Those who believe government is responsible for solving every problem frequently believe
as well that the ideal solution is one that irritates the maximum number of people.
To prevent undocumented immigrants from
getting jobs, they require every employee to supply proof of citizenship and every
employer to process the paperwork -- even though the vast majority of US workers are US
citizens. To find drunk drivers, they set up roadblocks that force every driver
to stop and be hassled -- even though nearly all drivers are sober. To prevent felons from
acquiring guns, they impose waiting periods and background checks on every gun
buyer -- even though all but a tiny fraction of them have clean records and lawful
intentions.
Everyone is presumed guilty until he
proves himself innocent -- that is the Big Brother mindset.
Which brings us to automobile emissions
tests.
If you enjoy wasting time and money
while accomplishing next to nothing, you must relish getting a new inspection sticker each
year. You find a service station that does emissions tests, you pay the fee, a guy sticks
a probe up your tailpipe, and a new sticker goes on your window. Only a small minority of
cars fail inspection, because only a small minority of cars pollute. But this is how
government controllers operate: Every vehicle owner must be burdened so that a
handful of dirty cars can be identified.
Now that burden is to be increased.
Washington is forcing 23 states to adopt
"enhanced" tailpipe emissions tests that will prove even more annoying,
expensive, and time-consuming than the current ones. In some states, the enhanced tests
are already in effect -- Maryland began requiring them last fall, California in June, and
Georgia last month. Massachusetts is scheduled to impose the new tests next May; Rhode
Island begins in January 2000. They are unpopular almost everywhere, and are being
implemented by state legislatures only under the threat of federal sanctions.
The heart of the new test is a
dynamometer, a treadmill-like device that simulates driving and enables auto exhaust to be
checked even more precisely for pollutants. Dynamometers cost around $50,000 each, more
than most garages can afford to spend. As a result, far fewer stations can perform the new
tests, and those that do charge a lot more. In Massachusetts, the number of garages where
motorists will be able to get inspection stickers is likely to drop from 2,200 to 1,200.
The fee will jump from $15 to $30.
If not more. "The test may be $35
to $40," Peter Haggerty of the Environment Protection Agency told the Boston Herald
last week. "That tends to be the range."
So: Tens of millions of car owners
nationwide will be driving farther to get their car inspected, spending more time
undergoing the test, and paying more for the privilege. Why?
Auto emissions tests are supposed to be
critical in the fight against air pollution. In fact, they are little more than a revenue
scheme for the state and a lucrative perk for service stations.
For the clean little secret of
automobile exhaust is that it isn't very dirty. Since the Clean Air Act was passed in
1970, tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons have dropped by a stunning 98
percent. Most cars don't pollute. Annual inspections catch so few cars violating emissions
standards because there are so few to catch: As much as 70 percent of automobile-generated
air pollution comes from 10 percent of the cars. According to Mobile Source Report, a
newsletter covering auto emissions regulation and technology, California service station
owners are already complaining that even with the tough new tests, only 2-3 percent of the
fleet doesn't pass.
Drivers are being milked. They are
forking over billions of dollars to be told, in most cases, that their cars are just fine.
Those billions are not promoting pure air or cleansing the environment. They are merely
enriching state treasuries and providing income to garages. If emissions tests weren't
required by law, they would be shut down for fraud.
Mandatory tailpipe inspections would be
bad enough even if there weren't a better way to catch polluting vehicles. But there is.
At the University of Denver, research
chemists Donald Stedman and Gary Bishop long ago perfected remote-sensing technology that
makes it possible to check emissions from cars driving along a highway. In a nutshell:
Cars moving past a sensor are scanned by an infrared beam that instantly calculates the
amount of pollution they are generating. Those not in compliance with the law are pulled
over, and the driver is given 30 days to have the car repaired and retested. Cars that are
clean -- far and away the majority -- never even have to slow down.
The arguments in favor of remote sensing
are overwhelming. It's fast. It's accurate. It's cheater-proof. It's more than 100 times
as efficient as the current system. (A service station, working very fast, can test eight
cars per hour. On-road remote sensing can test 1,000 cars in that same hour.) It's also
far better for air quality. Under the existing system, a car is free to spew pollution
year-round -- only when the owner brings it in for testing is he required to get it fixed.
With remote sensing, that car will be stopped the first time it passes by. Indeed, there
is only one argument *against* on-road testing. It leaves most people alone. Which is why
goats will fly before the existing system is abandoned. And why you'll keep paying, year
after year, for inspections stickers you don't need.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the
Boston Globe. His e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com).