firms that will find compliance more difficult.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong> from Heritage Foundation study Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake <\/strong><\/a>Excerpt with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CAFE standards<\/strong> are not only an extremely inefficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emission but will also have a variety of unintended consequences.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the post-2010 standards apply lower mileage requirements to vehicles with larger footprints. Thus, Whitefoot and Skerlos argued that there is an incentive to increase the size of vehicles<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data from the first few years under the new standard confirm that the average footprint, weight, and horsepower of cars and trucks have indeed all increased since 2008<\/strong>, even as carbon emissions fell, reflecting the distorted incentives.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manufacturers have found work-arounds to thwart the intent of the regulations. For example, the standards raised the price of large cars, such as station wagons, relative to light trucks. As a result, automakers created a new type of light truck\u2014the sport utility vehicle (SUV)\u2014which was covered by the lower standard<\/strong> and had low gas mileage but met consumers\u2019 needs. Other automakers have simply chosen to miss the thresholds and pay fines on a sliding scale.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another well-known flaw in CAFE standards is the \u201crebound effect.\u201d<\/strong> When consumers are forced to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles<\/strong>, the cost per mile falls (since their cars use less gas) and they drive more.<\/strong> This offsets part of the fuel economy gain and adds congestion and road repair costs<\/strong>. Similarly, the rising price of new vehicles causes consumers to delay upgrades, leaving older vehicles on the road longer.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the higher purchase price of cars under a stricter CAFE standard<\/strong> is likely to force millions of households out of the new-car market altogether. Many households face credit constraints when borrowing money to purchase a car. David Wagner, Paulina Nusinovich, and Esteban Plaza-Jennings used Bureau of Labor Statistics data and typical finance industry debt-service-to-income ratios and estimated that 3.1 million to 14.9 million households would not have enough credit to purchase a new car under the 2025 CAFE standards.[34] This impact would fall disproportionately on poorer households and force the use of older cars with higher maintenance costs and with fuel economy that is generally lower<\/strong> than that of new cars.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAFE standards may also have redistributed corporate profits to foreign automakers<\/strong> and away from Ford, General Motors (GM), and Chrysler (the Big Three), because foreign-headquartered firms tend to specialize in vehicles that are favored under the new standards.[35] <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAFE standards are costly, inefficient, and ineffective regulations. They severely limit consumers\u2019 ability to make their own choices<\/strong> concerning safety, comfort, affordability, and efficiency. Originally based on the belief that consumers undervalued fuel economy, the standards have morphed into climate control mandates<\/strong>. Under any justification, regulation gives the desires of government regulators precedence over those of the Americans who actually pay<\/strong> for the cars. Since the regulators undervalue the well-being of American consumers, the policy outcomes are predictably harmful.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s Next?<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n