Reason Foundation
Search Reason
Email Updates
Get weekly updates from Reason.
Today's Top Topics
77 Percent of Americans Oppose Raising the Gas Tax, Reason-Rupe Transportation Poll Finds
Banks Viewed Twice as Favorably as the Federal Government, Reason-Rupe Poll Finds
How the IPCC Reports Mislead the Public, Exaggerate the Negative Impacts of Climate Change and Ignore the Benefits of Economic Growth

Air Quality 
Recent Research and Commentary
EPA's Utility MACT - More Policy-Driven Science
December 21, 2011, 10:51amImpacts of Transportation Policies on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in U.S. Regions
Comparing the cost and effectiveness transportation-related policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions
November 30, 2011David T. Hartgen, M. Gregory Fields, Adrian Moore
This report compares the cost and effectiveness of improved fuel economy, transportation system improvements and shifts in travel behavior on the reduction of man-made CO2 emissions in urban areas. We study in detail 48 major U.S. regions containing 41% of the U.S. population, 60% of transit use and 90% of congestion delay. This report quantifies how much CO2 cars, light trucks and commercial trucks currently emit (base year 2005) in each region, how much CO2 would have increased with prior CAFE standards, how much the new CAFE standards will reduce, and how much CO2 might be reduced by other commonly suggested policies. These policies include the new fuel economy standards, additional smaller-car sales, signal timing and speed controls, capacity increases, high-occupancy or priced lanes, travel reduction polices, transit use increases, carpooling, telecommuting and walking to work. We then assess the cost versus effectiveness of each policy for each region and recommend detailed regional strategies.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Automobiles
Examining technological and compact development strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
November 29, 2011Federal, state and local governments are considering or have implemented policies that seek to reduce human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
This study seeks to assess the relative merits of specific policies intended to reduce GHGs from automobiles. (It does not consider whether or not reductions in GHGs are actually desirable.) Current policies and proposals for reducing GHGs from autos would require implementation of strong land use restrictions (compact development). Technological alternatives for reducing GHG emissions have received considerably less attention.
We estimated the costs of a range of such policies, beginning with government documents and reports prepared in cooperation with organizations advocating behavioral policies. Behavioral strategy costs and the costs of technological strategies were evaluated against the upper limit on acceptable costs for GHG emissions reductions as estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (This upper limit, $50/ton of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020–2030, is used because of its source, not because we endorse that value).
EPA Ignores Improved Air Quality to Advance Regulation
November 16, 2011, 8:33pmThe EPA Is Overreaching Again
New boiler regulations could cost economy more than $10 billion
October 25, 2011On October 13th, the House voted to postpone the implementation of Environmental Protection Agency’s “Boiler MACT” regulations. Coming only a few weeks after President Obama’s high profile intervention to scrap the EPA’s proposed new ozone rules, the House vote, which was supported by 41 Democrats, should be a wake-up call to an agency that has over-reached. Instead, the EPA looks set to push forward with final rules in the next few weeks that would significantly increase the cost of energy for consumers and industrial users. The “EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011” would postpone implementation of the EPA’s “Boiler MACT” rules, which aim to curb emissions from boilers used to produce electricity and heat for industry and commercial use.
While policies that reduce harmful air pollution are obviously desirable, the methods used by EPA in this instance would be enormously difficult to achieve and impose huge costs on society. The EPA is aware of these problems and delayed the promulgation of a final rule by a year in order to “calculate standards that fully reflect operational reality” but it now says it will likely not address major issues in the final rules scheduled for release at the end of the month.
House Votes to Delay "Boiler MACT"
October 14, 2011, 11:16amView Resources by Type
StudiesBlog PostsOp-EdsReason.comReason.tv
- Impacts of Transportation Policies on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in U.S. Regions
Comparing the cost and effectiveness transportation-related policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions
David T. Hartgen, M. Gregory Fields and Adrian Moore
November 30, 2011 - Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Automobiles
Examining technological and compact development strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Wendell Cox and Adrian Moore
November 29, 2011 - Are Hydrogen Cars Good for America?
Policy Study 363
William J. Korchinski
November 1, 2007 - Clearing the Air in California
Adrian Moore and Joel Schwartz
March 1, 2003 - Clearing the Air in Houston
Innovative Strategies for Ozone Control and Air Quality
Kenneth Green and Lisa Skumatz
November 1, 2000 - Rethinking EPA's Proposed Ozone and Particulate Standards
Kenneth Green
June 1, 1997 - Estimating Fatalities Induced by Economic Impacts of EPA's Ozone and Particulate Standards
Ralph Keeney and Kenneth Green
June 1, 1997 - Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits of EPA's Ozone and Particulate Standards
Anne E. Smith
June 1, 1997 - Checking up on smog-check
A Critique of Traditional Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Kenneth Green
February 1, 1997 - Commuting, Congestion, and Pollution
The Employer Paid Parking Connection
Donald C. Shoup and Richard W. Willson
September 1, 1992 - Market Pricing for Air Pollution
An Alternative to the AQMP
Jo Ann Kwong
March 1, 1989
Related Topics
Experts: Air Quality
RSS Feeds: Air Quality
Media Contact
Chris MitchellDirector of Communications
Email
(310) 367-6109
Support Reason
Your tax-deductible gift can help us promote individual liberty, choice, and free minds and free markets.
