They also ignore the key policy implication of behavioral economics, which is that it is more effective to address poor decision-making through soft regulatory “nudges” such as providing clearer information to consumers, rather than going straight to using costly mandates that restrict choice.
Given the political unpopularity of the more economically sound approach of levying a tax on pollution, we are opting for policies that are advertised as environmental protection but are justified by weak claims of consumer protection.
Energy-efficiency mandates for other consumer goods, such as clothes dryers and room air conditioners, were evaluated similarly: by the agencies’ own estimates, the costs of these regulations outweighed the environmental benefits they achieved. In order to justify these mandates, the agencies assert that consumers and businesses are irrational when buying energy-intensive goods and thus receive massive benefits if the government restricts their choices.
- radiometric dating controversy
- Senior sex dating websites au
- sincere dating agency adelaide
- 100 dating for usa only
- dating coach couch video comments
- Free live aberdeen sex no email required
For the past decade, biofuels have been sold as a way to help achieve U. energy independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and spur rural economic development.
However, the industry has fallen short of achieving these goals while spurring numerous unintended consequences and long-term liabilities that have resulted in more harm than good.
Corn ethanol and advanced biofuels are two primary types of renewable fuels that receive both taxpayer subsidies and a guaranteed market through the RFS.
As the industry attempts to move away from food-based feedstocks (primarily corn) toward the next generation of biofuels produced from agricultural residues and waste streams, defining the characteristics of a truly advanced biofuel has become incredibly important.
Recent energy-efficiency mandates were advertised as “greenhouse gas initiatives,” but the environmental benefits were estimated to be small and were frequently outweighed by the costs they impose.
For example, for the recent fuel economy mandates for passenger cars, the EPA estimated they would cost 2 billion, while the greenhouse-gas benefits would only be billion – and most of these benefits would go to countries outside of the US.Taxpayers have also paid out billions of dollars in subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and other supports to biofuels crop farmers, biodiesel companies, oil and gas companies that blend biofuels into gasoline or diesel, and several others along the supply chain.On top of this, biofuels enjoy a guaranteed market: 36 billion gallons must be blended into fuel as mandated by the government through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).In other words, we are shifting regulatory priorities from the important goal of reducing the harm individuals impose on It also establishes a dangerous precedent: if agencies can justify regulations on the unsubstantiated premise that consumers and businesses (but not regulators) are irrational, then they can justify the expansive use of regulatory powers to control and constrain virtually all choices consumers and businesses make.The findings, interpretations and conclusions posted on are solely those of the authors and not of The Brookings Institution, its officers, staff, board, funders, or organizations with which they may have a relationship.Determining which types of fuels qualify as advanced biofuels will not only send a powerful signal to markets, but will also influence the taxpayer cost of supporting them and potential unintended consequences that may result from their production processes.