Why do policy makers focus on car emmissions and not (seemingly) much more impactful factors like trucking and commute by car?
In: 1
Policy makers are politicians. They depend on the voters popular opinion to be reelected. The only reason they even care about emmissions is so they can convince voters that they are in fact fighting global climate change and local air polution. And a lot of voters love to be able to commute to work by car and have trucks deliver packages directly to their warehouses. Anything policy makers can do to make it seam like the commute is easier will get more people to vote for them, or at least make them still vote for them. Any any new policies that makes it harder for people to commute will make them vote for the opposition. Even though a lot of people are for building out public transport infrastructure this is only if they are not personally impacted, or even that they want more public transport in order to get people off the highways to reduce congestion. People are not rational. So you end up with policy makers focusing on individual car emmissions and unfunded public transport infrastructure in order to become more popular among the voters rather then tackeling the problem head on and close down car lanes to build working public transport.
Because they don’t actually want to fix the problem just find a way to take your hard earned money off you in extra taxes or fines for driving a polluting car or make you spend your money on a less polluting car ( guess who will have shares in most car companies, especially low emissions ones )
The policies they introduce either punish you for driving a car they say pollutes, or you buy a new car from a company and they make money off the share price
First off, what are the emissions of cars vs trucks? In the UK at least, cars account for about 52% of greenhouse gas emissions, cans 16% and HGVs 19% ([see here](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-and-environment-statistics-2022/transport-and-environment-statistics-2022#:~:text=These%20estimates%20suggest%20that%20domestic,gas%20emissions%20are%205.2%25%20lower.)). Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that reducing HGV or van emissions isn’t easier than doing the same for cars or that other kinds of pollutants aren’t worse from them; that’s a technical question I don’t know the answer to.
Why focus on reducing emissions rather than changing work/commuting patterns, that’s an interesting one. On the whole politicians will prefer scientific/technical solutions over anything that involves changing people’s behaviour. Because that’s what most people prefer. Sometimes it is the more effective option, too. Changing people’s behaviour is almost always difficult, whereas regulation can sometimes spur quick technological improvements.
Politically it’s much easier to go “we’ll get car manufacturers to solve this problem (for a bit extra cost) and you don’t have to do anything” than “you (voter) are going to have to drive less.” It’s also often easier to push that problem onto manufacturers than take responsibility for creating and funding effective public transport systems. This can also be positioned politically as a more “market based” solution, rather than one that involves raising taxes or more visible government action (those emissions regulations are mostly in the background, for manufacturers to deal with, whereas a new rail line – that’s very visible).
Policy makers are politicians. They depend on the voters popular opinion to be reelected. The only reason they even care about emmissions is so they can convince voters that they are in fact fighting global climate change and local air polution. And a lot of voters love to be able to commute to work by car and have trucks deliver packages directly to their warehouses. Anything policy makers can do to make it seam like the commute is easier will get more people to vote for them, or at least make them still vote for them. Any any new policies that makes it harder for people to commute will make them vote for the opposition. Even though a lot of people are for building out public transport infrastructure this is only if they are not personally impacted, or even that they want more public transport in order to get people off the highways to reduce congestion. People are not rational. So you end up with policy makers focusing on individual car emmissions and unfunded public transport infrastructure in order to become more popular among the voters rather then tackeling the problem head on and close down car lanes to build working public transport.
Because they don’t actually want to fix the problem just find a way to take your hard earned money off you in extra taxes or fines for driving a polluting car or make you spend your money on a less polluting car ( guess who will have shares in most car companies, especially low emissions ones )
The policies they introduce either punish you for driving a car they say pollutes, or you buy a new car from a company and they make money off the share price
First off, what are the emissions of cars vs trucks? In the UK at least, cars account for about 52% of greenhouse gas emissions, cans 16% and HGVs 19% ([see here](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-and-environment-statistics-2022/transport-and-environment-statistics-2022#:~:text=These%20estimates%20suggest%20that%20domestic,gas%20emissions%20are%205.2%25%20lower.)). Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that reducing HGV or van emissions isn’t easier than doing the same for cars or that other kinds of pollutants aren’t worse from them; that’s a technical question I don’t know the answer to.
Why focus on reducing emissions rather than changing work/commuting patterns, that’s an interesting one. On the whole politicians will prefer scientific/technical solutions over anything that involves changing people’s behaviour. Because that’s what most people prefer. Sometimes it is the more effective option, too. Changing people’s behaviour is almost always difficult, whereas regulation can sometimes spur quick technological improvements.
Politically it’s much easier to go “we’ll get car manufacturers to solve this problem (for a bit extra cost) and you don’t have to do anything” than “you (voter) are going to have to drive less.” It’s also often easier to push that problem onto manufacturers than take responsibility for creating and funding effective public transport systems. This can also be positioned politically as a more “market based” solution, rather than one that involves raising taxes or more visible government action (those emissions regulations are mostly in the background, for manufacturers to deal with, whereas a new rail line – that’s very visible).
In America at least, it’s nearly impossible for there to be good, useful public transportation because it’s so damn big and the people are so spread out. Cars are a necessity for a lot of Americans.
In America at least, it’s nearly impossible for there to be good, useful public transportation because it’s so damn big and the people are so spread out. Cars are a necessity for a lot of Americans.
Latest Answers