By: David MacHaemish
In Ontario it's known as Drive Clean. British Columbia's version is Air Care.
Both are "Inspection and Maintenance" (I/M) programs. Their shared goal is to ensure that vehicles do not pollute too much. People are required to take their vehicle for an emissions test. If it fails, their registration cannot be renewed until the emission control system has been repaired and the vehicle passes a re-test. Sounds pretty good, eh? A concrete way to reduce air pollution.
The Harris government is proud of Drive Clean. The auto industry is on side and many garages and dealerships are participating. Pollution Probe, an environmental organization, is also supportive. And many taxpayer advocates are happy because Drive Clean is fully funded by user fees.
Those fees add up. The cost in BC is about $25 million on testing per year - including GST, but not repairs. The Ontario program is estimated to be costing $60 - 70 million per year, including repairs. Taxpayers do not have to pay a cent, but consumers are paying big time.
 |
|
Why isn't the Ontario government moving to reduce pollution from power generation? Is it because it would be more difficult to find private buyers for the power utilities if the cost of electricity rose? |
What are we getting for the money consumers are spending on I/M? Drive Clean, started in 1999, expects that they will reduce smog producing emissions by up to 22 per cent. In its first nine months it was able to reduce emissions by 6.7 per cent. Air Care, over its first five years achieved a reduction of 25.5 per cent (meaning that the affected pollutants are being emitted at three quarters the rate they would have been without Air Care). The pollutants reported to be affected by the programs are hydrocarbons (unburnt fuel), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Air Care has estimated that altogether 117,114 tonnes of these pollutants do not go into the air each year as a result of their program (based on the average of the first five years). That works out to a cost of $ 214 dollars per tonne per year to prevent those emissions.
To give something to compare that to, you can look at the cost of reducing emissions from generating electricity. A recent study by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance looked at the cost of reducing emissions by replacing coal generated electricity with gas powered. Depending on how much of a reduction is set as the target, the cost ranges from $ 0.28 to $ 1.86 per month per household. At the upper limit the goal would be to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 90 per cent of the current allowable maximum. That would be a reduction of 157.5 kilotonnes. There would also be reductions of carbon dioxide, NOx and other toxins. Clearly, cleaning up electrical generation would provide a bigger bang for the buck than vehicle testing.
|
|
For governments, there is very little downside to vehicle testing programs. They have the support of the automotive industry, and the people who build the equipment and do the testing think these programs are just great. |
So why do we have, in the Ontario case, a Drive Clean program but no movement to reduce emissions from generating power? It may be related to continuing efforts to privatize the electricity market in the province. Any moves that would increase the costs of generating electricity would likely frighten away potential utility buyers... while managing to tick off consumers at the same time. Since tackling pollution from power generation is likely to annoy both industry and the public, it has very little political appeal.
On the other hand, for governments there is very little downside to I/M programs. Leaders can be seen as doing something positive for the environment. Drive Clean has the support of the automotive industry, and is not opposed by other industries. The people who build the test equipment think I/M is a great thing. The people who do the testing and repairs think it is a wonderful program.
The hidden losers, however, are the lower income people who tend to drive older, more polluting cars. The person who has just driven a new Mercedes off the lot doesn't have to worry about not passing the test. But for the poorer driver, vehicle testing may create a heavy financial burden, with no prospect of government subsidies to lighten their load.
In spite of this, I/M is also an easy sell with ordinary people. We all see the relationship between cars and pollution. Everyone has noticed the poorly tuned car leaving a trail of black smoke behind, and wants to be able to do something about it. Participating in the program gives us a warm feeling inside because we can see we are doing something good for the environment.
Yet the question remains: could we be doing something better?
David MacHaemish is the pseudonym of a writer who has dealings with the Ontario government.
Get More/Do More
The Ontario government has been roundly criticized for deep budget cuts to its environment ministry and the weakening of environmental protection laws. Do you think the Drive Clean program is enough to make up for its past mistakes?
Straight Goods wants to know.
Do you think vehicle testing programs are a meaningful solution to air pollution problems, or just a waste of time?
Tell Straight Goods about it.
Have you been financially pressed to repair the pollution control devices on your car?
Give Straight Goods the story.
Related Articles
Popular mechanics for cars: Do Inspection and Maintenance Programs do what they say they do?
Getting the transit you need: Can Los Angeles bus riders teach Canadians how to improve their transit systems?
[ Front Page ]
